Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 2:40 PM
127 online now:
CosmicChimp, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, xongsmith (6 members, 121 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
12131415Next
Author Topic:   Immorality of Homosexuality
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 151 of 218 (425374)
10-01-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
10-01-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
I can then assume that masochism, even if the recipient and the giver are in agreement, is immoral?

"Hurt" can mean different things depending on context, NJ, you know that. Clearly, voluntary injury is not considered immoral, or boxing, wrestling, football, etc would all be considered immoral as well. "Hurt" in the context used implies non-consensual harm, and anything else is semantics.

The question of morality concerning homosexuality or anything else depends entirely on one's definition of morality, and that derives from the system of ethics you ascribe to. One who believes that personal acts that don't harm others (just to be clear, I mean non-consensual harm or grievous injury) are ethical is going to have a completely different opinion on the morality of homosexuality than one who believes in the ethical system of "God said so."

We all know this, and I don't honestly believe a person with a literal biblical ethics system will be convinced by the logic of other ethics systems.

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).

Whether you've heard of a civilization that condones it or not is irrelevant. Simple rule of majority opinion has never been and never will be an effective method of determining what is moral, or anything else (and before you say it, no, the US is NOT run by simple majority opinion - the three-branch system of government with checks and balances exists for the express purpose of preventing the oppression of minorities by the majority). It's a simply an appeal to popularity.

Truly useful ethics systems for a society that does not oppress varying religious beliefs (or no beliefs) need to operate on something more objective than majority opinion (note that interpretations of ancient texts differ wildly enough to exclude them as an objective source or morality, even leaving aside the fact that to do so forces people who do not ascribe to a particular faith to follow the tenets of that faith). Objective, non-consensual harm is one effective method of determining the morality of an act.

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.

Murders and rapes cause objective, non-consensual harm or grievous injury. Squirrel urine and peanut butter do not. Comparing the two is ridiculous, despite the...oddness...of that particular fetish. Since homosexuality causes no objective harm, it cannot be immoral, even if you find the act as odd as "dousing yourself in squirrel urine."

Of course, nobody is born covered in squirrel urine, or born a rapist or murderer, either. People ARE born attracted to the same sex. This means that considering homosexuality to be immoral is on the level of claiming that being black, or asian, or white, or male, etc is immoral. Clearly, states of being that involve no choice cannot be moral or immoral - they simply ARE. The evidence shows that sexuality is such a state of being. Those who believe otherwise are in denial, and I would challenge any of them to explain exactly when and how they decided to be straight.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-01-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 152 of 218 (425380)
10-02-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
10-01-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Nem writes:

Most murders and rapes are committed privately.


Um, no they're not. Murder involves a murderer and a murderee. That's not private anymore. That's public.

Nem, you need help. You are showing signs of socialpathology, or the inability to tell the difference between right and wrong. Murder is very public, because it involves the rest of us. You or I could be the next victim.

On the other hand, what does sex between 2 consenting adults have anything to do with you or me?

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?

Um, I never said consent is the only thing. I don't know where you got that from.

I can then assume that masochism, even if the recipient and the giver are in agreement, is immoral?

I don't know if it's immoral or not. I'm manly enough to admit that I don't have all moral problems solved yet. I don't believe for a minute that you have them all solved.

Now, are you manly enough to stop sticking your nose into other people's private sex lives?


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 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-01-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 218 (425383)
10-02-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
10-01-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
This isn't cultural bias either, as I've heard of no civilization where this practice has been accepted.

If you'll accept sibling marriage as a substitute, how about the example of your own civilization, where incestuous marriage among royal families was common? I can grab a dozen examples from the royal families of England, France, and Prussia, just for starters. (Ever heard of the "Hapsburg lip"?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-01-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by StElsewhere, posted 11-16-2007 4:19 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 154 of 218 (425384)
10-02-2007 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Hyroglyphx
10-01-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
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).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-01-2007 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 155 of 218 (425563)
10-02-2007 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Hyroglyphx
10-01-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
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?

This is just another rule enforced by the liberal nanny-state in knee-jerk reaction to the studies that show a son marrying his mother invariably leads to a mysterious plague upon the nation and the gouging out of someone's eyes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-01-2007 7:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Meddle
Member
Posts: 166
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 156 of 218 (425584)
10-02-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Hyroglyphx
09-22-2007 3:53 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Just wanted to respond to one of your earlier posts, sorry if I'm repeating other folks arguments:

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.

However, in those sorts of 'relationships' it is only one of the parties involved who are saying that this is an act of love. They are then presuming to speak on behalf of the other parties involved, who are either incapable of expressing their feelings or understanding such a situation. To take another example, if a rapist said he 'loved' his victim, this obviously couldn't be considered a loving relationship since the victim would disagree and point to the fact he forced himself on her. But if the rapist slipped his victim rohipnol so she was incapable of objecting to what was going to happen, that is still rape.
In a homosexual relationship, both parties involved are capable of expressing their feelings. Yes, at a basic level this is consent, but as others have pointed out, this is not the only consideration. As I understand it, the whole issue of consent is brought up not to justify homosexual relationships, but to show how homosexual relationships cannot be compared to paedophilia/bestiality/rape. Consent may not define an action as morally right, but would you agree that if consent is missing the act is morally wrong?
Also a homosexual relationship is more than just sex, another reason why comparisons to paedophilia/bestiality/rape are redundant. There is the emotional ties and reciprocated love, in fact exactly the same as heterosexual relationships. I don't think I can give a catch-all qualifier for sexual relationship without it being relativistic, but aren't you just as relative in your approach. For example, in the question of gay marriage you hold to a 'traditional' view that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. However, traditionally marriage has also often involved polygamy, and the marriageable age has been around 10-13. Why do you not include these in your definition of marriage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 3:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Taz, posted 10-11-2007 6:48 PM Meddle has not yet responded
 Message 198 by StElsewhere, posted 11-16-2007 4:26 AM Meddle has not yet responded

EighteenDelta
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 218 (425652)
10-03-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Hyroglyphx
10-01-2007 7:13 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
I can see two problems with a son marrying his mother that are not related to Christian morality. The first is the issue of 'grooming' which then means the son, in the eyes of the law, becomes a victim. The second issue is the potential product of such a relationship. Children borne of incestuous relationships, this gives you another potential victim. Homosexual relationships don't produce mentally and physically handicapped children, last I checked they don't directly produce any children.

That is why I disagree with your statement. I think you intended it to be an emotionally charged statement to induce a sense of revulsion in the general reader. I think that it is disingenuous in that respect.

-x


"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-01-2007 7:13 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2263 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 158 of 218 (427484)
10-11-2007 4:32 PM


Quote: But Christian does = good person! If they do anything to suggest they are not a "good person" then, by definition (and the good scotsman) they aren't a Christian.

So by your statement there are no Christians in prison?¿


  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 159 of 218 (427501)
10-11-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Meddle
10-02-2007 8:24 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Good luck trying to get it through nem_jug's thick skull. I've been trying for months and failed to show him that you can't compare homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. If you can show him this, you are better than I am. I've given up talking to nem_jug on this issue.


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 156 by Meddle, posted 10-02-2007 8:24 PM Meddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Rahvin, posted 10-11-2007 8:23 PM Taz has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1261 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 160 of 218 (427523)
10-11-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Taz
10-11-2007 6:48 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Good luck trying to get it through nem_jug's thick skull. I've been trying for months and failed to show him that you can't compare homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. If you can show him this, you are better than I am. I've given up talking to nem_jug on this issue.

NJ and other fundamentalist Christians literally believe incest and pedophilia are wrong only because of 2 reasons:

1) God says so in the Bible
2) it's "icky"

It's true that homosexuality, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and even masturbation all fit those two criteria. They cannot even comprehend an actual ethics system that judges immorality based on actual harm, so it's impossible to change their minds. Morality to them consists of "my supernatural imaginary parent figure told me so" and "I dont want to do it, so you shouldn't either."


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Taz, posted 10-11-2007 6:48 PM Taz has not yet responded

StElsewhere
Junior Member (Idle past 4051 days)
Posts: 24
From: NE, USA
Joined: 11-13-2007


Message 161 of 218 (434054)
11-14-2007 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Phat
04-17-2007 7:40 PM


It;s oxymoronic to use High&Nobel and Homosexual in the same breath
What could ever be "High and Nobel" about something that is an abomination in the eyes of the True and Living God?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Phat, posted 04-17-2007 7:40 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AdminPD, posted 11-14-2007 6:00 AM StElsewhere has responded
 Message 163 by Chiroptera, posted 11-14-2007 7:48 AM StElsewhere has responded
 Message 164 by jar, posted 11-14-2007 9:40 AM StElsewhere has responded
 Message 165 by Phat, posted 11-14-2007 1:25 PM StElsewhere has responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 162 of 218 (434055)
11-14-2007 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by StElsewhere
11-14-2007 5:48 AM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome StElsewhere,

Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.

When responding, please try to address the point of the post you're responding to and keep your argument in line with the topic presented in the opening post.

As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.

In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.

Please direct any questions or comments you may have concerning this post to the Moderation Thread.

Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple


Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals

    Helpful links for New Members: Forum Guidelines, Quick Questions,
    Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, and Practice Makes Perfect


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 5:48 AM StElsewhere has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 171 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 3:34 PM AdminPD has responded

    Chiroptera
    Member (Idle past 10 days)
    Posts: 6531
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003


    Message 163 of 218 (434059)
    11-14-2007 7:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by StElsewhere
    11-14-2007 5:48 AM


    Re: It;s oxymoronic to use High&Nobel and Homosexual in the same breath
    What could ever be "High and Nobel" about something that is an abomination in the eyes of the True and Living God?

    Even if this god did exist, and even if this god did think that something was an abomination, what does this god's opinion have to do with anything?


    Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 5:48 AM StElsewhere has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 172 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 3:38 PM Chiroptera has responded

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


    Message 164 of 218 (434071)
    11-14-2007 9:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 161 by StElsewhere
    11-14-2007 5:48 AM


    Re: It;s oxymoronic to use High&Nobel and Homosexual in the same breath
    Lots of things, shrimp as one example. Eat them shrimpies.


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 5:48 AM StElsewhere has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 174 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 3:42 PM jar has responded

    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 12159
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 165 of 218 (434096)
    11-14-2007 1:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 161 by StElsewhere
    11-14-2007 5:48 AM


    Re: It;s oxymoronic to use High&Nobel and Homosexual in the same breath
    StElsewhere writes:

    What could ever be "High and Nobel" about something that is an abomination in the eyes of the True and Living God?

    My whole point is that same gender attraction need not be expressed on a sexual level. There may well be a higher and nobler purpose for the attraaction than sex. There is nothing immoral about attraction...only motives and actions(behaviors)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 161 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 5:48 AM StElsewhere has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 166 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-14-2007 1:38 PM Phat has not yet responded
     Message 178 by StElsewhere, posted 11-14-2007 3:54 PM Phat has responded

    RewPrev1
    ...
    910
    11
    12131415Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019