Immorality of Homosexuality

If you are going to argue that all non-procreative sex is morally wrong then you have to include heterosexual sex where one or both partners are infertile. You're going to have to reject all contraception as morally wrong (even including the "natural" methods that even the Catholics are prepared to accept).Are you prepared to go that far ?

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.

quote:

---

If morals are relative, you are 100% correct.

---

Wrong. The statement is stated as an "if...then" and relativity of morals is not an relevant to its truth. Worse the only person suggesting that consent was an arbitrary condition was you. And that was NOT stated as a conditional.

quote:

---

ere'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.

---

Unfortunately for you this includes may people who claim that morals are absolute. Which one of them is absolutely right ? Are any of them absolutely right ? Or do we have to admit that all morals have an element of subjectivity ? So if "moral relativism" is the fault it is because so far as we are concerned "moral relativism" is the only option available to us. Whether there are absolute morals or not - we don't have a moral system that can be shown to be absolute.

quote:

---

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.

---

You can't even do that. All you can do is argue that it would be nice if moral absolutes existed. Even if you could you admit defeat. Without proven absolute morals all you can do is accept moral relativism or pass off your relative morals as absolutes

quote:

---

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.

---

That argument clearly fails. Firstly we can have subjective evaluations even in the absence of an objective truth. Indeed in matters of taste - e.g. literary, culinary or musical - we clearly do. None of these have clear absolutes, although we often talk as if there are. Worse for your case we really don't have any idea of what absolute morals would be or how we'd have access to them that isn't simply speculation. So far as we can tell morality IS subjective and always has been.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes I do understand. He is appealing to two intersubjective standards. The first is the English language so you both know what a "bigot" is. The second is a moral judgement that bigotry is wrong. And you accept both standards because you deny being a bigot rather than accepting that you are a bigot and there's insisting that there's nothing wrong with that. So his appeal works to the extent that you DO accept both.

quote:

---

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.

---

But of course you don't address the issue that the law must deal with practicalities. YOu specifically raised the issue of age of consent as an arbitrary issue. And it IS arbitrary because there is no well-defined point at which a child becomes capable of making a mature decision to engage in sexual activity or not. Not only are there individual differences there's no exact age that can be agreed as correct even as an average. But for practicality's sake the law chooses a simple age based standard because it is relatively easy to understand and enforce. Thus in that case AS I POINTED OUT the law is arbitrary but the moral standard underlying it is not. Speeding laws are not in place because it is morally wrong to go fast, they are there because going fast increases the risk of accidents (occurrence and magnitude). Laws about which side of the road to drive on ARE arbitrar - it is not inherently moral to drive on the left or drive on the right. It is just desirable that everyone drives on the same side of the road. Driving on the right (or left) is purely arbitrary. Yet it is a law.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes I can explain. We are social animals. We have the instincts of social animals. Further we are learning animals and we learn behaviour. Morals have a basis in the requirements of living together - in instincts evolved to let us live together. These instincts are developed and elaborated by our upbringing. Killing other members of your group for no good reason is BAD FOR THE GROUP. Someone who does that is a danger to the group and should be stopped. That is why we have a concept of murder. But because there is no absolute "murder" the elaboration from that to the ideas and laws defining murder that prevail in different societies also differ. Basic social instincts, plus learned elaborations.

quote:

---

whether homosexuality leads to pedophilia or not (i have doubts about that though), your far far more likely to see straight pedophiles not due to some supposed and unproven "inherent depravity of straight men" , but because they far outnumber gay men.

---

As far as I can see, nobody's suggested any "inherent depravity of straight men" - it certainly isn't in the post you're replying toThe rest of your point would depend on the numbers, would it not ? For instance if homosexuals were 10% of the population and ten times more likely to be paedophiles than straight men paedophles should be equally split between straights and gays.

10% is an often quoted number - I don't know if it is correct or not but it semed good enough to use as a hypothetical.But you seem to mistake the rest of the point of my post. I am certainly not claiming that gays ARE ten times more likely to be paedophiles than straights - so I certainly don't have to support that claim. Instead I am pointing out that if the claim that gays were more inclined to paedophilia were true we cannot be certain that the majority of paedophiles would be straights. It depends on the numbers.

But we can't assume that in the context of a claim that homosexuality leads to paedophilia. In that context a very large percentage of homosexuals should be paedophiles, and that could quite possibly increase their representation amongst paedophiles to a majority or at least a very large minority. If the majority of paedophiles are straight the claim is called into question.

quote:

---

Im not sure I understand you; are you debating against the proposed idea that Homosexuality leads to pedophilia? I

---

Not really, although I do reject the idea. Rather I am discussing the signficiance of the majority of paedophiles being heterosexual in the context of that argument. A point you seemed to ready to dismiss.

I didn't say that it proved anything. My points are:1) You cannot say that the number of heterosexual paedophiles will automatically be higher than that of homosexual paedophile.2) If it is true that the majority of paedophiles are heterosexual it is some evidence against the idea that homosexuality automatically leads to paedophilia as was claimed. Note that it depends on the incidence of paedophilia in heterosexuals and so it is far from proving anything but it is a relevant datum

quote:

---

In all seriousness though, society views it as immoral behavior. This isn't cultural bias either, as I've heard of no civilization where this practice has been accepted. (Not that the acceptance of something automatically makes it alright).

---

I don't know about the U.S. but over here stepsons have married their stepmothers - and I don't think that many people objected or even thought it wrong. (I certainly don't think that it is wrong in principle, although individual cases might differ). Normally that is illegal, and the couples in question needed special dispensation (from the House of Lords IIRC).