Immorality of Homosexuality

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

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? 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

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? 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

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. 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

Well, its an integral part of the argument. The larger part of this argument is about moral relativism, and how making morally relative pronouncements about homosexuality subjects it to opinion.Therefore, if Berberry or whoever says that I'm a bigot, what moral pretenses are they operating under?

quote:

---

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

---

Because its a convenient scapegoat to assign whatever motive you want to the equation in order to justify the action. Which is bewildering to me because you and many others on this forum speak about consent as if it is morally righteous in absolute terms. And I gave you several instances where two consenting adults copulating is viewed negatively in a moralistic way.You are basically saying that to negate someone's right to their freewill, i.e. their freedom to consent willingly without the fear of reprisal, is morally wrong. And of course I agree. But you are using it in absolute terms. I say its arbitrary, not in that it was a haphazardly chosen virtue, but that its just a convenient excuse to get around absolution. Relative morality means that the moral is subjective to some extenuating circumstance that may affect how we deal with the moral in question.For instance: Is there such is thing as right and wrong?As an absolutist, I say, yes. But you, as a relativist, must say only insofar as it subjectively serves some sort of pragmatic purpose-- but in the final analysis, no, there is no actual right or wrong.Why must you say that? Because if there is something as right and wrong, something of more authority must have instituted the policy. That goes against everything in your post-modernist worldview. Don't they most often do that? Think about it. "This is illegal because its wrong."That's coming from a moral perspective. Don't take people's mail because its stealing, and stealing is wrong. Don't set fire to that man's house because its wrong. Don't speed because you raise the reasonable expectation of carelessly getting in to an accident. Getting in to an accident can hurt somebody. Hurting someone because of your carelessness is wrong.The list goes on.If laws truly didn't come from a moral framework, we should expect them to be arbitrary. The law has to be written in absolute terms, not relative terms, because it would affect the fairness of it. We all know that some 15 year olds are more mature than others. But without that critical line of demarcation, we would be making moral decisions based on our biases. I don't want to conflate the issue. I simply feel that showing this to you serves to better explain the argument.But, fine, lets bring the argument back in to context.Is it morally wrong for me to think that homosexuality is morally wrong? If yes, why? If not, why?

---

"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

Be advised one and all:An even more applicable thread has just opened up, courtesy of Modulous.

The same exact arguments have been made by pedophiles and zoophiles alike. If one is copacetic in your mind, why can't other groups extrapolate your opinion to a broader sense as they have?Its all about love, they say. We're loving the animals. We're loving the little kids and trying to release the shackles of their sexual oppression. Its typical.Through the exact same way homosexuality came through the acceptance door, will be the same way pedophilia will come through.... the guise of supposed love.And now you are telling me that consent is some kind of untouchable quality to determine the morality of something. But you forget the fact that you don't ask a cow, "pretty please, with sugar on top, can I slaughter you and your flesh?" So why would you ask their permission to have sex with them by the same premise?Answer: Obviously consent isn't the sole qualifier of such things.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

You hit the nail on the head, brotha! This is me at the last gay pride parade. I had a little too much drink that day, and my tutu was much longer than the one I ordered online from the My Little Pony website. But, eh.... Whaddya gonna do, ya know? As a side note, that photo looks remarkably like Chris Martin of Coldplay. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

How can you reasonably compare anything without a solid moral framework to rely on? If someone can spout their rhetoric about how morals are interchangeable then you have no justification, whatever, to come against someone else's moral code.You're relying on incredulity here. You're saying, "gosh, how can you honestly think that homosexuality is on par with beastiality?" Couldn't I just say the same thing to you? Couldn't I ask, "how in the world can you compare gay sex to straight sex? Are you not now just used to the idea of homosexuality, whereas 20 years ago you were appalled by it? You've just been fed the propaganda for so long now that you've conformed to whatever mode of thinking the dominant culture wants you to think. They're telling you how to think, and you've fallen right in line like a good boy! Look who is the sheep now-- dutifully following the herd!"Couldn't I reasonably say that by the same premise as yours?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

There's a two-fold question about that. Most of us have heard of Dr. Death, Jack Kevorkian, who devised a machine to kill those afflicted with a terminal disease. Some saw the man as a hero who saved people because he eliminated their suffering. We viewed his actions as heroic, especially since all parties were consenting adults.But there was another case, far less known, of a woman who took to the internet in order to find someone who would violently murder her. She obviously consented to the act, and so did the killer. Well, she got her wish. She was murdered just as she wanted to be.The courts saw both actions in the same way. Whether consent was agreed upon, it did not matter. The question of morality always popped up. Aside from which, it was argued that in both cases, the state of mind of the people asking for death could reasonably have been skewed-- one racked with physical pain, and the other racked with mental anguish.And the verdict makes sense. Why? I believe its because there is not a single sole on earth who has ever actually wanted to die. You say, that's impossible given the amount of suicides there are. But I challenge that no one really wants to die. Suicidal people don't really want to die, they just want to escape a situation that seems to them to be hopeless. They just want to alleviate their suffering. And if death achieves that reprieve, then some of them will take it out of desperation.We saw the same thing in the Trade Towers where people were leaping to their deaths. Did those people go to work knowing that day they would be committing willful, deliberate suicide? Probably not. For all intents and purposes they probably wanted to live! But on that day they were scorched by unbearable heat and choked on noxious fumes. They didn't want to die. They chose to die to relieve their suffering.Before you think this is a tangent, I want to bring it back to the main point here of consent. They consented to die of their own accord. Did the consenting of it make it right? Surely not. But at the same time, I don't want to undervalue consent either, as surely its also a very good thing too.The point is, consent is a tool, in my estimation, for uncovering the morality of something. But it is not moral in and of itself, as I hope I was able to delineate in my rant I certainly think it some ways it is better-- again, not to put down consent as it has value in its own right. But even suffering, as tragically as we see it, has much value in it.The only thing that makes an award special is that it was difficult to achieve. I once was in a program in the military that was reputed to be one of the hardest in the world. And yes, we suffered. It hurt. It was miserable. We were chilled to the bone. We ached and chaffed all over our bodies. And then we got up the next morning to do it all over again, and again, and again. But it was that adversity that made it so special for those who passed the gauntlet. We dared to be great and to rise above the mediocrity by choosing to suffer. It was that suffering that made it so special.This much is agreed upon, I believe, by all parties: Life is paradoxical. We see value and devalue in suffering. We see value and devalue in consent.Its a strange thing that God, the enigma of all paradoxes, makes the most sense to me. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Only insomuch that EvC is a microcosm of everyday society. I don't think we should limit EvC members to discussion of morality, otherwise, we should limit it with all other topics as well. My belief is irrelevant. I'm pointing to everyone else's belief on the matter. I contend that no one actually wants to die. Yes, we agree that people come to that rationale.

quote:

---

Before you think this is a tangent, I want to bring it back to the main point here of consent. They consented to die of their own accord. Did the consenting of it make it right? Surely not. But at the same time, I don't want to undervalue consent either, as surely its also a very good thing too.

---

What I find strange is the continued shifting of goal posts. First it was actually asserted by many people that denying homosexuality is a moral crime, all the while asserting that morals don't actually exist.Once that view was thoroughly shown to be bankrupt, then the next tactic was to say that homosexuality was perfectly fine from a moral view, but that things like beastiality and pedophilia were squalid. Again, though, under a loose ethic, it tends to undermine the point of relativity. Yet, some still maintained it.Then it was determined that what makes it moral is that, unlike beastiality or pedophilia, you can't gather consent. Consent then became the qualifier to what is moral, even though, consequently, they are still using morals in an absolute frame work, all the while denying that an absolute frame work can exist.The next shift is that suffering is the qualifier for what is moral. But I have produced evidence of people consenting to sufferage. Apparently a woman consenting to be murdered is as moral as pie in the sky. Why not just let the killer go. Afterall, he was so kind to oblige the wishes of the woman.Over the course of this conversation, we have seen many, many different ways of trying to grapple against a fortified position. There is no way to argue against an absolute without invoking another. One would think that these conversations have been a healthy lesson in futility, but some press on.What they should be asking me (oh dear, I'm giving away the keys to the kingdom here) is how I can prove that homosexuality is morally wrong. I cannot do it. That is my lesson in futility. The least I can do is say that God has deemed it so. The most I can do is make an argument from nature showing that homosexuality is incompatible and inconsistent with nature. Not at all, since the subsequent torture, mutilation, and murder of innocent people at the hands of, say, a dictator's henchmen, have no impact on me either.See, there is a general rule of them amongst pagans. If it feels good, do it. That sort of has been the acid test for centuries. But one can hardly stand to look at the misery that an alcoholic heaps upon themselves and call it moral. One can hardly say the same for someone who engages in unprotected sex. Oh, sure, it feels great for them. But then you run the risk of watching them languish away with some terrible venereal disease. One can hardly see a person gorge themselves to their hearts content, when knowing their arteries are becoming clogged unbeknownst to them.Therefore, the if it feels good, do it, because if it feels good, it must be good adage doesn't apply. Consent, lack of suffering, etc, etc, are not qualifiers for what is good and moral.But I suppose we are now, at this point, grossly off topic.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Then if consent were really the indomitable factor, then why can't a son, of age, marry his mother, even if both parties are consenting? Answer: Consent does not determine the morality of something. Its one moral in a sea of morals.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Okay... You're a nutjob. 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). People can do whatever they want in their private life. But it doesn't make it moral because its done so privately. Most murders and rapes are committed privately. But hey, if you want to smear peanut butter all over your boyfriend, while dousing yourself in squirrel urine, have your fill. But now you say that consent isn't the only catch-all moral standard, (that you use as an absolute way to test for the morality of something), but now you introduce pain too?I can then assume that masochism, even if the recipient and the giver are in agreement, is immoral?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias