Homosexuality Part Ii
FilthyLarry
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">should the lifestyle be avoided ?</div> As the original parent of "Homosexuality, is it always a choice ?" I feel it now important to move onto a further discussion as to the lifesytle itself. Should it be denied ? If so, why ? What is the impact to all involved ?
I think we as forum goers did a pretty good job of keeping religious arguments out of the equation. I must kindly ask us to keep this rule going for this thread please. It does no good really to say "divine being x demands that we don't do y" because we're the ones living on this planet, and we are the one's having to live with one anothers decisions.
I hope we can rule out reproductive arguments/viewpoints as I believe that there are plenty of people to keep the human population going. Also, some heterosexuals are sterile so clearly not everyone has the ability to reproduce in any case.
I think we as forum goers did a pretty good job of keeping religious arguments out of the equation. I must kindly ask us to keep this rule going for this thread please. It does no good really to say "divine being x demands that we don't do y" because we're the ones living on this planet, and we are the one's having to live with one anothers decisions.
I hope we can rule out reproductive arguments/viewpoints as I believe that there are plenty of people to keep the human population going. Also, some heterosexuals are sterile so clearly not everyone has the ability to reproduce in any case.
Comments
Two people having sex is normal.
(I know I just blew my credibility to little bitty pieces, but it HAD to be said.)
And should you choose not to follow through on that urge, that doesnt automatically mean you are going to suffer any negative effects ie depression.
As for Talesins credibility, well as he said, itty bitty pieces <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
And should you choose not to follow through on that urge, that doesnt automatically mean you are going to suffer any negative effects ie depression.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true, but speaking as a heterosexual I get rather cranky when I go without sex with my wife for a sustained period. In addition I feel an intense emotional connection and sharing when we make love. A special bond if you will.
So why is this any different for the case of a homosexual ? Why deny someone that emotional connection and special bond ?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the urge is
- Not hurting anyone
- Not illegal
- Not completly insane i.e. trying to build a functioning atomic reactor out of paperclips
- an expression of love between two (or more) people
Go for it! We resist a lot of urges for generally the kind of reasons above. The ones that are left over are the ones we follow through. Being open about ones' sexuality doesn't violate any of the above reasons, at least in western culture.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More than two people having sex is a sign of a friendly disposition and tolerant nature.
(I know I just blew my credibility to little bitty pieces, but it HAD to be said.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure how you managed to do that (blow up your credibility that is). Multiple people having sex is an expression of mutual desires for pleasure, but it can also be an expression of love between more than 2 people. Human emotions are a strange beast indeed, and it has not been unknown for groups of 3 people to all love one another. If three people decide to all have sex at the same time, what exactly is wrong with that? Or four? Or five? Or any number? Even if it is simply for pleasure, what exactly makes it wrong?
So the boy who build a working nuclear reactor out of breeze blocks and aluminum foil should not have done it?
*edit*
The difference between my beliefs and yours, however, is that you apply your beliefs on which urges should and shouldnt' be supressed to all people, and I only wish to see them applied to people if they choose to follow the same faith I do.
Kids, don't be hypocrites, just shut up and mind your own business.
Edit: I don't think I've made it clear enough that I'm not a homosexual, I'm not
Back to the morals. How is an act of sexual indulgence between two consenting adults hurting the participants, anyone else, society, the earth, or existence in general? It isn't.
But as for myself, I cannot find any love between two consenting adults to be wrong. (Three gets sticky, unless all three KNOW what they're doing. It's much easier to manage things with two. I lived in a polyamourous household for a while, which varied between three and four. I myself did not participate as I did not feel comfortable with one of the members, but I did watch as jealousy and deceit caused.. problems.)
Morality is defined by general popular opinion.
<span style='color:yellow'>*NUKED.*</span>
And now this is going to get nuked cause i mentioned religion
<span style='color:red'>You're right. No religious arguments is one of the ground rules. It cuts out a lot of theological p***s-measuring from a rational discussion. Do not post it in the first place, if you know it is not desired.</span>
In that case it is impossible to argue morals in this thread Bosnian, so I cant continue.
As I said before, there is no decent opposition to be made against homosexuality other than on a moral ground - and since the moral ground is unable to be discussed here, I guess I have nothing further to say.
<b>Because faith cannot be debated, by its very nature.</b>
It is total belief. There need not be any factual evidence presented, and at one time or another someone is going to jump in with words to the effect of 'My god is the ONE TRUE GOD', or 'Your god does not exist'. It either results in a stalemate, with everyone listing what their religion (or lack thereof) says; or it turns into a fanatical flamewar, which I will <b>not allow</b>. Though perhaps I should... one member has already had write-access to this particular forum removed, due to his particular flavor of fanaticism.
Now then. I would suggest that if you have nothing constructive to add to a particular topic, that you simply refrain from posting in it. As well, I would suggest reading the entire thread before posting to it... the very first post in this one states that religion will be kept out of the discussion.
I'd say that "hurting people is bad" is a good starting point. This right off the bat lets us agree that murder, r4pe, theft, drunk driving, and a slew of other things are all morally wrong. However, unless you can demonstrate that the "homosexual lifestyle" in and of itself hurts people, you can't argue that it's wrong, at least with that as your only moral principle.
Now, if you can give us another moral principle that rational people from multiple faiths could conceivably agree on, we'll have something to talk about.
You want a framework? Provide it. It just has to be secular.
[EDIT - For example, we can build on that basic principle with a couple of corollaries - "It's bad to allow people to be hurt", and "Society has a duty to prevent people from being hurt, which can supercede the basic stricture against hurting people if strictly necessary." Bang, we've just provided the framework for a punitive system.]
Society has a vested interest in holding to certain morals - irrespective of their source - depending on the nature of the issue that the moral pertains to.
We as a society benefit from morals like "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong" regardless of whether this moral comes from Mr. Jones or from deity X.
While this thread does not allow for the input of religion per se, can you think of a practical reason for society to deem the homosexual lifestyle as morally wrong ? In other words, if you believe that deity X regards the lifestyle as wrong, what harm does deity X see in participating in the lifestyle ?
You can by all means discuss the moral ground, but you can't do it in a way that says "deity X says its wrong so it's wrong", you just need to try and seek a reason for why "deity X says its wrong" and offer that reason for discussion.
(snip! I'll cut this short before I go on a long and confusing ramble - I'm just saying that as another "alternative" social/sexual lifestyle, polyamory is also looked down upon as being wrong to most people, when if they'd give it some thought they might see the benefits of such a relationship far outweigh any bad points.) [/ot]
Humans have ethics and morals. Some of them stem from evolutionary adaptations - dislike of incest, for instance, is a genetic adaptation because inbreeding weakens the genetic pool. Others stem from other sources - other people, institutions like religions, etc. Keeping kosher is a good example of something like this.
FilthyLarry indirectly asked a very important question: who decides what morals should be upheld in a society? It makes sense that a majority vote would make the decision, and that is for the most part what happens. But one could say that we have gone "soft" - we want to be open-minded and accepting, we want to avoid labeling groups as "majority" and "minority," want to give everyone equal status. It's a noble goal, but not one we're very good at.
The United States is an overwhelmingly Christian country. By simple logic, it would then make sense that our laws be formed from Christian morals. But our country was founded on the belief that the government should *not* impose laws on religion directly - our first amendment begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Can it therefore be fair to let our laws be formed from religious doctrine that not all of our citizens agree with?
Essentially *all* objections to homosexuality stem from one religion or another. If religion should not be a factor in the drafting of laws, is it still acceptable to pass laws against homosexuality?
In my opinion, it is not. Homosexuality is a personal choice, one that does not affect others except perhaps to make them uncomfortable. For comparison:
1) Some people are uncomfortable being around those of different ethnicities, but we cannot discriminate against people of other races. Their race is not their choice, and it does not do any actual harm to the discomforted person.
2) We *can* pass laws against smoking, because while it is a personal choice to smoke or not, the right to smoke is not the same as the right to force other people to inhale your smoke. Second-hand smoke goes beyond mental/emotional discomfort, passing into the realm of actual health risk.
Do not the morals of the majority, no matter if religiously motivated or not, govern which things are decent and which are not, and does not the law restrain the indecent things to the closet, so as not to upset social order?
Society has a vested interest in holding to certain morals - irrespective of their source - depending on the nature of the issue that the moral pertains to.
We as a society benefit from morals like "killing is wrong" or "stealing is wrong" regardless of whether this moral comes from Mr. Jones or from deity X.
While this thread does not allow for the input of religion per se, can you think of a practical reason for society to deem the homosexual lifestyle as morally wrong ? In other words, if you believe that deity X regards the lifestyle as wrong, what harm does deity X see in participating in the lifestyle ?
You can by all means discuss the moral ground, but you can't do it in a way that says "deity X says its wrong so it's wrong", you just need to try and seek a reason for why "deity X says its wrong" and offer that reason for discussion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Larry I'm not allowed to bring diety in at all, so I cant comment on that.
I have heard all this humanistic moral arguement before, and the fact remains that the arguement for morals without a perfect being to set them is simply flawed.
Its either perfect being, or general popular consensus. General popular consensus is proven to be flawed, and fluctuating.
We can nail down our own little framework here if we like, but that only applies to us. Therefore a non forum member killing kids in afghanistan can be condemned by us, but what makes us right? Simply because we think something is best at the time doesnt make us right.
We cant be proven right, and we cant be proven wrong. I'm not sure I like morals like that.
All arguements here come from the general popular consensus decides morality. And its ludicrous. We all know slavery was wrong, but general popular consensus at the time held it to be right. So who was right? Why are our morals better than theirs? Because they are no longer in the majority? Population statistics are pretty dodgy things to base "rules for life" or morals upon.