Immorality of Homosexuality

I am seeing a pattern of violation of the Forum Guidelines here. Argue the position, not the person. Leave NJ out of this.

---

Yeah, I see your point about the position Nem holds; it is an undefendable position that Nem holds.

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

Weapons grade bullshit.How can you compare beastiality with two consenting humans having sex?

It's a valid point, but what is really happening is the quantifying of suffering. Consent is one way to determine if suffering will happen - if something refuses to consent we can determine that suffering will ensue. However, we also need to concern ourselves with pain, which is also suffering. If something cannot give consent, but we can be sure it will cause them pain, we can deduce it will cause suffering.As for killing an animal? Well, for those people that are concerned with suffering, they'd want the animal to be killed painlessly and quickly. Some may conclude that killing an animal is immoral, as is raising it to kill it. Others may view it differently. The point being, however, that suffering is the key - not consent. Do we agree that the imperative "Reduce or avoid suffering as much as possible", is a closer approximation than "Gain informed consent from all parties with an interest in an act before engaging in it". And that the former imperative, can lead to the latter imperative in certain circumstances.

"Supposed" love?The way a child loves an adult is different from the way an adult loves a child. The way an animal loves a human is different from the way a human loves an animal.Not even talking about consent, neither of those two relationships is ever a two-way street. They are not relationships between equals.In order to make the comparison to homosexual love valid, you have to show that same-sex love is different from opposite-sex love, that the relationship is inherently unequal.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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

I thought we were talking about the people here at EvC and their morality: Not the morality that various courts have decided upon. Your belief on the matter is irrelevant to the reality of the matter. I'm glad you are able to not imagine the feeling of wanting to die, but that happy circumstance doesn't change whatever the reality is. So you then provide examples of people that want to die. Let's run with what I think you are saying here: Nobody wants to die. OK, fine. However, we both agree that under certain circumstances death is the lesser of the evils that can be chosen. Why does it surely not make it right? You think it is wrong to prefer a quick death over a long and painful one? Strange. Very strange. Which is what I said: "It's a valid point, but what is really happening is the quantifying of suffering. Consent is one way to determine if suffering will happen" You are poking too hard. I deliberately chose the words "approximation" because I know that simple imperatives are not fully useful because exceptions can easily be found. The imperative I gave an approximation of can easily be modified to explain the moral deciding that we are using. However - it would be even better to look at the end of the imperative "where possible". So, is it possible to give people the sense of achievement without the adversity and suffering you went through to get it? No? The one shouldn't avoid suffering in this case. However, we see again how consent can be useful here. It would be no good making people suffering and then giving them a pat on the back...if they didn't put themselves forwards for the challenge.Since you haven't actually rebutted what I said, I take it the subject is at an end? There is no contradiction in decrying animal rape whilst also supporting the right of consenting adults to engage in a sexual activity that has little to no impact on other people.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think Larni was quite clear though. Consent being the important factor. I am sure that one could debate over isolated issues of consent(certain cases in court for example), but I don't believe there is much debate over what it means. Unlike 'morals' would it not be safe to say 'consent' is not so flexible? I would not say people are 'used to the idea', somewhat I suppose. I would say, in my case, that I moved my sliding scale from religious to consenting. I don't advocate bestiality, rape and pedophilia because one party cannot consent, homosexuality however is not the same. From a religious outlook I do understand why you don't agree, I just don't think your at the right place on that moral sliding scale. Thats completely possible, but there is also a valid justification for the propoganda. That being consent. Outside of you saying "its wrong because I say so" and I say "its right because I say so" the only thing to add to the debate is consent.

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

You only have a belief as to what other people's beliefs on the matter are. I've not done that. Morals exist. No goal post shifts from me. It doesn't undermine moral relativism. As has been shown to you. That you continue to think it does is worrying. Suffering has always been one of the prime indicators of morality. Do as you would be done by, neh? I have not moved on this stance. A woman consenting to be killed is a difficult moral question and I have never said otherwise. Nobody is asking because they know you cannot. You are making an assertion that relativism has a problem but you are not able to show that. Really? They have an impact on me and they certainly have an impact on other people. It was other people I was talking about not, not you or me. Actually no it hasn't. Pagans have "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" and that might be a modern invention. Actually they are the best, but probably not sole, indicators that we use to determine if something is immoral.

Ringo said it better than I did: You have to show that same sex and opposite love are different.So far I see no evidence of that position.

I agree that consent is only one of many qualifiers but it is a large one.The fox that eats the mouse for survival does not and should not ask for permission.Regards
DL