Harm in Homosexuality?

I personally am disgusted by bananas. They smell foul and they taste foul. The worst thing is the sound they make when people eat them. That is hugely offensive. I don't agree with banana eaters, and I don't want to accept them in my society. I'm sure you'll stop eating bananas and make sure no one else eats them too, since it is clear from your above post that we all have to accept other peoples lifestyle choices for them to be permissable in society. I certainly don't accept banana eating.(btw, i'm actually not joking about my dislike of bananas, i genuinely cannot stand them )This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-15-2004 02:47 PM

I agree that there are probably plenty of laws that are stupid. It seems that you agree with me that the law above is absolutely stupid and unecessary. I'm sure that if someone blocked up the door that you were allowed through, that the law forbidding you through the first one would soon be repealed since the people inside would no doubt object to being forced to leave their room to speak with visitors.Anyway, as it is that law is actually a non-entity. You are not stopped from doing anything by the law, you can get in the room by a different door. You could say you were slightly inconvenienced, but so slightly it's barely worth mentioning. On the other hand any law against homosexuality does stop homosexuals from doing something they otherwise would be able to do (such as marry).If homosexualities wrongness is relegated all the way to a whim of god like a statement of fashion, that raises the issue of what right anyone has to want to disallow homosexual practices (such as gay marriage). Afterall, worshipping graven images is breaking the first commandment, but I'm sure there aren't too many people who would object to hindus worshipping at a statue of ganesh or kali (sp?). If homosexuality being wrong is simply a divine whim, you have no more right to discriminate against it in a multi-faith society than jewish people have to stop people eating non-kosher food Added in edit: Just to point out, my use of the word "you" in the above sentence is meant as a general "you". I wasn't meaning to accuse Holmes of discrimination etc This message has been edited by happy_atheist, 11-15-2004 03:06 PM

You bastard! I always suspected you were nothing but an ignorant, rabid, bananaphagophobe!

I am lactose intolerant meaning milk gives me the worst pain. I also cannot stand the smell of milk. I say we come up with a constitutional amendment to ban milk in this country.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

And a lactopinophobe in the same forum! What is this world coming to?

Holmes says: If that is an answer, I must assert that it is an inadequate one. What you are doing is called argumentum ad numerum. It is the fallacy that if many people believe a thing then the thing must be true. There's also a nice tang of argument from personal credulity. You "feel" homosexuality is wrong and a lot of other people do too, so it is wrong. That's two logical errors in one statement.You may also seem to claim the following:1. God has stated that homosexuality is wrong.
2. God is the final authority on this, as he is in all things.
3. Therefore, homosexuality is wrong.This (if it accurately reflects your position and I continue subject to that) is a better argument and in response I would have to address the second premise. Before this argument could be accepted as factual (as opposed to being valid) I would have to see proof of #2. Feel free to provide it if you can, starting with proof of the being in guestion's existence.

I know you weren't accusing me of anything. And I do agree with the logical problems you laid out that come down the pike when trying to put mosaic law into US law books. Indeed, we issue business licenses to palm readers and Red Lobster? And what about all those mixed fiber clothing stores (curious that God di not have the foresight to ban polyester as well). But this is all another topic.For a follower of mosaic law, the laws don't have to be explained. Though we can certainly see what purpose they may have had.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would say it is not only an assertion, but quite right. Yep, good to have you aboard on this.Now you understand why I was pissed off. The second fallacy was used (whether they understood it or not) by many people trying to criticize a sexual minority, while stating that they were actually using some sort of rational approach to reach their conclusion. When I went to argue that that fallacy was being made and there was no rational approach (ironically the same thing that anti-gays were being accused of) I got the first fallacy thrown at me to cut off all discussion.In any case, my position is that almost all moral positions on sex boil down to personal taste. This is to say there is not an objective harm considered and then a moral position taken. First a moral position is taken and from that point harm presumed.For people taking such a position and using their numbers to quash argument, you have pinpointed the logical problem of this. In any case it is subjective,Without question this is what Xian positions against homosexuality are based on. Moral first, harm after. And you have identified that it carries a bit more logical weight. The above is what I outlined more clearly in the next post after the one you replied to. I am glad you got the gist of of what was being said. Actually you can attack both 1 and 2. There are some credible arguments that the laws did not refer to all homosexuality, but just male prostitution. That is another topic however.I am not going to defend the religious argument against homosexuality as true, as it is not my position. I think it is wrong and would attack both 1 and 2. However that does not mean that I cannot acknowledge that this is what my opponent's position is and explain it to those asking what their position is.Unfortunately it appears that just being the messenger can get you shot around here.This message has been edited by holmes, 11-15-2004 05:07 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I say we come up with a constitutional amendment to ban milk in this country.

​

And a lactopinophobe in the same forum! What is this world coming to?

---

"Lactopinophobe"? That's a new one for me. But I think he stated it quite clearly the first time - he's lactose intolerant.

I think I'm beginning to see Lam's point on the whole dairy issue. Hey, I don't have anything against someone doing whatever they want to do with dairy as long as I don't have to see it.Though, I think it is obvious that the term "drinking" only refers to non-dairy drinks - thus we need to use a separate but equal term for dairy, "ingestion by mouth."Thus I support the right for people to ingest dairy by mouth, but no way should they be allowed to drink it.That would threaten the sanctity of the American way of life.

quote:

---

Can you show me that in the bible?

---

Again, irrelevant - the point I was making was that homophobia and the way society treats homosexuals, as has been stated clearly several times, is more likely a cause of a higher suicide rate than their sexual orientation itself. Homosexuals face that kind of thing all the time. Of the homosexual friends I have, all have been called evil bastards who would go to hell, blamed for terrorism in some form or another, or threatened at least once in their lifetime. Two have lost jobs almost immediately following "coming out". I know that there was also recently an incident here of a homosexual being beat up at the local high school by a group of intolerant kids (from what they said, it was clear that his orientation was at least part of the reason they were doing so). I recognize that these are just anecdotal examples, but the point I'm making is that whether the Bible states it or not is irrelevant; what I was speaking of the way society treats homosexuals, not whether its reasons for doing so have a reasonable basis.

quote:

---

Though, I think it is obvious that the term "drinking" only refers to non-dairy drinks - thus we need to use a separate but equal term for dairy, "ingestion by mouth."

---

Why is it that your side always seems to assume that dairy only consists of milk? "Drinking" is not the only way that dairy products can be consumed. Like everyone on your side, you assume that when we speak of dairy, we only mean milk and not other dairy products.Despite claims that dairy products are "less healthy" than other forms of food and drink, eating cheese is actually the safest form of consumption there is. Clearly if the health of consumers is an indication of God's favor, the cheese-eaters are in fact the most highly favored.(Okay, that was a stretch, I know... but I saw the parallel and had to take it. )

It is possible to imagine God issuing forth 3 kinds of laws.1) Good laws: This kind of law is the easyest to understand. A god that only promotes good laws could be said to be a good god. Good laws are those old favorites like "do unto others.." "Thou shalt not steal" etc. Good laws are laws that discorage harm and promote benifit.2) Arbitrary laws: Arbitrary laws are laws that cause neither harm nor benefit. Laws like "Don't wear two different kinds of cloth, Don't plant two kinds of crop next to eachother, always wear a hat out doors." These laws might exist to promote a good result such as setting apart the people who practice them from the general populace. Or they could just exist so that we would become better at follwing laws. They are arbitrary though, in that we could replace them with other laws and they would have the same effect. If orthodox jews wore red instead of a yamuke we would still be able to tell that they were jewish. A god who enforces arbitrary laws could be a good god or a bad god.3: Bad Laws: Bad laws are laws that cause needless harm. I can Imagine a good god giving out bad laws, but I would not beleive that the god was perfect if he did so. Note that a bad law might have some potentaly good aspects, just as arbirtary laws might have potentialy good aspects but the good aspects are outweighed by having to preform a bad deed.I would argue that outlawing homosexual behavior is a bad law. Homosexuals cannot choose to be striaght and have a great deal of harm done to them by homophobic people their culture. I can see only benifet from allowing gays to have the same rights as straights.As such, fobidding homosexuality is either an arbirtary law because there is some unseen benefit from fobidding homosexual behavior (And the burden of proof lies on you to show the benifit). Or it is a bad law (my claim) or God didn't make such a law or has repealed it (there is a sperate thread to adress this).As to the claims that I could never be satisfied or properly answred. I would change my opinion IF you could prove that outlawing homosexulity is a good law! In order to prove this you have to SHOW me some evedence that homosexuality is harmfull, or that outlawing it provides some benefit that outweighs the harm caused by such a law. No one has done this yet.If you truly beleve that God has forbidden homosexuality, and you agree with me that this is a bad law, you must either believe that God is imperfect or malicuous.Maybe you don't think God even makes arbitrary laws if this is true you STILL have to show either harm in allowing homosexual behavior, or benefit from outlawing it.

The answer to this question is and always will be the same. That you want to accept it is another matter. God forbids homosexuality because that kind of conduct goes against the natural use of our body as stated specifically in Romans 1 - 26,27. If the purpose of God was for us to be homosexual he either would of have created just men or just women and some natural method of asexual reproduction would exist for humans, or second he just wouldn't have said anything at all on the subject, indirectly saying to us that homesexuality was not important to him or that it is allowed. It's an incorrect use of our body's parts. A gas tank is made with the purpose of storing gas. So why the heck are you gonna use it as a dog house. Our shit hole has one single purpose, to take a crap. I apologize for my language but its the simplest way of saying it and everybody understands it.WHY IT IS HARMFULL.[/qs]I guess AIDS are harmfull enough. But then again thats just me.

---

Ponlo todo en las manos de Dios y que se joda el mundo. El principio de la sabiduria es el temor a Jehova

Homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing.You are defining a sexual orientation based on the sexual practices of a subset of that population. It is like saying heterosexuality is wrong because some heterosexual couples choose to have oral sex - that's not what a mouth is "made for", either. AIDS and homosexuality are not the same thing.See the first half of this thread for an explanation. You can't equate an infectious disease with sexual orientation, especially one like HIV where the vast, vast majority of infected people are heterosexual.