EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Deviation from the mean is not inherently bad.
You are deliberately loading a phrase with inappropriate conotation.
Upvote
0
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.
Deviation from the mean is not inherently bad.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
In YOUR opinion.
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.Deviation from the mean is not inherently bad.
You are deliberately loading a phrase with inappropriate conotation.
We do. I'm sure you and I would probably agree on 95% of spiritual matters.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.
Why's it offensive? I thought you didn't believe in an objective morality
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.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.
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.Not at all. From my point of view a sexual deviancy is a sexual deviancy.
don't understand what you're refering to here.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.
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.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.
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!
Yes, go ahead. Then I guess it's the person committing the act who will have to go through all the trouble.What if I consented that after I die, someone can use my body?
What!? I said a human being might be happier having relationships that are actually reciprocal. Doesn't sound judgmental to me.I would term that hypocrisy... who are you to judge?
All of the reasons I listed are why necrophilia are illegal. You have not presented a single reason why homosexuality should be illegal.So what is moral is what is legal?
Was homosexuality immoral/wrong when it was illegal and people could get caught?
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.So community decides what's right/moral.
Communities then that are against gays aren't homophobic!
Exactly my point. What are you arguing about?You can't consent, once you're dead. At least I'm not aware of any way
You have not listed ONE SINGLE REASON why homosexuality is harmful or essentially nonconsensual.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'
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.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.
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!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'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.It's a sin.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Animals aren't capable of consent. Neither are corpses. Therefore 'consent' isnt' an issue.
You might want to re-word the OP then.Völuspá;52548797 said: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.
Not at all. I've dealt with all of what you've said, point by point.Völuspá;52548797 said:You totally missed everything I just said.
Is it? I thought it was illegal before ideas of 'consent' became important. Perhaps because of other moral reasons.Völuspá;52548797 said:All of the reasons I listed are why necrophilia are illegal.
Actually I have. But you summarily dismiss it at the bottom of this argument.Völuspá;52548797 said:You have not presented a single reason why homosexuality should be illegal.
No. You want to argue something's bad, because it's illegal, and that it's illegal because it's bad.Völuspá;52548797 said: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 are the one who was saying that 'consent' was an issue, in this regards.Völuspá;52548797 said:Exactly my point. What are you arguing about?
Again, yes I have. You seem to mistake two different points hereVöluspá;52548797 said:You have not listed ONE SINGLE REASON why homosexuality is harmful or essentially nonconsensual.
I find it ridiculous for someone to make assumptions about what I've done.Völuspá;52548797 said: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.
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.Völuspá;52548797 said: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're more than welcome to make this personal.Völuspá;52548797 said:It's that kind of intellectual laziness that could ruin a society. Congratulations.
I never stated you did. In point of fact I'm discussing reasons whyVöluspá;52548797 said:I don't support all sexual 'deviances',
And so your argument goes in circles...Völuspá;52548797 said:just the ones that do not harm anybody.
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.Völuspá;52548797 said:I don't care about the evolution of rape because it's nonconsensual and violent!
Thank you for judging my values as meaningless.Völuspá;52548797 said: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.
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".Völuspá;52548797 said:Even when I was a Christian I thought God had some criteria for what he called sin--namely it being harmful.
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.Völuspá;52548797 said: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.
Cool. That means you can devote more time discussing this topic with me!Völuspá;52548797 said: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.
The idea that something is right because somebody already did it doesn't make sense either.Völuspá;52548797 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.
Do they consent then? So you'd support bestiality if the animal 'consented'?Völuspá;52548797 said:The fact is, dogs have already been bred for human companionship and may enjoy it.
Who's talking about rape?Völuspá;52548797 said: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.
Anyway, when you come up with a set of rules you are going to apply more exactly, let me know.Völuspá;52548797 said:These posts are becoming incredibly tedious. Try not to reply in single sentences next time.
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.
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?