If homosexuality could be prevented...

[EnemyPartyII]

If you accept evolution as true then statements such as "There's an evolutionary explanation/role for homosexuality" is a truism.

There's also evolutionary explanations/roles for sexual deviant behaviour

A General Mechanism Producing Sexual Deviation
Sexual Deviation and Deviant Sexuality

Deviation from the mean is not inherently bad.

You are deliberately loading a phrase with inappropriate conotation.

 

[Montalban]

In YOUR opinion.

Funny that retort coming from a person who gives their faith as "Catholic".

I thought we have the common ground of dialogue at least insofar as both believing in God, and other certain parameters, such as the Bible, the Church Fathers, tradition, etc.

 

[Montalban]

Deviation from the mean is not inherently bad.

Depends on what you mean by bad. I'm still waiting for you to let me know on what basis you consider something is bad, aside from you feeling it is so.

You are deliberately loading a phrase with inappropriate conotation.

Not at all. From my point of view a sexual deviancy is a sexual deviancy.

From your point of view, from what I can gather so far, one isn't, because you feel it isn't. The others might not be either.

 

[Montalban]

I believe it is a sin, despite what I may, or may not feel.

It often happens though that when people state their own personal opinions they want to assume that every other stance is also a personal opinion. Oddly enough this doesn't strengthen their poisition.

For myself, taking Chrisitanity as already 'true', (specifically Orthodox Chrisitanity) then what I consider 'sinful' is not based on my opinion, but that of the church which has the full deposit of faith.

You might want to argue that it's my opinion that the Orthodox Church has that deposit of faith - but then you give your own faith as Catholic so is that just a matter of personal opinion too?

 

[Montalban]

Another problem too with moral relativists is that in casting away an objective morality then morality's rules become truly subjective.

We've seen that here.

Someone argues that homosexuality is okay, because it's 'consensual'.

That's the making of a rule.

Can we apply that to other sexual encounters? Yes, but then no. Yes for heterosexual (adult) sex, but no for say, bestiality, or necrophillia. Why? Well then people start getting bogged down by applying additional subjective rules, because they do, or retorting that they just feel it is so, because it is.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Funny that retort coming from a person who gives their faith as "Catholic".

I thought we have the common ground of dialogue at least insofar as both believing in God, and other certain parameters, such as the Bible, the Church Fathers, tradition, etc.

We do. I'm sure you and I would probably agree on 95% of spiritual matters.

But I've researched it pretty extensively, and I see no reason to consider homosexuality a sin. Indeed, the Catholic church agrees with me. Homosexual ACTS are a different matter, but the RCC's current teaching is that there is nothing inherently sinful in being a homosexual.

 

[Völuspá]

Why's it offensive? I thought you didn't believe in an objective morality

You keep bringing this up so I thought I'd finally give my answer to it. It might surprise you to learn that humans actually do have an innate sense of morality that even we share with other primates. To learn more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html

Of course not all of what we tend to call morality is static. Our perceptions of what's acceptable change with time as well--they evolve within our society. There are a countless number of things that we once found acceptable that we now realize are harmful to other beings, and have worked to stop (slavery, child labor, even second-hand smoke.) Likewise, there are other things, like homosexuality, which we used to scorn that we can no longer find reason to (for example, you yourself have still not given a reason as to why homosexuality is harmful.) It's not like anything goes--anyone's guess is as good as anothers'--it's a process of betterment within our society. We have every right to disagree with another person's sense of morality because we believe our reasoning is better than theirs. The minority is going to lose out as we teach children our newer ideas of morality based on what we think works best. Just because ideas of morality change through time (though you have to admit for the most part it's unchanging) that doesn't mean it's all based on guessing.

This all sounds a lot more reasonable to me than saying that all of our morality comes from Christianity, as it sounds like you are saying. In the Bible, there are stonings and all kinds of other atrocities. I find it silly that someone can insist that morality is objective, believe that stoning is wrong, and believe the stoning in Bible is the inspired word of God. Isn't there something wrong with this picture? You can't ignore that our morality has shifted since the Old Testament was written.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Depends on what you mean by bad. I'm still waiting for you to let me know on what basis you consider something is bad, aside from you feeling it is so.

Well, in strictly biological terms, there is no such thing as "bad". There is not one single trait which is always advantageous, nor any single trait that is always disadvantageous. Looking to science for moral justifications is always problematic.

However, I'll even go so far as to say that deviation from the mean is not always considered disadvantageous, even in hide bound reactionary humans. Every Olympic athlete is deviated significantly from the mean, as is everyone with an IQ of over 120.

Not at all. From my point of view a sexual deviancy is a sexual deviancy.

If that is your GENUINE intention, then I apologise... however there are a great many on the anti- sode of this discussion who take great delite in using deviant and abnormal as perjorative terms rather than strictly population specific descriptors.

From your point of view, from what I can gather so far, one isn't, because you feel it isn't. The others might not be either.

don't understand what you're refering to here.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Another problem too with moral relativists is that in casting away an objective morality then morality's rules become truly subjective.

We've seen that here.

Someone argues that homosexuality is okay, because it's 'consensual'.

That's the making of a rule.

Can we apply that to other sexual encounters? Yes, but then no. Yes for heterosexual (adult) sex, but no for say, bestiality, or necrophillia. Why? Well then people start getting bogged down by applying additional subjective rules, because they do, or retorting that they just feel it is so, because it is.

If you can find a corpse or an animal capable of giving their adult informed consent to have sex with you, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Völuspá]

Montal, I can't believe I've even argued with you this far. The whole premise is that you apparently think homosexuals are freak sinful sexual deviants who are harming themselves and those around them. I wish you had just said this in the beginning if that's really what you believe.

It's not irrelevant. It goes to you saying you don't exploit animals.
You keep a dog. You don't ask for its consent.
No they're not. Animals can be released into the wild.
The give up your pets!

You totally missed everything I just said. It's really getting frustrating to argue with you. I don't condone domesticating animals, but animals who have ALREADY been bred for domestication need homes. Releasing millions of domesticated animals into the wild is a childish solution that would never do work. The fact is, dogs have already been bred for human companionship and may enjoy it. If you feed, play, and take good care of them, they'd stick around leash or no leash. That's as good as consent from a dog and in no way compares with rape or slaughter.

What if I consented that after I die, someone can use my body?

Yes, go ahead. Then I guess it's the person committing the act who will have to go through all the trouble.

I would term that hypocrisy... who are you to judge?

What!? I said a human being might be happier having relationships that are actually reciprocal. Doesn't sound judgmental to me.

So what is moral is what is legal?
Was homosexuality immoral/wrong when it was illegal and people could get caught?

All of the reasons I listed are why necrophilia are illegal. You have not presented a single reason why homosexuality should be illegal.

So community decides what's right/moral.
Communities then that are against gays aren't homophobic!

No, I would term our society necrophobic and that's a good thing (because of the reasons I already listed.) There is no good reason to be homophobic so that is a bad thing.

You can't consent, once you're dead. At least I'm not aware of any way

Exactly my point. What are you arguing about?

When I explore why, you talk about 'consent', 'harm' and such and yet reel back in disgust at other practices that are equally 'harmful', or 'consensual'

You have not listed ONE SINGLE REASON why homosexuality is harmful or essentially nonconsensual.

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.

It's absolutely ridiculous for someone such as yourself to go into a debate insisting that homosexuality is an immoral 'choice' that people make, without even bothering to research it at all. With that line of thinking, I could just assume all kinds of horrific things about other races and live in hateful ignorance because I don't bother to see the scientific truth. It's that kind of intellectual laziness that could ruin a society. Congratulations.

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'

I don't support all sexual 'deviances', just the ones that do not harm anybody. I don't care about the evolution of rape because it's nonconsensual and violent!

It's a sin.

I've waited and waited for a single reason from you as to why homosexuality is harmful and you present me with a meaningless one-line opinion which indicates nothing as to whether it's harmful or not to anybody. Even when I was a Christian I thought God had some criteria for what he called sin--namely it being harmful. You must understand that none of your arguments are going to amount to anything if the entire premise for your point of view is empty. I'm not going to argue homosexuality anymore with someone who just has an opinion that it's objectively wrong and derives all kinds of nonsense from that one single opinion.

These posts are becoming incredibly tedious. Try not to reply in single sentences next time.

 

[hikersong]

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.

It's against God's Will.

Well, all you have to do now is prove God's existence (you're making life changing judgements...yes, you're making them... on people's lives, so it's the least I can ask) and you'll have given me your reason. Not a good reason, but a reason.

Although God would still be the bad guy in this scenario. Making someone gay and then telling them they shouldn't be?! The moral thing to do in this scenario would be to stand in solidarity with the homosexual.

 

[hikersong]

Another problem too with moral relativists is that in casting away an objective morality then morality's rules become truly subjective.

The issue is not whether a moral is subjective or not. It is whether we can give a decent explanation for why we should act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way.

"My God said..." is a subjective explanation as well... it is not a good explanation. Neither is it one that anyone else should feel obliged to adhere to.

 

[Völuspá]

The issue is not whether a moral is subjective or not. It is whether we can give a decent explanation for why we should act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way.

"My God said..." is a subjective explanation as well... it is not a good explanation. Neither is it one that anyone else should feel obliged to adhere to.

 

[Montalban]

Well, all you have to do now is prove God's existence (you're making life changing judgements...yes, you're making them... on people's lives, so it's the least I can ask) and you'll have given me your reason. Not a good reason, but a reason.

Although God would still be the bad guy in this scenario. Making someone gay and then telling them they shouldn't be?! The moral thing to do in this scenario would be to stand in solidarity with the homosexual.

You just demonstrated a great point. Even if I proved God existed, you'd still reject His Will based on your own notions.

Still...
there's people here who believe in God yet think they know better than God

 

[Montalban]

The issue is not whether a moral is subjective or not. It is whether we can give a decent explanation for why we should act, or refrain from acting, in a certain way.

"My God said..." is a subjective explanation as well... it is not a good explanation. Neither is it one that anyone else should feel obliged to adhere to.

When I look at the sinuous application of 'reasons' here by people who don't believe in God, they're not to me decent explanations.

And I've also dealt here with people who believe in God, so even when that should be taken as read people still apply a rule of 'good' or 'bad' based on their own feelings on the matter

Still, if you can come up with a good reason, let me know.

 

[Montalban]

If you can find a corpse or an animal capable of giving their adult informed consent to have sex with you, I don't have a problem with it.

Animals aren't capable of consent. Neither are corpses. Therefore 'consent' isnt' an issue.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Animals aren't capable of consent. Neither are corpses. Therefore 'consent' isnt' an issue.

Of course its an issue. Its THE issue. The very fact that corpses and animals cannot give consent is PRECISELY the reason why it would be wrong to have sex with them.

 

[Montalban]

The whole premise is that you apparently think homosexuals are freak sinful sexual deviants who are harming themselves and those around them. I wish you had just said this in the beginning if that's really what you believe.

You might want to re-word the OP then.

You totally missed everything I just said.

Not at all. I've dealt with all of what you've said, point by point.

All of the reasons I listed are why necrophilia are illegal.

Is it? I thought it was illegal before ideas of 'consent' became important. Perhaps because of other moral reasons.

You have not presented a single reason why homosexuality should be illegal.

Actually I have. But you summarily dismiss it at the bottom of this argument.

Your argument is that it should be allowed because it is a 'good' based on a highly selective application of rules on what constitutes a good. Because you've had trouble with this you then demand that I argue the other side too, that it's bad.

I would think that, regarding such issues anything not good is bad.

No, I would term our society necrophobic and that's a good thing (because of the reasons I already listed.) There is no good reason to be homophobic so that is a bad thing.

No. You want to argue something's bad, because it's illegal, and that it's illegal because it's bad.

Exactly my point. What are you arguing about?

You are the one who was saying that 'consent' was an issue, in this regards.

You have not listed ONE SINGLE REASON why homosexuality is harmful or essentially nonconsensual.

Again, yes I have. You seem to mistake two different points here
a) I don't agree with your reason
and
b) you have stated no reason

You don't agree, so you assume that I've not stated a reason.

It's absolutely ridiculous for someone such as yourself to go into a debate insisting that homosexuality is an immoral 'choice' that people make, without even bothering to research it at all.

I find it ridiculous for someone to make assumptions about what I've done.

With that line of thinking, I could just assume all kinds of horrific things about other races and live in hateful ignorance because I don't bother to see the scientific truth.

You have made a number of assumptions. When pressed to the reasons you say you should apply a rule, but then not in other circumstances, because you just shouldn't. It's either illegal, or un-scientific, or whatever you want to apply for a particular reason, because you do.

It's that kind of intellectual laziness that could ruin a society. Congratulations.

You're more than welcome to make this personal.

I don't support all sexual 'deviances',

I never stated you did. In point of fact I'm discussing reasons why

just the ones that do not harm anybody.

And so your argument goes in circles...
Which means you shouldn't be against necrophillia, bestiality, etc.

I don't care about the evolution of rape because it's nonconsensual and violent!

That wasn't my point. I made no statements to that effect. I was pointing out the truism that was made here about the 'evolutionary' aspect of it. Given that several people here believe in evolution then all behaviours have an 'evolutionary' aspect.

I've waited and waited for a single reason from you as to why homosexuality is harmful and you present me with a meaningless one-line opinion which indicates nothing as to whether it's harmful or not to anybody.

Thank you for judging my values as meaningless.

Even when I was a Christian I thought God had some criteria for what he called sin--namely it being harmful.

That's incorrect. Sin is harmful. Not something is sinful, because it is harmful. That would turn the world upside down and make mankind on top. It would have God saying "Hmmm, I want to 'protect' man, so I'll deem things that are harmful to him sinful".

It works the other way around. God deems what is sinful, and by definition it is then harmful to man. I could, for instance love my car. Not in a sexual way, but become devoted to it. I could become devoted to it to the point of not going to church because I want to wash the car. It is then sinful, because I'm separating myself from God. It might appear superficially to be harmless (no one was 'harmed' by my washing a car), but by devoting my energies to something as base as a car I have sinned.

Maybe you got the wrong message regarding sin when you were a Christian.

You must understand that none of your arguments are going to amount to anything if the entire premise for your point of view is empty.

In the long run, if you think it's just my opinion then how does that make you right? At best you're just going to have a whole lot of people with equallly valid opinions (although you've already consigned mine to the the scrap-heap), so your opinion must be worth more, because it is, because it is.

I'm not going to argue homosexuality anymore with someone who just has an opinion that it's objectively wrong and derives all kinds of nonsense from that one single opinion.

Cool. That means you can devote more time discussing this topic with me!

It's really getting frustrating to argue with you. I don't condone domesticating animals, but animals who have ALREADY been bred for domestication need homes. Releasing millions of domesticated animals into the wild is a childish solution that would never do work.

The idea that something is right because somebody already did it doesn't make sense either.

Animals were bred to be worked. There were, for example 'pit ponies'. That they were 'bred' for it for a long time and thus already happening should be okay by you then?

Think of all the animals being fed and looked after in circuses.

The fact is, dogs have already been bred for human companionship and may enjoy it.

Do they consent then? So you'd support bestiality if the animal 'consented'?

If you feed, play, and take good care of them, they'd stick around leash or no leash. That's as good as consent from a dog and in no way compares with rape or slaughter.

Who's talking about rape?

These posts are becoming incredibly tedious. Try not to reply in single sentences next time.

Anyway, when you come up with a set of rules you are going to apply more exactly, let me know.

 

[Montalban]

Of course its an issue. Its THE issue. The very fact that corpses and animals cannot give consent is PRECISELY the reason why it would be wrong to have sex with them.

Then you'd be against people having sex with devices such as vibrators because they can't consent. (if only you'd noticed where this argument already came up)

 

[hikersong]

Montalban said:

You just demonstrated a great point. Even if I proved God existed, you'd still reject His Will based on your own notions.

And you are merely avoiding answering a reasonable point.



Still...
there's people here who believe in God yet think they know better than God

And you seem to believe that God wants unquestioning, automatons as followers. Which is exactly what you are if you say something is moral simply because "God said".