If homosexuality could be prevented...

hikersong · Aug 4, 2009

Montalban said:

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.

sinuous: indirect, devious

My points for why I believe homosexuality to be just fine (post 43 of this thread)

1) There appear to be people out there who are gay.
2) It doesn't do me (or anyone else) any harm.

Could you tell me in what way they are "sinuous" explanations.

EnemyPartyII · Aug 4, 2009

Montalban said:
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)

You know, I have to wonder if you are knowingly being abstruse, or what?

An animal, or one that you could have sex with, at any right, has a degree of self awareness. It is aware of pain, pleasure and various other sensations, which collectively mean it has welfare concerns. Having sex with something that has welfare concerns without its consent is wrong.

A corpse was once aware, and had welfare concerns. It also, presumably, has family and friends, who still regard it with respect and concern, even if that is illogical. It is also a social norm of our society that the dead are to be treated with respect. Having sex with a corpse without its consent violates these issues.

Vibrators have no self awareness. They do not have family and friends who care for their welfare or want them to maintain a sense of dignity.

Now, if you remain true to form, I fully expect you to try to come up with some sort of "gotcha" trap. I can only imagine this will be something along the lines of demanding you be given the right to have sex with dead animals that have no family and never desired any apparent desire for any sort of dignified treatment in life. If so, go, fornicate with dead slimemold with my blessing. However by the time you reach this level of argumentative endgame, I think we're so far away from anything remotely relating to anything in the human experience that we have truly crossed from the sublime to the ridiculous.

hikersong · Aug 4, 2009

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

As do you. Your own feelings on the matter seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong): if God seems to be saying something is right or wrong then I should do it, or not do it, regardless of the "lesser" feelings I have...i.e. what I think or feel about the morality of what God says. Those lesser feeling should be subjugated to the greater feeling.

Well, you know I have absolutely no problem with that. Until you start thinking that you can use these arbitrary, subjective "reasons" to say how other people should live.

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

1) There appear to be people out there who are gay.
2) It doesn't do me (or anyone else) any harm.

Montalban · Aug 5, 2009

hikersong said:
Montalban said:

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.

sinuous: indirect, devious

My points for why I believe homosexuality to be just fine (post 43 of this thread)

1) There appear to be people out there who are gay.
2) It doesn't do me (or anyone else) any harm.

Could you tell me in what way they are "sinuous" explanations.

Sinuous as in weaving in and out - applying a rule here but not there. Note I didn't say that you in particular were doing this.

Montalban · Aug 5, 2009

hikersong said:
As do you. Your own feelings on the matter seem to be (correct me if I'm wrong): if God seems to be saying something is right or wrong then I should do it, or not do it, regardless of the "lesser" feelings I have...i.e. what I think or feel about the morality of what God says. Those lesser feeling should be subjugated to the greater feeling.

God is for me the over-arching reason

hikersong said:
Well, you know I have absolutely no problem with that. Until you start thinking that you can use these arbitrary, subjective "reasons" to say how other people should live.

Given the 'reasons' people give in response the applications are highly subjective. The application of those rules is selective.

hikersong said:
1) There appear to be people out there who are gay.
2) It doesn't do me (or anyone else) any harm.

Harm is of course open for debate. But given your parameter, then you must support necrophillia, bestiality and other behaviours.

Montalban · Aug 5, 2009

EnemyPartyII said:
An animal, or one that you could have sex with, at any right, has a degree of self awareness. It is aware of pain, pleasure and various other sensations, which collectively mean it has welfare concerns. Having sex with something that has welfare concerns without its consent is wrong.

which leads me back to the idea that you must be against eating meat, having pets, using animals on farms, etc.

EnemyPartyII · Aug 5, 2009

Montalban said:
which leads me back to the idea that you must be against eating meat, having pets, using animals on farms, etc.

Nope. Just because you acknowledge sometimes having to do thinggs that are bad for an animal doesn';t mean you have the right to do horrible things to it.

I acknowledge its OK to pay employees less than employers, that doesn't mean I think its OK to have sex with them against their will.

Montalban · Aug 5, 2009

If someone would like to give me a reason why they apply a particular rule only to particular situations that might move things along a bit.

Of course then if they apply rules selectively they must have a 'rule' as to when/why they apply this selective rule.

Montalban · Aug 5, 2009

EnemyPartyII said:
Nope. Just because you acknowledge sometimes having to do thinggs that are bad for an animal doesn';t mean you have the right to do horrible things to it.

Which is circular reasoning. Those things that are 'bad' are 'bad' because they are!

EnemyPartyII said:
I acknowledge its OK to pay employees less than employers, that doesn't mean I think its OK to have sex with them against their will.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

Even the law, secular though it is, acknowledges no right to consent of animals. They therefore don't have a will

EnemyPartyII · Aug 5, 2009

Montalban said:
Which is circular reasoning. Those things that are 'bad' are 'bad' because they are!

Nonsense.

That's comparing apples and oranges.

Even the law, secular though it is, acknowledges no right to consent of animals. They therefore don't have a will

Nonsense x 2.

But to bystep your poorly worded semantic trap, I acknowledge that there are times when necessary evils are, well, necessary. FYI, eating animals is a necessary evil. However, just because eating an animal is OK because it is necessary, doesn't mean its OK to needlessly subject an animal to pain or suffering.

hikersong · Aug 5, 2009

Montalban said:
Sinuous as in weaving in and out - applying a rule here but not there. Note I didn't say that you in particular were doing this.

Perhaps you shouldn't make the accusations in posts directed to me then. And maybe when you make those accusations you should provide examples of what you mean rather than vague generalisations that imply that you are above it all...that you are the only one who is being direct.

The evidence of this thread suggests almost the opposite. You've been weaving the issue in all sorts of directions to avoid properly explaining why your stance against homosexuality is right. It seems saying "God said" is enough for you...

...So.....Why should anyone but you, and those who agree with you, accept that 1) because "God said" 2) therefore homosexuality is wrong? Reasons please.

hikersong · Aug 5, 2009

Montalban said:
Harm is of course open for debate. But given your parameter, then you must support necrophillia, bestiality and other behaviours.

1) Tell me how you think homosexuals are harming other people by living as homosexuals.

2) Others have answered this sinuous looking sidestep regarding other forms of sexual expression. For instance:

You said:

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

To which Enemypart2 replied:

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.

And yet you want to go up that culdesac again. So to speak.

Montalban · Aug 6, 2009

hikersong said:
Perhaps you shouldn't make the accusations in posts directed to me then.

Perhaps you should note when I talk to you in general about what I observe and when I am accusing you of doing something. If you look back to my post #75 I was replying in the same 'general terms' you had used regarding belief in God (your post #72 -itself a general rebuttal of a general point I made about moral relativism in post #65 - not directed at anyone person.) I didn't realise that when we were talking general points that you would think that I was talking about your actions, specifically, when I never said you, specifically.
As to examples, I've already given such. The application of a 'rule' in one case, then not others, for no apparent reason. Lets see how you go with examples

hikersong said:
The evidence of this thread suggests almost the opposite. You've been weaving the issue in all sorts of directions to avoid properly explaining why your stance against homosexuality is right. It seems saying "God said" is enough for you...

There's two distinct things here.
a) what people in general perceive as a reason for thinking homosexuality is okay
and
b) why I think it is wrong.
I have been nothing but direct as to why I believe it is wrong. In point of fact you want to argue that I have stated what I believe, and suggest that I haven't (by being 'sinuous' myself). You need to make up your mind on this too.
So where are we up to now.
Talking about general points, in a language wed established over several posts suddenly you think Im talking about you.
I give examples of where I believe people are selective and you ask me for examples.
Im asked what I believe and I state in no uncertain terms, and you think Im being selective.

hikersong said:
...So.....Why should anyone but you, and those who agree with you, accept that 1) because "God said" 2) therefore homosexuality is wrong? Reasons please.

Ive already noted that people wont. You, I believe it was you who said you wouldnt agree, even if you did accept God. (My apologies if it was in fact another person on this thread who had said that).
However, given that there is disagreement I have asked why anyone thinking that Im just offering an opinion is better or worse than their own personal opinion?
What makes for an opinion being right?
It seems that those in opposition think that it is just opinion v- opinion. So, how does this make them right?

Montalban · Aug 6, 2009

hikersong said:
1) Tell me how you think homosexuals are harming other people by living as homosexuals.

I've already talked about sin, and the harm of separating oneself from God.

hikersong said:
2) Others have answered this sinuous looking sidestep regarding other forms of sexual expression. For instance:

You said:

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

To which Enemypart2 replied:

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.

And yet you want to go up that culdesac again. So to speak.

Apparently you accept circular logic as given by Enemypart2 that it is wrong, because it's wrong, because it's wrong.

As for 'going up that culdessac again' you might have missed me expressing the fact that I'd already goine over these arguments before she asked me the exact same things.

Selective reading doesn't help as demonstrated by this post and the one above.

Montalban · Aug 6, 2009

EnemyPartyII said:
Nonsense.

Nonsense x 2.

Touché!

EnemyPartyII said:
But to bystep your poorly worded semantic trap, I acknowledge that there are times when necessary evils are, well, necessary. FYI, eating animals is a necessary evil. However, just because eating an animal is OK because it is necessary, doesn't mean its OK to needlessly subject an animal to pain or suffering.

I don't agree that eating meat is an evil, necessary or otherwise.

However you're back into circular logic over what is in fact 'needless', etc.

Montalban · Aug 6, 2009

Völuspá;52531490 said:
...while the fetus was still developing, would it be morally permissible for mothers to do so?

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, do you think it's a person's right to prevent their child from 'struggling' with that sin? If it isn't a sin in your eyes, could it still be the mother's choice to decide what's best for her child?

The Science of Gaydar - New Research on Everything From Voice Pitch to Hair Whorl -- New York Magazine

The really odd thing here is you ask the question and specifically direct it to people who believe it is a sin, but then say saying it's a sin is not a reason and that you can't be bothered continuing this conversation

Why ask?

Also, I'd like to point out again a difference

I disagree with your reasonsand
You give no reasons

I disagree with the reasons here of people such as youself, EnemyPartII, Hikersong, etc.

However I would not say "You give NO reasons" for your belief.

hikersong · Aug 6, 2009

Montalban, almost all the points you made here you have made many times in this thread, and they have all been answered. I still don't know your reasons for why being gay is wrong, beyond "God said". You seem to think that is enough. I think it is a complete and utter cop out.

And that seems to be where we will both remain. If you'll excuse me I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion with you.

cheers
David

Montalban · Aug 6, 2009

hikersong said:
Montalban, almost all the points you made here you have made many times in this thread, and they have all been answered.

I can understand you want to accept highly selective applications of rules. What I don't understand though is on what basis you want to apply those rules selectively.

hikersong · Aug 6, 2009

Montalban said:
I can understand you want to accept highly selective applications of rules. What I don't understand though is on what basis you want to apply those rules selectively.

I haven't a clue what you are on about. As I said for now.

Montalban · Aug 6, 2009

hikersong said:
I haven't a clue what you are on about. As I said for now.

I'm happy to go over this again, if people don't understand.

People here have said that homosexuality is okay because
a) it doesn't harm anyone
and
b) it's consensual.

These are 'rules' being applied. Rules/reasons to apply to homosexuality to say that it is okay.

I then asked about other forms of sexual behaviour and whether these were okay, given we can apply the same rules to these other behaviours.

People have argued that these other behaviours are still 'wrong'. One said for example that necrophillia is wrong because it is illegal.

This then is another 'rule' to apply to a situation to show that it is okay.

However this rule (legality) also is not applied to other sexual situations.

All in all the rule of 'consent' is selectively applied.

The rule of 'legality' is selectively applied.

Why they are applied in some situations and not others has NOT yet been explained.

EnemyPartII added provisos that certain behaviours were 'harmful'. Why are they harmful? Apparently they just are

I apply a rule that is absolute in judging whether something is right or wrong; God's Will. If it is sinful, it is by its very definition harmful.

I have not been selective in this at all. I have been told that this is not a reason. It is. You can disagree with my reasoning, but that is not to say that it isn't a reason. Oddly enough having this reason is deemed a 'cop out', but the people who have been selective in their reasoning have left this thread.

If homosexuality could be prevented...

Walkin' and Singin'

Well-Known Member

Walkin' and Singin'

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Walkin' and Singin'

Walkin' and Singin'

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Walkin' and Singin'

Well-Known Member

Walkin' and Singin'

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency