Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you knew me, you'd know that I find those things to be victimizing as well. I'm all for abolitionist animal rights, and I don't consume any animal products.So it's victimisation to have sex with an animal, but not to kill it and eat it? Or to put a harness on it and make it pull a plough?
Are you saying RAPE is okay!? Wow. Glad you're not my daddy.If the ability not to consent were an issue
Don't be ridiculous. Inanimate objects don't have experiences.then you'd have to be against people having sexual arousal with devices, such as electronic stimulating devices that also can't consent. Are you against these?
Normal in the sense that it has a productive role in the evolution of the human species. It also doesn't harm anybody. I can't imagine that living with two heads wouldn't be burdensome, but I'd still expect to not be harassed because of it. On the other hand, if I were born albino I might be just as happy as if I were born homosexual.Normal in what way? You might as well argue that kids who are born with two heads are 'normal' because in biology, that happens.
Well sort of... would you mind writing out as bullet points your own reasons for believing that homosexuality is wrong? For clarity's sake. I'm a little bit slow and I don't think I've understood your personal reasons yet.
Here are my bullet points for why I think homosexuality is just fine:
1) There appear to be people out there who are gay.
2) It doesn't do me (or anyone else) any harm.
...um...I think that's it.
So you'd be in favour of incest between 'consenting' adults? And bestiality, too (where only the human has to consent)?
Do you have pets?Völuspá;52539721 said:If you knew me, you'd know that I find those things to be victimizing as well. I'm all for abolitionist animal rights, and I don't consume any animal products.
In the context of bestiality an animal can not 'consent'. Therefore in that context 'consent' of the beast is not an issueVöluspá;52539721 said:Are you saying RAPE is okay!? Wow. Glad you're not my daddy.
They can't consent either.Völuspá;52539721 said:Don't be ridiculous. Inanimate objects don't have experiences.
Homosexuality has a productive role?Völuspá;52539721 said:Normal in the sense that it has a productive role in the evolution of the human species.
That too is debatable.Völuspá;52539721 said:It also doesn't harm anybody.
If you believe that there's no moral element, then you're probably right.Changing the biological component of homosexuality in a child is just as moral as changing the biological compnent of left handers, black people or heterosexuals.
In fact, there's the easy way to answer your question. Would it be OK for someone to alter their child's biology to make them homosexual? The answer is exactly the same. If you think it would be OK to make a kid homosexual, I guess its OK to make a kid heterosexual.
I'm not a big fan of the idea of parents making arbitrary decisions about their child's biological composure in any way. If the parent could stop a child from suffering a disability, like cystic fibrosis or spina bifida, or something like that, thats one thing. Altering a child's makeup in terms of their race or personality, IMHO is an offensive idea.If you believe that there's no moral element, then you're probably right.
Now for the really important question - since you don't think it's any 'worse', or 'better' than making someone left or right handed, why not let the parents decide?
Why not? Who else is responsible for children? And, as you say it doesn't really matterI'm not a big fan of the idea of parents making arbitrary decisions about their child's biological composure in any way.
If the parent could stop a child from suffering a disability, like cystic fibrosis or spina bifida, or something like that, thats one thing. Altering a child's makeup in terms of their race or personality, IMHO is an offensive idea.
Excuse me, but I never said "it doesn't really matter"... I seem to recal saying the exact opposite in fact.Why not? Who else is responsible for children? And, as you say it doesn't really matter
Because I find it offensive, I DID say "IMHO", meaning "in my honest opinion"Why's it offensive? I thought you didn't believe in an objective morality
Have I ever said anything to suggest I support electro-chemical determinism?At best then it's just your opinion (although there's no real 'you', just an amalgam of chemicals).
Do you have pets?
Uh, no it is an issue. If they can't consent, we shouldn't be using them for anything. That's been my point all along.In the context of bestiality an animal can not 'consent'. Therefore in that context 'consent' of the beast is not an issue
There are lots of reasons not to screw a dead person, even if they are all social. First of all, it's extremely disrespectful to both the memory of the deceased person and they're family. Also, anyone with the pathology to want to have their way with a dead person would be better off getting therapy to have reciprocal relationships, instead of risking their freedom lest they get caught. Third, if you have your way with the deceased, you're forever 'that person' and will be scorned and rejected by your community. There are probably more reasons, aside from it being gross and unsanitary, but I find these reasons to be sufficient. Consent should still required whether you're dead or not. It's just irrelevant when you're talking about inanimate objects (and I don't consider dead people objects.) I can't believe this is all being compared to homosexuality.Some people have a desire for dead people. The dead actor in that has no 'experience' therefore, according to you it's bad????
Yes. Why not look up the evolutionary role of homosexuality before debating it?Homosexuality has a productive role?
Evolution myths: Natural selection cannot explain homosexuality - life - 16 April 2008 - New ScientistAmong animals, homosexual behaviour is usually non-exclusive. For instance, in some populations of Japanese macaques, females prefer female sexual partners to male ones but still mate with males - they are bisexual, in other words.
It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.
Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
How exactly is homosexuality harming anybody? Instead of giving that analogy, you could have just given an example.Even if you ask a person if they're being harmed and they say 'no' that's still not an indication. By way of example a number of women stay in relationships with their abusive husbands. They even make excuses for their abhorrent behaviour. They too would deny that they are being harmed.
I misunderstood. I thought you said that the person's enitre sexual lifestyle was as important as changing which hand one uses.Excuse me, but I never said "it doesn't really matter"... I seem to recal saying the exact opposite in fact.
So you find it offensive, because you find it offensive?Because I find it offensive, I DID say "IMHO", meaning "in my honest opinion"
Have I ever said anything to suggest I support electro-chemical determinism?
It's not irrelevant. It goes to you saying you don't exploit animals.Völuspá;52548412 said:It's funny that this thread started out debating whether or not targeting homosexuality in the womb was okay or not, and now you're trying to 'catch' people on completely irrelevant topics.
No they're not. Animals can be released into the wild.Völuspá;52548412 said:Shelter animals are dependent on humans.
The give up your pets!Völuspá;52548412 said:Uh, no it is an issue. If they can't consent, we shouldn't be using them for anything. That's been my point all along.
What if I consented that after I die, someone can use my body?Völuspá;52548412 said:There are lots of reasons not to screw a dead person, even if they are all social. First of all, it's extremely disrespectful to both the memory of the deceased person and they're family.
I would term that hypocrisy... who are you to judge?Völuspá;52548412 said:Also, anyone with the pathology to want to have their way with a dead person would be better off getting therapy to have reciprocal relationships,
So what is moral is what is legal?Völuspá;52548412 said:instead of risking their freedom lest they get caught.
So community decides what's right/moral.Völuspá;52548412 said:Third, if you have your way with the deceased, you're forever 'that person' and will be scorned and rejected by your community.
You can't consent, once you're dead. At least I'm not aware of any wayVöluspá;52548412 said:There are probably more reasons, aside from it being gross and unsanitary, but I find these reasons to be sufficient. Consent should still required whether you're dead or not.
Why not? There's no 'soul' there surely?Völuspá;52548412 said:It's just irrelevant when you're talking about inanimate objects (and I don't consider dead people objects.)
Of course you can't, you accept one is right, because it is.Völuspá;52548412 said:I can't believe this is all being compared to homosexuality.
Sorry, I don't do your research for you. It's your point to demonstrate. You don't make points and then other people have to prove you right.Völuspá;52548412 said:Yes. Why not look up the evolutionary role of homosexuality before debating it?
Given that your article accepts that evolution did happen, then any behaviour that occurs must have been borne from evolution. Thus you must be in support of other sexual 'deviances'Völuspá;52548412 said:
It's a sin.Völuspá;52548412 said:How exactly is homosexuality harming anybody? Instead of giving that analogy, you could have just given an example.
I'm glad you understand better.I misunderstood. I thought you said that the person's enitre sexual lifestyle was as important as changing which hand one uses.
I was admitting that my finding it offensive is, as all emotional responses are, a matter of my personal opinionSo you find it offensive, because you find it offensive?
Huh? Just because I think there is more to human consciousness than chemical and electrical reactions doesn't mean I have to think artificially altering people for aesthetic or cultural reasons, particularly before the person in question is given an opportunity to consider the issue, is a good idea.What reason then?
Why is it?I'm glad you understand better.
I was admitting that my finding it offensive is, as all emotional responses are, a matter of my personal opinion
Huh? Just because I think there is more to human consciousness than chemical and electrical reactions doesn't mean I have to think artificially altering people for aesthetic or cultural reasons, particularly before the person in question is given an opportunity to consider the issue, is a good idea.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?