Thread: A "fix" for homosexuality

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. Nuns and priests are not, by rule, engaging in acts of homosexuality. Chastity, inaction in different from acts of homosexuality, action.

But you previously stated that homosexuality was wrong because it contributed to the depopulation of the species. Why then do you exempt other acts that contribute to the depopulation of the species?

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

No. It is what they do - engage in sodomy.

So what is it? Are you against homosexuality because they don't contribute to the rebirthing of the population, or because some homosexuals engage in sodomy?

If it's the latter, does that mean that you then support homosexuals who don't engage in sodomy? And are you also against heterosexuals who engage in sodomy? I think there's a few of us in this thread who are having trouble following your argument, as it seems to change with each new challenge.

Damnit, Jesus (who hung out with 12 guys and talked about loving them all the time) hated gays as an abomination, it must say that in the bible somewhere!

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

For now.

Female genetic material into an ovum is not going to prevent the extinction of the species.

Letting gays marry or even exist, by contrast, won't bring about the extinction of the species either.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Letting gays marry or even exist, by contrast, won't bring about the extinction of the species either.

If done universally, yes it will, and that is what makes it immoral. As I wrote many times, morality does not depend on statistics; meaning numbers don't determine that it is wrong. Acts of homosexually is as inherently wrong as murder.

Originally Posted by noahath

So what is it? Are you against homosexuality because they don't contribute to the rebirthing of the population, or because some homosexuals engage in sodomy?

If it's the latter, does that mean that you then support homosexuals who don't engage in sodomy? And are you also against heterosexuals who engage in sodomy? I think there's a few of us in this thread who are having trouble following your argument, as it seems to change with each new challenge.

That is because you do not want to accept the weakness of your own conclusion. Sex - heterosexual sex - is a life and death matter (not of the individual but the species). What moral standard does acts of homosexuality meet that acts of heterosexuality will not meet?

The arguments in favor of acting homosexuality is akin to taking poison as long as you do not take too much of it, it is not immoral.

Are my wife and I immoral for not making babies? We use birth control.. does that make us immoral?

So confused. I sure wish JohnLocke would answer these simple questions.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

If done universally, yes it will, and that is what makes it immoral.

It makes it so that if it were done universally, then that would be immoral. It doesn't make it so that one person doing it is immoral.

As I wrote many times, morality does not depend on statistics

The fact that you have written this many times doesn't make it true. It only means you have been wrong many times.

Since the only evil from homosexuality depends on everyone being gay, in this case it DOES depend on statistics. There are many other examples like this, too. If food is being shared among people, taking a share is not immoral, but taking all of it is. If I'm in a monogamous relationship, making love to my wife is not immoral, but making love to every woman on the block is. Using a credit card responsibly to buy thing I can't pay for up front is not immoral; running up huge credit bills and then defaulting on them is. Very often morality DOES depend on statistics -- that is, on the scale of what is done.

homosexuality is as inherently wrong as murder.

You have still presented no justification for this. You have presented a rationale for why it would be wrong if everyone was gay, and you are trying to argue that because that would be wrong, it's equally wrong if one person is gay. It's been explained to you repeatedly why this argument makes no sense at all, and why the fact that it would be wrong for everyone to be gay in no way implies that it's wrong for some people to be gay, or to engage in gay sex if they are.

You fail to see this, and I submit that it's because you have been dishonest, either with us or with yourself, about WHY you think homosexuality is wrong. It has nothing to do with procreation; that's just your rationalization for it, and so you cling to it after it has been repeatedly debunked because your real motivation for believing this lies elsewhere. Perhaps it's religious belief. Perhaps it's just visceral repulsion. Perhaps it's your own latent homosexuality about which you're in denial. I don't know. But it's certainly not what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

It makes it so that if it were done universally, then that would be immoral. It doesn't make it so that one person doing it is immoral.

Statistics do not drive morality. Something is not right or wrong because of how many people are or are not doing it. Where do you get this idea from?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

homosexuality is as inherently wrong as murder.

You have still presented no justification for this.

I've done so many times. You have still not presented any justification for what moral standard is met by homosexual acts that is not met by heterosexual acts.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

You fail to see this, and I submit that it's because you have been dishonest, either with us or with yourself, about WHY you think homosexuality is wrong. It has nothing to do with procreation; that's just your rationalization for it, and so you cling to it after it has been repeatedly debunked because your real motivation for believing this lies elsewhere. Perhaps it's religious belief. Perhaps it's just visceral repulsion. Perhaps it's your own latent homosexuality about which you're in denial. I don't know. But it's certainly not what you're saying.

Bingo. There's too much dodging and dismissing to think otherwise.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

It's been explained to you repeatedly why this argument makes no sense at all, and why the fact that it would be wrong for everyone to be gay in no way implies that it's wrong for some people to be gay, or to engage in gay sex if they are.

This statistical argument has no moral foundation whatsoever. You are arguing it is morally justified to eat some poison or to steal as long as you leave enough for the person to survive. That is absurd.

These acts - no matter how much they are done - eating poison, stealing and acts of homosexuality are inherently bad.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Please. Your ilk are the experts on hypocrisy.

I don't know about my ilk, but I feel that I'm pretty well versed in recognizing it.

Two facts you're ignoring:

1) The AG always defends challenges to law in the courts
2) By pushing for a legislative solution to a legislative problem, Obama can be sure that the solution remains nearly impossible to reverse.

Neither point makes sense.

1) Not when he knows the law in question is unconstitutional. (At least he shouldn't.)
2) How can that be? The next homophobic Congress/administration could just come in and reverse the reversal. It is judicial solutions to legislative problems that remain nearly impossible to reverse. Witness Roe v. Wade.

It seems to me that you are ignoring these facts.