Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:55 PM
43 online now:
DrJones*, JonF, ringo (3 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 27/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Immorality of Homosexuality
Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 31 of 218 (398638)
05-01-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by b_sharp
05-01-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Opinions: Everybody has one and they all stink.
b_sharp writes:

What are the differences between homosexual sex and heterosexual non-procreative sex?


Haha, seeing that you are new here, I would like to point out that you're asking the wrong question to the wrong person. Phat would say that both of these sexual activities take you away from god, because both of these are for the sole purpose of lust, love for someone other than god, or money. It's probably a reason why he's chosen to be celebate.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by b_sharp, posted 05-01-2007 3:35 PM b_sharp has not yet responded

One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4233 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 32 of 218 (398642)
05-01-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Doddy
04-18-2007 7:03 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
doddy writes:

I guess the impact on families due to homosexuality would be significant, given the social attitude (regardless of the cause of that attitude) towards it. Although, this particular argument probably argues that prejudice against homosexuality is immoral.

Yes it does, and quite well at that. Guess the problem's not with homosexuals, but with people who want to control the personal lives of other people?


I'm bent, bruised, broken, and a little lost. But you know what? I'm not so afraid as you are, who has never ventured away from the trail.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Doddy, posted 04-18-2007 7:03 PM Doddy has not yet responded

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4233 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 33 of 218 (398643)
05-01-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by macaroniandcheese
04-21-2007 3:14 AM


liking butter pecan ice cream is very likely to cause you to become a serial killer. it's really just a matter of time for me.

Fairy. Real threats to the free world dig French Vanilla.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-21-2007 3:14 AM macaroniandcheese has not yet responded

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 218 (401812)
05-22-2007 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by nator
04-18-2007 7:34 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
nator writes:

quote:
The large majority of pedophiles are straight men.

Right. For evidence, tune in to any epiode of Dateline's predator series.

Now for bonus points, try answering these two questions:

1. How long has in been since you've heard of an openly gay man molesting a child?

2. How long has it been since you've heard of an openly Christian man molesting a child?

Edited by berberry, : Correction to the quote command.


W.W.E.D.?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nator, posted 04-18-2007 7:34 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 06-24-2007 11:45 PM berberry has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 35 of 218 (401823)
05-22-2007 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Trae
04-19-2007 3:50 AM


A non-religious argument might be: One might suggest that in the traditional family structure (the extended family, not the nuclear family) homosexuality is less valuable to the clan as a whole and hence less moral, as it interferes with the creation of political/economical alliances, etc. Some have tried to argue that not intentionally not passing on one’s family’s name is disrespectful (another form of immorality) towards one’s parents.

Celibacy, as practiced by, say, Jesus and St Paul, would seem to suffer from the same disadvantages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Trae, posted 04-19-2007 3:50 AM Trae has acknowledged this reply

Taz
Member (Idle past 1368 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 218 (407196)
06-24-2007 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by berberry
05-22-2007 9:47 AM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
berberry writes:

Now for bonus points, try answering these two questions:


I don't know what your underlying message is, but I think I can add something to this.

There is no denying that the media is bias for news that will get more people to read, watch, or hear. The vast overwhelming majority of pedophiles are straight men, which is exactly the reason why the media doesn't cover every single case. A gay pedophile is a lot rarer, and so whenever one is brought to light the media is all over the scene. Hence, the myth that just won't go away that all gay men are pedophiles.

2. How long has it been since you've heard of an openly Christian man molesting a child?

Do catholic priests count? :D


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by berberry, posted 05-22-2007 9:47 AM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 07-17-2007 11:51 PM Taz has responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 37 of 218 (410864)
07-17-2007 3:06 PM


Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
This seemed to be a more appropriate place to have this discussion.

nj writes:

What I will not apologize for is my usage of comparisons strictly for the use of dethroning the rationale behind relative morality. I believe that I have a valid point and make no apology for it. Until I can get a rebuttle with some substance, I will continue to use because it is effective.

Probably the largest problem with your argument is that you are conflating relative morals with arbitrary morals.

That is exactly the effect you are trying to have with comparing the reasons for rejecting homosexuality with beastiality. Your claim is that there is no relative reason. What you mean is that there is no arbitrary reason.

Lets dig up a simple definition of relative from dictionary.com that I think is apt:


3. something dependent upon external conditions for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to absolute).

What you are leaving out with your comparison is the external condition. Without anything else the comparison is arbitrary and your argument stands.

The problem is once you introduce the appropriate external conditions, it immediatly destroys your argument. In this case, the external condition is a common value shared ammong participants in society, namely consent.

Since we value consent in nearly all other aspects of life, it makes sense that we would value it in the case of sexuality. That is where the 'relative' part of relative morality comes into play.

Relative to consent, rape, pedophilia, and beastiality are wrong because the participants are incapable of consent.

Relative to consent, homosexuality is not wrong because all parties involved are expressly consenting to the activity.

How is this not a rebuttal with substance to your claim?

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 3:28 PM Jazzns has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 4:00 PM Jazzns has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 38 of 218 (410873)
07-17-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jazzns
07-17-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Hey Jazzns,

Yes, you're right. This is the more appropriate thread. I will respond to it when I have more time. I'm at work right now. Talk to you soon.


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jazzns, posted 07-17-2007 3:06 PM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 39 of 218 (410876)
07-17-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jazzns
07-17-2007 3:06 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
What you are leaving out with your comparison is the external condition. Without anything else the comparison is arbitrary and your argument stands.

The problem is once you introduce the appropriate external conditions, it immediatly destroys your argument. In this case, the external condition is a common value shared ammong participants in society, namely consent.

Consent is the arbitrary condition that you've assigned it. Furthermore, the consent plea, as some extenuating circumstance, is immediatley undercut when looking at a fifteen year old who consents to having sex, yet is not only considered illegal, but also immoral by the very society you said would back its play.

You will then say, "But the law says that they cannot give consent because they are too young." Naturally, I agree, however, two consenting adults, say, a 32 year old man and his 29 year old sister cannot lawfully marry. Neither can a 42 year old mother and her 19 year old son either. Or how about polyamory? All consenting adults.

Society has said that its taboo.

So, "consent" is your arbitrary escape clause to assign whatever moral you want.

Aside from that, the morality of which you speak might differ from culture to culture. If that's the case, then you are back in the same boat concerning relative morality. Morals then, again, become nothing more than mere opinion. And if it does, then what on earth makes Berberry calling me homophobe justified past mere opinion?

You would essentially be calling me a bigot. But with these relative morals abounding, so what? That's his opinion. Yet, he uses it in a manner that would indicate that I am absolutely in the wrong by being a bigot.

Are you starting to see the ciruclar logic?

Now I ask you, given what I just said... What makes beastiality any more or less moral than homosexuality with a completely relativistic moral framework?

How is this not a rebuttal with substance to your claim?

Because its specious and is still completely relative to whatever you say it is. The fact remains that without absolution, you not only can't answer questions about morality, but moreover, you have no basis with which to even raise the question in the first place.

How's that for arbitration?


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jazzns, posted 07-17-2007 3:06 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 07-17-2007 4:22 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2007 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 07-17-2007 5:10 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 102 by Greatest I am, posted 09-21-2007 7:27 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 218 (410878)
07-17-2007 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
07-17-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
More strawman arguments from nem.

You will then say, "But the law says that they cannot give consent because they are too young." Naturally, I agree, however, two consenting adults, say, a 32 year old man and his 29 year old sister cannot lawfully marry. Neither can a 42 year old mother and her 19 year old son either. Or how about polyamory? All consenting adults.

More irrelevant nonsense. The example of the man and his sister being prohibited from marrying is simply related to the likelihood of genetic issues connected with inbreeding. However, as we learn more and our capabilities become greater in identifying genetic issues and in even correcting many, hopefully that limitation too will be set aside.

There are no restrictions on polyamory so that too is totally irrelevant.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 7:35 PM jar has responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14750
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 41 of 218 (410882)
07-17-2007 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
07-17-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
If consent is just an arbitrary condition then there is no valid distinction between consensual sex and rape. So unless you want to argue that then all you can do i argue that it is arbitrary in particular cases.

The next issue is that you confuse morality and law.

The law sets age limits on consent because it is held - rightly or wrongly - that those that are too young are not yet ready to fully understand what they are doing. While the law may be arbitrary in setting the exact age (both in terms of the exact age and in terms of application to individuals) the principle is clear and not arbitrary.

The next issue is that you do not seem to realise that IF there is no non-arbitrary objection to something then all YOU can have is arbitrary rules.

Are the rules against incest arbitrary ? Not really there is a very real incest taboo and it appears to be at least partly biologically hardwired. And there are biological reasons for it. For this very reason a ban on incest affects few people - likely fewer than a ban on homosexuality. Moreover it would be hard indeed to find someone for whom incest is a sexual orientation.

Polyamoury and marriage ? Well there are some obvious problems (and known abuses) in extending the full legal rights of marriage to polyamorous groupings. But that is a legal matter and not a moral one. And one that would require more sorting out than permitting homosexual couples to marry would.

quote:

You would essentially be calling me a bigot. But with these relative morals abounding, so what? That's his opinion. Yet, he uses it in a manner that would indicate that I am absolutely in the wrong by being a bigot

Your assertion here is that you get to dictate what other people mean. It doesn't work that way. If someone truly believes that morals are "relative" - and that doesn't mean that morals are just arbitrary rules where any one is as good as another as you seem to think then you have no business assuming that they are contradicting themselves just because it happens to be convenient to you

quote:

The fact remains that without absolution, you not only can't answer questions about morality, but moreover, you have no basis with which to even raise the question in the first place.

The fact remains that we do not HAVE an absolute system of morals. We can't prove anything to be morally wrong in absolute terms. So if you really need absolute morals you can't have a valid basis for objecting to anything.

There's much more to say but accepting that morals are not absolute objective facts does not make them cease to exist. And so long as they exist - even if they are subjective to some degree we can make moral judgements so you are wrong there too. Indeed it's all we can do because all morality is to some degree subjective.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 8:15 PM PaulK has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1988 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 42 of 218 (410886)
07-17-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
07-17-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Just to start off, I am not talking about the reasoning in calling someone a bigot. I don't happen to care all that much and I hope this conversation does not descend into that.

So, "consent" is your arbitrary escape clause to assign whatever
moral you want.

Okay. Lets examine this for a moment. Why do you consider it arbitrary?

I explained in my previous post that consent is a valid external condition because it is a common condition to all other aspects of our functional life. A society without the concept of consent would fail and the evidence indicates that societies where these have had less ability to consent HAVE failed.

That is why in this era we have democracy, the government is empowered by the consent of the governed. At least in theory.

The upshot is, consent is absolutly not arbitrary. It is specifically chosen for its power and effectivness as a concept in a stable society.

Now I ask you, given what I just said... What makes beastiality any more or less moral than homosexuality with a completely relativistic moral framework?

You seem to be missing the concept that relative does not mean arbitrary. Relative MEANS that it is in relation to something else. In this circumstance, the relative moral is in relation to the concept of consent.

If you accept consent as an external condition, by the reasons I gave above, the moral difference in the two scenarios are derived easily. That is what it MEANS to be relative. I feel like the biggest misunderstanding you have in this discussion is literally not abiding by a REAL definition of relative.


I just wanted to make a quick comment on your examples you raised regarding underage consent, incest, etc. What you are raising there are situations regarding law. Elements in law may or may not reflect what is moral. Elements in law also need to be much more strictly defined in order to be useful. Hence you have seemingly arbitrary ages for when you can "legally consent".

Morally, I don't have a problem with a 15 year old consenting to sex with whomever they want under the condition that they seem mature enough to make that decision. The law cannot tolerate living in such a gray area as that.

In short, lets try to avoid conflating law and morals. It may be illegal for a brother and sister to marry. The question related to this topic is how it would stand in a moral framework in comparison to other relationships such as homosexuality.

Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 4:00 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-18-2007 3:35 PM Jazzns has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 43 of 218 (410904)
07-17-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
07-17-2007 4:22 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
The example of the man and his sister being prohibited from marrying is simply related to the likelihood of genetic issues connected with inbreeding.

Moses spoke about it long before anyone new what genes were. That obviously means that it was taboo long before the advent of genetic testing.

But, okay, for the sake of a good argument, I'll give you that one. A 21 year old man sleeps with his mother-in-law... Two consenting adults-- they are unrelated. Immoral? If so, explain why.

Are you ready to drop consent as a vanguard to moral relativity?

There are no restrictions on polyamory so that too is totally irrelevant.

First of all, that's not true at all. But that is really beside the point.

Is there no moral dilemma there? Would most wives be cool with their husband bringing other women in to the equation?


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 07-17-2007 4:22 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 07-17-2007 8:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5622
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 44 of 218 (410908)
07-17-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
07-17-2007 4:41 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
If consent is just an arbitrary condition then there is no valid distinction between consensual sex and rape.

Right-o old chap.

If morals are relative, you are 100% correct.

Here's where relative morals really play out. Its not so much in the moral, itself, but how you arrive at it that matters. Case in point:

There is nowhere on earth that says murder is acceptable. Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Here's what they differ on: What constitutes murder? What arbitrates murder? Here's where the rubber meets the road. We, as human beings with a vested interest not to reap consequences for our actions, will justify the action and call it a legal killing.

Jihadists don't murder, so they say, because they are purging sins from the world in the name of Allah.

Now, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can't empirically prove which moral is an absolute moral. The only thing that I can do is make a philosophical argument that supports the notion that moral absolutes must exist.

The reason why is because if there were not, we would not only be incapable of answering the question, but there would be no point of reference from which to even raise the question to begin with from a moral standpoint.

Secondly, if all morals are relative, the inescapable fact you have to conclude is that, at the end of the day, its all merely opinion. And if its just an opinion, then why would Berberry feel the need to challenge my opinion, much less get angry at it?

How can he call me a bigot without a moral reference in which to substantiate my supposed bigoted ways? Must not he have some moral guideline in his mind in which to substantiate my alleged bigoted ways?

If he says that I'm a bigot, he is essentially appealing to me to conform to some sort of unspoken standard based on what he thinks I should know, which is a moral understanding.

Do you understand? Think about it.

The next issue is that you confuse morality and law.

I don't think I do since the law derives from a moral framework. If it didn't come from a moral framework, laws would be completely arbitrary. If laws did not come from a moral reference, then we would have nonsensical laws, like, its illegal to twirl your hair while brushing your teeth.

Instead, what do we see? We see laws geared towards the protection of sanctity. We see laws derive from our empathy and sympathy. Its illegal to slash someone's throat. Why? Because its morally reprehensible to do that. Can you explain, in words, why it is morally reprehensible? I find that explaining why something that simplistic is wrong, ineffable. You just... know, innately, that you should not do that.

Anyway, I'll get to the rest of your post later. I have to drive home now. :)


"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 07-17-2007 4:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 2:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 52 by ikabod, posted 07-18-2007 9:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 218 (410909)
07-17-2007 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hyroglyphx
07-17-2007 7:35 PM


Morality is not very important anyway.
A 21 year old man sleeps with his mother-in-law... Two consenting adults-- they are unrelated. Immoral? If so, explain why.

Not immoral at all.

Is there no moral dilemma there? Would most wives be cool with their husband bringing other women in to the equation?

LOL.

Irrelevant since the definition of polyamory includes the concept of consent.

Are you ready to drop consent as a vanguard to moral relativity?

What a silly comment. Nowhere did I say consent is a vanguard of moral relativity, I said that consent is one of the conditions in some examples.

Moses spoke about it long before anyone new what genes were. That obviously means that it was taboo long before the advent of genetic testing.

More nonsense and irrelevancies. However the Bible also seems to condone incest as found in Genesis 19. Regardless, Moshe is only relevant within Judaic religions, no where else.

AbE:

The big thing is that morality really is unimportant beyond the personal level.

Even if someone thinks homosexuality is immoral, then the only thing is for them not to behave in a homosexual manner. Whether or not some other person behaves in a homosexual manner is, quite frankly, no one else's business.

There are though behaviors that we have decided are currently illegal. Those behaviors are unrelated to their so called morality. They are societal and cultural, and relative to the situation.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title and add section on morality.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2007 7:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Prev12
3
456
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019