Thread: A "fix" for homosexuality

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

You keep writing as though morality is an AND ... If you do bad things AND good things it is OK to do bad things. Each act must stand on its own. You argue as though "acts of homosexuality do not hurt." That is a moral negation.

You're the one who draws the parallels not me. WITHOUT MENTIONING 1.heterosexuality or 2.reproduction, tell me why homosexuality is bad. You can't, because your entirely basis is on homosexuality not being heterosexuality. That's what you've stated over and over. I'm saying that homosexual acts does not mean I won't reproduce. You still can't seem to grasp that there is NOTHING about homosexual actions that stop reproduction. Murder is an action on it's own, and on it's own, it's wrong, because it directly takes life. Homosexuality does no such thing.

You are comparing a sex act to non-sex acts. Itchy nose or computer use is not vital to life.

Huh, so because it's categorized as a "sex act" it must be vital to life? What kind of imperative gives you that idea?

No one said it was. Not telling something and deceiving by omission are two different things.

No it's not, if it is, explain how. A lie of omission is to just not tell someone something.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

How do acts of homosexuality prevent humans from nearing extinction?

Because they are a part of human sexuality, which is expressed in many ways that don't lead to reproduction, but the reproduction that occurs as a by product of human sexuality, has selectively bred us into human beings.
If the only sex was penis in vagina of fertile female at most auspicious point of the female fertility cycle, there would be no evolution. We wouldn't be human.
It is our sexuality that has selectively bred us into what we are.
Tampering with human sexuality is tampering with the very creative process that produced humanity. Who are you to decide what to cut out of a process of which you have no understanding whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Lesser Known

tell me why homosexuality is bad. You can't,

Homosexuality is inherently bad because it does not have the potential to lead to net positive life.

Originally Posted by Lesser Known

Huh, so because it's categorized as a "sex act" it must be vital to life? What kind of imperative gives you that idea?

The ultimate moral standard is life. Not every moral issue is a matter of life - but some are. Sex is one of those issues that is a matter of life and death. When one chooses to act homosexually they are choosing to act against life.

Originally Posted by Lesser Known

No it's not, if it is, explain how. A lie of omission is to just not tell someone something.

No. A lie is about deception. One can deceive by commission or omission.
Example of Commission:
Q: What did you buy at the store?
A: Milk and bread.
Truth: Actually bought beer and whiskey.

Example of Commission:
Q: What did you buy at the store?
A. Milk and Bread.
Truth: Actually bought beer and whiskey - as well as milk and bread.

I'm sure you can google lies of omission and get all kinds of references and examples.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

How do acts of homosexuality prevent humans from nearing extinction?

Originally Posted by goober

Because they are a part of human sexuality, which is expressed in many ways that don't lead to reproduction

That does not answer the question. Not leading to production does not prevent extinction. LOL

Originally Posted by noahath

Ok, so if a woman who has had her ovaries removed due to cancer engages in sex, then by your definition she is committing sodomy. You are really are waaaaay out there, ever for a conservative.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

The subject of this thread is homosexuality, not "what if's" in a heterosexual relationship.

What an utter copout. There are lots of "what if's" in relationships; it makes perfect sense to bring all types of relationships in to this conversation.

Using your logic, people should only have sex to makes babies. That's complete horseshit.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Can you see the contradiction in these two statements? If you must reject the moral condemnation of homosexuality, then it makes no sense to call whatever the cause of it is "something going wrong." It's just something going differently, not "wrong."

No, perhaps I just was not clear. I see gayness as a condition outside of morality. I see it in the same way as I see a person born with only 8 fingers. I cannot call an 8 fingered person immoral. And I can't call a gay person immoral. But I can understand why some would call it immoral. Morality is always based upon something, in this case, the Judeo Christain teachings.

That people are born gay is a complicating factor, to me. And it changes how we should view them, IMO. Gayness is their own natural state, as they were born that way. Something that needs great consideration, IMO.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I see gayness as a condition outside of morality.

I agree that an aspect of homosexuality is outside of morality. This has to do with the orientation and emotional drivers, not unlike a pedophile.

There is also an aspect of homosexuality, that again like pedophilia, has a moral aspect to it - and that is the choice to act on the compulsion. True homosexuality cries "consenting adults" and that is a good reason for it to be decriminalized. But don't you see the contraction of the position?

How can a defense for homosexuality be that "consenting adults" are involved, when consent involves choice, while also claiming it is beyond choice?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

How can a defense for homosexuality be that "consenting adults" are involved, when consent involves choice, while also claiming it is beyond choice?

Easy, they choose who their partner is, and they choose to have sex with them. They don't choose who they are attracted to.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

I agree that an aspect of homosexuality is outside of morality. This has to do with the orientation and emotional drivers, not unlike a pedophile.

There is also an aspect of homosexuality, that again like pedophilia, has a moral aspect to it - and that is the choice to act on the compulsion. True homosexuality cries "consenting adults" and that is a good reason for it to be decriminalized. But don't you see the contraction of the position?

How can a defense for homosexuality be that "consenting adults" are involved, when consent involves choice, while also claiming it is beyond choice?

I cannot equate gayness to pedophilia. I think they are totally different, in a couple of ways. Pedos, I doubt are born with that desire for children, it is developed. While a gay person comes here with the neural wires crossed.

I never made a conscious choice to be a hetero, it just happened, driven by what ever makes a hetero a hetero. In the same way, I doubt much choice is involved with homos, they come here wired to be attracted not to the female, but the male. So, this is really beyond their own control, in a way. Of course anyone can use their will, to do the opposite of what is natural for them, but there is little pleasure in that. I don't like cooked cauliflower, yet I can force myself to eat it, if I have to.

I spent most of my life seeing gayness as a sickness, a sin, and something absolutely horrible. What changed my mind was when I noticed that the gays I knew, were born gay, it wasn't a choice, they were just reacting to how their brains were wired, in the same way I react to the way mine is wired. That they came here, wired to be attracted to the same sex eventually, was the game changer for me. How can I hold it against them, if they were born the way they are? I just can't do it. And I think it is rather cruel to do so.

Gays still make me very uncomfortable, when they do the sexual things in public. And to see a real feminine, hyperbolic feminine man, acting all... well you know, it always makes me laugh, although I do it under my breath, out of consideration of the human. I think their behavior is strange, as I cannot relate to it, but that is normal for a guy of my generation. But I am sure, the gays think heteros are strange as well. So, my own take on this deal today is just to live and let live, and be as kind to others as I can be. And to finally accept gayness for what it actually is.

I really don't think gayness is a sin, and I am fairly religious, although not in the sense you would think. The God that I think exists, will not hold a developmental thing against the human who suffers from it. No more than he would hold it against a person who could not pray due to being a mute. Anyways, the Ten Commandments make no mention of gayness being a sin, and if God would have thought it important, surely he would have told Moses about it at that time, by also inscribing it on the tablets. Of course the other Jewish laws that came later may have addressed it, but I don't put much stock in those man made laws. The Jews had rules and laws for every aspect, even diet. Yet Christ said it was not what went into the stomach that offended God but what came from the mouth, in speech. So, the Jews had a lot of shit WRONG when it comes to Divine Will. And that became a part of Christianity, some of it. And forms the basis for gays being seen as sinful today by certain denominations and Judaism. I am sure Islam too has its laws against gayness. I think this is a mistake, those arises from confusion.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

There is also an aspect of homosexuality, that again like pedophilia, has a moral aspect to it - and that is the choice to act on the compulsion.

It's true that gay sex acts, unlike homosexuality itself, are voluntarily and therefore, as far as that goes, potentially subject to moral judgment. What you have yet to do, however, is present any good reason to condemn these voluntary actions.

There is however a very good reason NOT to condemn them: the fact that in so doing, you are harming people. Actually that's true whenever you condemn any actions. It's harmful to punish people, even by such a thing as public disapproval, let alone material penalties such as fines or imprisonment or denial of a right (such as marriage). It's harmful to condemn people who have healthy sex drives to celibacy, especially if they happen to be in love.

The justification for condemning some actions, such as murder, is that by discouraging them you are doing more good than you do harm. The acts to be discouraged are considered harmful enough that their harm outweighs the harm involved in their condemnation.

What good do you suppose you would be doing in discouraging gay sex, that would justify the harm done in condeming gay sex? Put another way: what harm does gay sex do, that would justify the harm of judging it wrong?

I can easily do this with pedophilia. So far, all you have been able to do is argue that if everyone was gay the species would go extinct. That's already been dealt with. Try again.

Is it mind-boggling to anyone else that the Obama administration is appealing the judicial ruling that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Don't ask, don't tell.) is unconstitutional, or is it just me? If this has already been discussed here or elsewhere, my apologies.