Harm in Homosexuality?

Jazzlover responds: And: I don't know how many times I'm going to have to ask this question before someone decides to awnswer it.Why is doing something "unnatural" wrong? What are your criteria for deturmining what is and isn't unatural? Is getting a haircut unnatural? Becase, after all according to your logic, if God had wanted us to get our hair cut he would have had it stop growing after it becomes the approprate length? Is planting crops unnatural? After all according to your logic if god had wanted us to have feilds of crops he would have made them grow like that. You need to prove that:1) Homosexuality is somehow unnatural (see the earlyer part of this thread).2) That unnatural things are also immoral.3) Clearly define what you mean when you say unnatural.If I wear glasses am I donig something immoral becase I am using the bridge of my nose and the tops of my ears to do something they "weren't intended for".I also notice that people who post Homophobic remarks on this thread keep bringing up anal sex in grapic and inaproaprate terms. Why do you have to resort to swearing? Why are you trying to disgust us? Why can't you use the proper terminology? (edited for grammar)This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-15-2004 10:22 PMThis message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-15-2004 10:34 PM

Jazzlover says: Well, why not. Lets say I have a big propane tank that I decide to turn into a doghouse, if I wash it out and clean it up so that it makes a good doghouse why is that wrong? Why is using something in a way other than for its intended use morraly wrong?

In response to my challange: Holmes wrote: I absoultutly know the criteria for the kind of answer that will change my mind if you, or anyone else can prove that homosexuality is harmfull then I will change my stance. Let me say I doubt very much that this will happen but I could theoreticaly be convinced. Well so far I have not seen aything close to sound reasoning for either. Why does God do this, in your opinion? It seems like a bad law. See my post regarding good, arbitrary, and bad laws.If your only reason for beleving homosexulaity is wrong is becase God will punish you if you are homosexual doesn't that stike you as arbitrary? You mentioned that God says that he doesn't want to see crippled people dosn't that stike you as a bed law?I don't base my moral choices on nature as you claim. Ethics are not a matter of personal taste. Things are wrong if they hurt others and right if they benefet others or stop harm to others.

In respose to my statement: Holmes said: No, you imply that I have NO criteria or that my criteria is impossible to reach. I'm realy asking a very simple thing, If homosesxuality is wrong shouldn't there be something... well WRONG with it? I assume you are talking about your post regarding pedophillia and how harm is something that is socialy defined. Well, we have EVEDENCE that children who are molested become emotionaly distirbed. We also have evedence that homosexuals can be perfectly healthy emotionaly if they are allowed to live as they wish. I know in the past that Psycologists said that Homosexuality was a disease, that claim has been refuted by eveidence. Can you find evedence to support child molestation? Hmm.... Maybe every time someone comes out of the closet a billion innocent infants die somewhere in the andromida galaxy, maybe not. Maybe if we allow gays to have the same rights as straights the world will be consumed in a horrible nuclear holocaust in 20 years, maybe not.The point I am making is that you have no evedence! You have no evedence that this is a good law! You don't even have eveidence that it is an arbirary law, yet there is a great deal of evedence that this is a bad law. As for harm to God see below. Maybe God pukes every time he sees a gay couple kiss. If he does then he is homophobic and not the kind of god I would want to worship. If God is harmed in some way that is not realted to homophobia then he is less omnipotent than christians claim he is. Yes "male prostitution was heavily tied to a major competing religion at the time."Well, is it anymore? When was the last time YOU saw a Ba'al whorshiper? Is it possible to be a gay christian? Can you have gay sex and not be tempted by other demons? Do you have any EVEDENCE that gays leave the church for reasons other than the church is intolirant? Again maybe allowing gays to marry will summon the dark God C'thulu and cover the land in a second darkness. Can you point to a passage in the necronomicon where it says this? I'm glad you are amused but perhaps we could keep this conversation civil. If yamukas cased brain cancer then the law is no longer arbitrary now is it? Since outlawing homosexuality DOES cause harm the law cannot be arbitrary, It is either a bad law or there is some magic unseen harm that we don't know about that the law is preventing. If it is an arbitrary law, God should change it as it causes harm. You are quite right to point out that utilitarianisum has some serious flaws. I am not a utilitarian, but I chose to argue from a utilitarian standpoint in this thread becase it, more than other ethical theories, puts an emphasis on benefit v.s. harm. If you want to show how homosexuality is wrong based on on other ethical theories please feel free to do so. Might I suggest the doctrine of natural law? It's the one the church seems to rely the most heavyly on and has already been refuted and discusssed on this page. Or perhaps something a bit more exotic, say The wisdom of repugnance?Please note: The Bible puts forth many ethical theories and you may argue from any one of them. BUT you must argue from the perspective of the theory! Not just make an appeal to the athority of the Bible, we have a sepreate thread for that.

Lam Writes: Thats why I like this kind of discussion because you can have an actual debate. You can say, "Ok, Maybe God does hate fags, but why would he do such a thing." That way you can get away from mushy debates about bible quotes "he does too say it" "does not" etc. and get to the heart of the matter.

Umm, what do you mean by this?

Holmes,I'm going to reply to your post a little out of order becase I think you make an interesting point (that I happen to totaly disagree with).First off: Ok, I thought I acnowledged that in my apology post, but I am perfectly willing to do so again.I freely admit that I brought up the issue of pedophilia, I did so to show that a predisposition for a behavior is not an excuse or justification for that behavior. I was not responding to any post of yours, but I wanted to head off an argumnet similar to one you made about moral relitivisum.I don't think I "laid it out on your doorstep" but i'm sorry if you feel that I did. I merely wanted to show that you can be pro-gay and anti-pedophile and not be hypocritical (others claim you can't and I wanted to head off that argument).Now I know this might upset you, but I am going to let others discuss the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality and how one causes inherent harm and the other does not.If you or I prove that pedophilia is wrong then it has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, again I only used it as an example of how someone could have a genetic predisposition do do something and that would not make it right. In hindsight I should have used alcoholisum instead.Second, Done.Let me state that I think I do understand the conservative, fundimentalist, christian position on homosexuality. Since I was an extrememly devout, conservative, fundimenetalist, christian for the first 18 years of my life, and attended weekly bible studies throughout highschool. I don't agree with fundimentalist christianity, I dislike it's tennents becase they go aganist my beliefs about ehtics. I DON'T think I can prove that their god is a bad god or has bad laws. But I do think I can prove that he is a bad god, or at least an imperfect one, IF he has bad laws. Much of your post seemed based around this point so lets explore it a little.Should one do their sworn duty even if in doing so they cause harm? I think there are situations where they should. For example a defence attorney should defend a guilty man becase it is his sworn duty to do so, even if he/she belives that the man is guilty. Why? Becase he/she believes in the greater good of upholding the law and in equal representation.I can imagine someone with a firm belief in duty following laws that they believe are harmful. But shouldn't they also try to change that praticular law even as they follow it? If the law can be shown to be unjust or harmful why not petition law makers to change the law?God HAS changed his mind in the past (read the book of jonah) he has even abolished laws, for example he lifted the ban on unclean foods. There is a specific passage where he tells John (I think it's John) to kill and eat, and lowers all the unclean animals down to earth on a sheet I'm sure someone can root out this passage if anyone cares.Now, some might argue that God has already lifted the ban on homosexuality, or that such a ban never exsisted. However we won't discuss that here as there is a seprate thread for that. What we WILL discuss here is wheather the ban on homosexuality is a harmful or unjust law.If christians can be convinced that it is harmful they should pray nightly that God lift the ban, or reasses wheather he has already done so (again on a seprate thread). If God becomes weaker due to homosexulaity then by definition he is loosing power and hence IS becomeing less omnipotent! In fact if he could loose power AT ALL that would also mean that he is NOT omnipotent, again by definition. If he is disgusted by homosexuality then he is BY DEFINITION homophobic. How could he be all powerful and still be harmed? I can imagine he might still be disgusted by milk, but not harmed. Again this could mean that he is still "intolirant" but in a different way. My standards are pretty frickin broad, I want them to try and show how homosexuality is wrong, using ANY arguement OTHER than an appeal to athority.We will then discuss wheather or not such an arguement is consistant or reasonable. I realy don't think I'm asking that much, other people are making arguments based on the doctrine of natural law and on the wisdom of repugnance. Let's see if those are reasonable.You might even argue that I am moving the goalposts by saying this, but if I am but I'm moving them in FAVOR of my opponents.

As an aside to all the christians out there who are flabbergasted when homosexuals accuse them of being bigoted, and say things like "I'm not anti-gay I just don't think that gays should have the right to marry etc." That IS anti-gay. If you have a "moral problem" with homosexuality then you are saying that you think homosexuality, or parts of it, are moraly wrong. That IS anti-gay.It's like saying "I'm not sexest I just don't think women should be in postions of power". Although since I have heard my chrisitan frends (fundimentalists mind you, not more mainstream christians) say things like this this might not be a compelling analogy.

First off: The only reason I'm "posting my steet creds" is because you have made many, many, claims that I don't have any grasp of what the fundie christain position on this issue is. I DO know what the fundie christian position on this issue is and you claimed that I didn't. So if it doesn't realy matter why did YOU bring it up?Second, in regards to your posts. and To adress my own hypocracy, the reason I have stopped discussing pedophilia is becase it is irrelivant to the issue.It WAS relevant in the context I used it in, but it was an exceedingly bad example becase I could have easyly used alcoholisum or any other genetic predisposition to make the same point.It is not hypocritical to beleive that child molestation is wrong and that homosexual sex is not wrong. But even if we prove that children could engage in sexual acts and not be harmed, that doesn't have any bearing on whether people are harmed by homosexual sex now does it?And speaking of hypocracy, let's look at your own position.1) You fervently argue aganist a postion you claim you agree with, or are you ust playing devils advocate.2) You claim that you think gays should be allowed to marry but then say you can see why it should not be called marriage, or were you just playing devils advocate, again?3) You think that equal rights could be allotted to civil unions even though we have seen that they couldn't.4)You claim to be all for gay rights, but when people stand up for gay rights by protesting, you claim that they alienate other, more moderate, activists, even though we have seen that the opposite happen more often.4) You accuse me of not understanding my opponents position, but when I provide evedence that I am quite familiar with my opponents postion you accuse me of somehow showing off.Now, let's start talking about what we should be talking about. You make the claim that I am asking for something impossible.You seem to think that a duty based, and a result based view of morality are completely irrelivant to eachother. Well, what purpose does following duty serve if not to promote benefit?The whole point of having a duty is so that people can follow their duty even when they disagree with it, why? To promote well being, to promote benefit of course!ALL ethical theories exisist to promote benefit even ones that strictly appeal to athority. After all, if a fundimentalist christians ONLY ethical theory was to follow Gods commands then it wouldn't matter to them whether gods commands were good or bad, their only rule is obedence.But it DOES matter, funimnetalist chistians will fervently claim that God is good, that he wants us to be happy, that if more of us followed his claims then we all would be BETTER OFF. These are claims that God cares about our well being that following his will reduces harm! All ethical theorys will resort to claims about the benefit that will result from us following the rules of the theory.Now, if we belive that God is all knowing then it would make sense to suggest that if God asks us to do something that we know is harmfull (like outlaw homosexual sex) then he must have a good reason for doing so, right?It's not for an arbitrary reason, like taste, (why would a good God permit himself to have a harmful taste?), so the law has to be a good law, and that means that disobeying the law will have negative consiquences.What might those consiquences be? Well if God hates gays due to personal taste that personal taste is HARMFUL so that cannot be the right answer. So then, God must outlaw homosexuality because of harmful other consiquences other than his own wrath, what might they be?All the possibilitys that have been suggested are laughable easy to dismiss. Maby we will be tempted by other gods, maby it causes some kind of spiritual polution, It's a gateway sin, Come on! These are all paper thin.Therefore it has to be some unkowable unforseen consiquence. Are you realy going to follow a law that you have good reason to beleve is bad becase god MAY have commanded it?The above paragraph is my appeal to those with religious beliefs. I don't think you can defend homophobia on secualr grounds. But if you can I'd love to hear it as that would get us closer to the central theme of the thread.

So is it your claim that men are more moraly "formidable" than women? Then why has God started making gay men and women? I think you claimed in a previous post that people are predisposed to be "tempted" by homosexuality. This would seem to suggest that God DOES make "Steves." I assume you are being ironic when you refer to a woman as a "reproduction factory."If being homosexual is something unnatural then why does it seem that people make no choice to become gay? If being gay is a choice then why do people make that choice?If the only point of sex is reproduction if that is our "blueprint" then is it permissable for an infertile couple to have sex or is than unnatural? I don't know your stance on contraception but if you are not opposed to contraception then why is it permissable?You have given me some examples of what kinds of things you think are permissible and natural and what kinds of things you find impermissable and unnatural. But you have not given me your criteria for making these disctinctions.

Holmes writes: Ok here are three examples: This could be an acuusation that I didn't understand what you were saying or that I might not have understood what the fundies were saying. "Shows your ignorance of their position" seems to imply that I am ignorant of their position. Again you claim I am asking an impossible question becase I don't understand the fudie postion. You did say it and you have said it many times. Please, we are running out of room on this thread. Let's not waste time like this.On to the rest of the post. I'm not sure what you mean by "alcoholic acts". I would say drinking to the point where you harm yourself or others is wrong. No one decides to become an alcoholic but it is wrong for acloholics to drink becase when they drink they hurt themselves and possibly others. Wait no more! Others have said it many times but I will say it once again!If there was no way to change the rights of civil unions without changing the rights of marrage then you would be right.However, even if a civil union has all the same rights as marrage it is not called marrage in a legal sense. Therefore, one can be changed WITHOUT the other changing. Even if they start off as totaly equal any change to one will make them uneaquil. This is why "civil unions" become uneaqual (if they even ever start off as eaqual). Why don't you understand this? I do know the difference. One is based on duty (deontological) and one is based on results (teleological). I agree that it may be difficult to define benefit but don't you agree that all moral systems strive for benefit?When someone in the army asks "Why should I follow orders?" is the more satisfying answer "because you should follow orders!" or "Because if you follow orders, even when you might disagree with them, the army will benefit overall."PLEASE note: I am not asking what the actual armed forces say in such a situation. I am only asking whitch is the more satisfying response.Deontological moral systems DO have notions of harm ALL moral systems do. Thats why moral systems exsist, to help us avoid harm and promote benefit!Many of your posts keep claiming that fundies moral systems are not based on harm. That is, perhaps true, but they obviously have some concept of harm.So far the only reason given for why God outlaws homosexuality is that he will punish homosexuals. Essentualy they are saying that homosexuality is wrong becase God says homosexuality is wrong and that God says homosexuality is wrong becase homosexuality IS wrong. But no one has given a good reason why! No, the evedence suggests that homosexuals are harmed more. If I were to show a study about how women living under the taliban are more depressed than men, that wouldn't show that it is wrong to be a woman. Would it?

We certainly can say that, and do! It's called an intervention. When people drink to excess they hurt themselves, (liver damage etc.) and others, (those who care about them and don't want to see them hurt, at the very least). Fine, go ahead, try to get that law passed. Is there any legal precedent for this? Has this ever happened in history? Has it EVER worked? I honestly don't know.But so far I have never heard of any example where civil unions have had all the same rights as marrage. This statement doesn't seem to jive with this one: Well which is it? Is it some mysterious unknown reason that we, with our puny human knowledge, cannot fathom, or is it the straight up reason that God is a homophobe? If it's NOT that God is a homophobe then why doesn't he just change the scenario so that the unforseen consquences don't happen.By the way, to address the army example, why should civilians have to wear uniform? I already agree that nonconsetual sex is wrong, and I could be persuaded to say that promiscuity is wrong. But even if homosexuals tend to be more promiscuious or tend to be involved in non-consentual sex more often that heterosexuals, that doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. It means that non-consentual sex ,and pomiscuity are wrong. It is wrong for an adult to have sex with children. If one feels sexualy attracted to children they should see a psychiatrist and attempt to adress the issue.This message has been edited by The Dread Dormammu, 11-22-2004 05:41 AM