Sexuality

[Blackguard_]

Both of those hurt other people. Can you think of one which does not?

ok. Should the cheater not resist the urge to cheat? the fornicators not resist the urge to fornicate? The partiers to get drunk? Not gamble away you rmoney (either on vegas or wall street)? There's lots urges for sell-harm. And there's lots of value systems where you can do purely moral harm to yourself, such as Stoicism where letting an externals (for example, not letting lust control you) controll you is bad in and of itself.

 

[Key]

A religious view on:

What exactly do you guys think is right, if you were gay or bi?
Should you follow your faith and claim and fight against your interests for what society claims is normal, or do you think it is alright to be gay or bisexual?

If I was Bi or Gay, I would treat it like I currently treat lying, working on the sabbath, and treating other people like dirt...

...."I'm working on it"....

God Bless

Key

 

[Adriac]

ok. Should the cheater not resist the urge to cheat? the fornicators not resist the urge to fornicate? The partiers to get drunk? Not gamble away you rmoney (either on vegas or wall street)?

What do you mean by "cheat"? The act of cheating at sport necessitates taking from another something which is not rightfully yours; cheating in a relationship, well, I shouldn't have to speak to that one.

I'm not sure what you mean by fornication (I especially doubt the validity of the word "fornicator"), but if you speak merely of sex, I think you'll have to demonstrate why that's bad. Most of my closest friends enjoy a good party— I don't see how drinking, when done responsibly (i.e., in a way so as not to hurt other people) can be called "bad".

A gambling addiction often entails others dependent on the gambler (most frequently wife and children), so again, that's harming others. If not, while I don't think it's good for the gambler, I don't consider it my place to tell him how to live.

I find your analogies lukewarm at best.

There's lots urges for sell-harm. espefcially in the young. SHould you not resist the urge to do a stupid skateboard/bike/ski/snowboard stunt? And there's lots of value systems where you can do purely moral harm to yourself, such as Stoicism where letting an external urge(say, lust at a pretty girl) controll you is bad in and of itself.

Children, like the mentally disabled, are considered less capable of making decisions determining the course of their own life. They're not really topical.

We're not discussing here what's good for a person. If you recall, the original quote was "They shouldn't have to fight against who they like" (emphasis mine). I do think psychopaths should be prevented from killing people, I think klepto- and pyromaniacs should be prevented from stealing and burning things that don't belong to them (respectively). Those affect other (non-consenting) individuals. But while I do think people shouldn't get smashed out of their gourd at a party, make stupid bets, or eat too much ice cream, I don't consider it my place to tell them how to act.

......hoping you don't take the easy way out.

Not sure what you mean by that, but I'll let it go.

 

[Blackguard_]

nevermind

 

[Adriac]

In that case, never mind as well

 

[TricksterWolf]

what do you say for all of the people who believe that people chose to be homosexual?

I think that's fine too. I don't see the harm in being true to what you enjoy, as long as you're not harming other people or yourself.

Trickster

 

[Blackguard_]

What do you mean by "cheat"? The act of cheating at sport necessitates taking from another something which is not rightfully yours; cheating in a relationship, well, I shouldn't have to speak to that one.

Cheating on a test steals from....(assuming you didn't steal the answer key or something)?

I'm not sure what you mean by fornication (I especially doubt the validity of the word "fornicator"),

Sex outside marriage. And yes, I'm aware its hip to think its at best an outdated concept..

but if you speak merely of sex, I think you'll have to demonstrate why that's bad.

Well, I don't. I'm not a Victorian.

Most of my closest friends enjoy a good party— I don't see how drinking, when done responsibly (i.e., in a way so as not to hurt other people) can be called "bad".

Never had a hangover have you? Drinking can casue harm long before you drink enough to fight people. Also, the more you drink the more stupid stuff you'll do, which might only hurt you.

Edit; And yes, nothing wrong with repsonsible drinking.

A gambling addiction often entails others dependent on the gambler (most frequently wife and children),so again, that's harming others

Becasue often is always?

. If not, while I don't think it's good for the gambler, I don't consider it my place to tell him how to live.

Irrelevent. His action is right or wrong whether you think you have the right to "tell him how to live" or not. Or are you admitting to ammorality?

I find your analogies lukewarm at best.

not suprisng.

Children, like the mentally disabled, are considered less capable of making decisions determining the course of their own life. They're not really topical.

LOL. Like a 16 year old is mentally incapable of basic choices and responsibilty. How on Earth do they get jobs and why are they allowed to drive? You're just arguing contract law here.
Edit: by "the young" I meant people more like your age, not like 7 year olds.

We're not discussing here what's good for a person. If you recall, the original quote was "They shouldn't have to fight against who they like" (emphasis mine).

Becasue you can't like whats bad for you? I'm not following you. Saying whats good and whats bad for people are not necessarily morally good and bad would seem to be conceding.

I do think psychopaths should be prevented from killing people, I think klepto- and pyromaniacs should be prevented from stealing and burning things that don't belong to them (respectively). Those affect other (non-consenting) individuals. But while I do think people shouldn't get smashed out of their gourd at a party, make stupid bets, or eat too much ice cream, I don't consider it my place to tell them how to act.

How about a moral system telling them how to act? People should act because its right, not becasue someone says so right? For example, if you are a Utilitarian would you not say someone violating that system was doing wrong even if you thought you didn't have a right to shove Utilitarianism down his throat or legislate against his action as long as no one was hurt? I think you may be confusing civil and moral ethics.

 

[TricksterWolf]

If I was Bi or Gay, I would treat it like I currently treat lying, working on the sabbath, and treating other people like dirt...

...."I'm working on it"....

God Bless

Key

I think I'd feel worse about lying and treating people like dirt than the other two, which seem of little personal consequence.

Trickster

 

[Adriac]

Cheating on a test steals from....(assuming you didn't steal the answer key or something)?

It devalues the certifications earned by those who actually had the knowledge or skills necessary to pass the test fairly. Come on, this isn't that hard.

Sex outside marriage. And yes, I'm aware its hip to think its at best an outdated concept..

Yeah, I'm not touching that.

Never had a hangover have you? Drinking can casue harm long before you drink enough to fight people. Also, the more you drink the more stupid stuff you'll do, which might only hurt you.

And eating too much ice cream will make me fat. So?

Becasue often is always?

Er, no, it's the first case of a two case clause. Pay attention.

Irrelevent. His action is right or wrong whether you think you have the right to "tell him how to live" or not. Or are you admitting to ammorality?

I'm certainly not amoral (not that I think that's something to "admit to"). I simply recognize the fact of moral relativism. Not that that's relevant. Telling him how to live is in fact the very matter of this discussion.

not suprisng.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

LOL. Like a 16 year old is mentally incapable of basic choices and responsibilty. How on Earth do they get jobs and why are they allowed to drive? You're just arguing contract law here.
Edit: by "the young" I meant people more like your age, not like 7 year olds.

From birth to the age of majority (and indeed beyond) you receive a greater number of rights in exchange for a greater number of responsibilities, (hopefully) roughly paralleling your level of executive functioning.

I don't really see how that's relevant, thought. As you said, we're not talking about kids.

Becasue you can't like whats bad for you? I'm not following you. Saying whats good and whats bad for people are not necessarily morally good and bad would seem to be conceding.

How about a moral system telling them how to act? People should act because its right, not becasue someone says so right? For example, if you are a Utilitarian would you not say someone violating that system was doing wrong even if you thought you didn't have a right to shove Utilitarianism down his throat or legislate against his action as long as no one was hurt? I think you may be confusing civil and moral ethics.

I really think you've lost sight of the point. We're not talking about what's good or bad for a person. We're not even talking about what's "wrong" or "right" for a person. We're talking about my (or more specifically, your) ability to influence the actions of others. Or more specifically still, why homosexuals having to go against their nature is not analogous to sociopaths having to.

 

[MoonlessNight]

When did this "anti-harmist" system of morality become the basis from which all topics in this forum must conform to? I'm sick of not being able to post anything without having someone shout out "oh but that is completely harmless" or "how dare you say that such and such a thing could be wrong and therefore try to run someone elses life?" I don't interrupt other posts on morality by saying "oh, but that distracts from virtue" or what not.

It's all rather pointless. If two people don't even agree on the definition of moral of course they'll never agree on whether certain things are moral.

It's probably why we have so many topics on homosexuality. They amount to "prove to me that homosexual acts are immoral, provided that sexual acts can't possibly be moral." Well okay then. And then you have all of these fuzzy analogies and definitions that are always taken the wrong way and... ugh. It's a quagmire.

I think that I would like these opinion threads though, that is if they didn't inevitably turn into the same debates as everywhere else.

 

[MoonlessNight]

But hell, I'll post my opinions anyway, even though someone will shoot them to shreds thinking that I care:

What exactly do you guys think is right, if you were gay or bi?
Should you follow your faith and claim and fight against your interests for what society claims is normal, or do you think it is alright to be gay or bisexual?

I think that gay people are called to chastity. I don't think that they should "fight against their interests" in the sense of trying to destroy their orientation, because I don't think that that is possible. But I also don't think that justifies sexual immorality.

what do you say for all of the people who believe that people chose to be homosexual?

No one says that people choose to be homosexual in the sense of a sudden concious choice, but they argue that it is something that a person develops (as opposed to being inherent in the person) and so something that can be changed over time. I don't fall into that camp though. It's not that I think that sexual orientation has to necessarily be fixed, but I haven't seen much to convince me that it is something that changes.

Sin is a part of everyday life, so by that, what else are we going to do but live with it? Jesus was put here to save us, and to forgive us, and which that he does, when he is asked for it.
Right?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. It seems like you are saying that there is a problem with homosexual sex (that it is sinful) but that we shouldn't worry about it because Jesus forgives everything? Well, He does, but I don't think that is a good reason to continue such behavior. We confess and turn away from sin towards God. But I am not sure that that is what you were saying. I think that one of the central aspects of Christianity is to move towards being a better person, with the help of God. Of course it is not really possible to become perfect, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move towards that direction.

 

[Konkurrent]

I wonder why it is that the original poster feels the need to hide behind not just one, but two "dummy" accounts to conceal their identity...

 

[*Starlight*]

Sexual orientation can't be moral or immoral... it's just a part of who you are... just like being left or right handed can't be moral or immoral. To determine the morality of anything, there should be a conscious choice involved, and there isn't. Just like a heterosexual person can't just wake up one day and decide to stop being attracted to the opposite gender and become a homosexual, a person who's homosexual can't suddenly decide to be heterosexual.

But even if there was a choice, homosexuality isn't any more harmful than heterosexuality, so I honestly don't see how it can be considered immoral.

 

[Ave Maria]

I do not believe that a person can choose their sexuality. However, I do believe that all people (including married people) are called to chastity. This certainly includes homosexuals who cannot be legitimately married.

chaste Pronunciation (chst)
adj. chast·er, chast·est
1. Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.
2.

a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.
b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.
c. Abstaining from all sexual intercourse; celibate.​

3. Pure or simple in design or style; austere.

I would follow the first definition.

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

 

[*Starlight*]

I do not believe that a person can choose their sexuality. However, I do believe that all people (including married people) are called to chastity. This certainly includes homosexuals who cannot be legitimately married.

If I understand that correctly, then one rule tells a homosexual couple that they can't have sex, as long as they aren't married, and another rule says that they can't get married because they are homosexual... For me, that reminds me a little of the "catch-22", and, in my opinion, it's really unfair...

 

[Ave Maria]

If I understand that correctly, then one rule tells a homosexual couple that they can't have sex, as long as they aren't married, and another rule says that they can't get married because they are homosexual... For me, that reminds me a little of the "catch-22", and, in my opinion, it's really unfair...

Basically homosexuals cannot have sex because homosexual practices are gravely sinful.

2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

Also, homosexuals cannot marry because marriage is only valid between a man and a woman regardless of what the law says.

 

[*Starlight*]

Basically homosexuals cannot have sex because homosexual practices are gravely sinful.

What makes you believe that they are sinful?

 

[lackinganame]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. It seems like you are saying that there is a problem with homosexual sex (that it is sinful) but that we shouldn't worry about it because Jesus forgives everything? Well, He does, but I don't think that is a good reason to continue such behavior. We confess and turn away from sin towards God. But I am not sure that that is what you were saying. I think that one of the central aspects of Christianity is to move towards being a better person, with the help of God. Of course it is not really possible to become perfect, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't move towards that direction.

I'm not saying it's right, but we don't have any other choice but to live with it, and there is nothing we can do to change the fact we are bi/gay, so we HAVE to live with it and hope Jesus forgives us, which he does.

I wonder why it is that the original poster feels the need to hide behind not just one, but two "dummy" accounts to conceal their identity...

I'm not, that in fact would be a seperate person.

 

[Key]

I think I'd feel worse about lying and treating people like dirt than the other two, which seem of little personal consequence.

Trickster

... "I'm working on it"...

God Bless

Key

p.s. This was suppooed to be a bit funny, "Im working on it" from the Optum Online Ads, Umm if I have to explain it, Nevermind.....

 

[TricksterWolf]

When did this "anti-harmist" system of morality become the basis from which all topics in this forum must conform to? I'm sick of not being able to post anything without having someone shout out "oh but that is completely harmless" or "how dare you say that such and such a thing could be wrong and therefore try to run someone elses life?" I don't interrupt other posts on morality by saying "oh, but that distracts from virtue" or what not.

It's all rather pointless. If two people don't even agree on the definition of moral of course they'll never agree on whether certain things are moral.

It's probably why we have so many topics on homosexuality. They amount to "prove to me that homosexual acts are immoral, provided that sexual acts can't possibly be moral." Well okay then. And then you have all of these fuzzy analogies and definitions that are always taken the wrong way and... ugh. It's a quagmire.

I think that I would like these opinion threads though, that is if they didn't inevitably turn into the same debates as everywhere else.

Most people debate based on logic. Even dogmatic Christians tend to use facts to back up what they believe. It's not particularly logical to say that something is morally wrong if it isn't harming anybody. Thus, it's very difficult to defend the "homosexuality is wrong" argument without resorting to scripture alone (or some other illogical appeal to authority).

The reason there are so many of these threads? Usually (but not always) it seems they are created by people who believe homosexuality is wrong, and they're looking for a verbal fight. I would prefer fewer threads on "teh ghey mennass", but I won't back down from posting a thought if I have it, so I've ended up in a few of them.

And yes, all of morality is a quagmire.

Trickster