It occurred to me that the bulk of the arguments against homosexuality (as a basic human right at the least) seem to centre around the Bible, the Qu'ran, other religious texts, etcetera.
How-ever, Christianity, Islam, (etcetera) and their subsidiaries are each only one denomination, and I don't personally believe the views of one group of people should be used in deciding a question that applies to all of humanity.
(The same applying, conversely, to Buddhist teachings which embrace all sexualities).
And I'm curious as to what non-religious, universally applicable, ideas there might be both for and against homosexuality. Not neccessarily from science, but also from moralistic values and philosophical reasoning that trancend relgious texts.
So;
putting all religion aside, is it wrong to be gay?
(There are many arguments I've only seen backed by religious text. One example, perhaps, that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that is designed to produce children)
NOTE: religion is not allowed in this discussion, and any points as per the following will not be tolerated:
- "But... you can't discuss morality without God!"
- "But... God is the source of morality!"
- "In my religious faith it is wrong because..."
- "In my religious beliefs it is okay because..."
- "Etc..."
Don't try and convince us to include religion in this discussion, others have tried, and failed. It's beside the point, and consitutes as spam. One is entitled to their religious beliefs, but we are not looking for them here - we challenge people to find more universal truths to base their judgements on.
If a topic is posted solely on relgious beliefs, please simply ignore it, to keep on topic. (As even I'm guilty of having gone off on the tangent 
)
Last edited by blackheart on Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:36 am; edited 3 times in total @ bikerman
What is your opinion or synopsis of the articles?
I'm working on reading, understanding and processing them, but let's face it - not everyone is going to bother, especially if they have no idea what they are reading or why before they begin.
What an amazingly well-written & intelligent question, blackheart! 
(Don't be surprised if your original post quickly degrades into "gay is wrong... just because." - ANY question involving homosexuality always seems to.)
I've never understood why anyone would consider a person's genetically predispositioned sexual identity/preferences to be wrong or right.
I believe one of the reasons why religion is often used as the "end-all" to any argument about the moral implications of homosexuality is because... who can possibly argue with a power/being that is supposedly responsible for the whole of human existence, yet has never been irrefutably shown to exist?
I find it amusing when I hear people say that homosexuality is "offensive to god".
The world is much safer, knowing that those individuals are capable of interpreting the personal preferences of an all-knowing deity that may or may not even exist. 
Basically you can divide modern philosophical treatment into 2 camps : the Natural Law camp and the Queer Theory camp.
Natural Law
The view has it's origins in Plato's Dialogues particularly 'Law'. The basic posit is that there are certain fixed laws regarding human conduct and that these are 'natural'. Aquinas later developed this theme and added notions of morality to reconcile the Platonic idea with Christianity. The modern formulation of the theory tends to centre around
a) the generative function (perverted faculty argument). This posits that any sexual act which frustrates the reproductive function is therefore unnatural.
b) human good. The argument here is that marriage is a human good and that because of this the only 'good' expressions of sexuality must occur within the constraints of marriage.
Queer Theory
This view is based around the idea that sexuality is a social construct rather than a natural phenomenon.
My own view is closer to Queer Theory than Natural Law. There are many weaknesses in the Natural Law theory, the most important, IMHO, being that it requires reproduction to be identified as the most important human good for it's validity, since otherwise it would not be able to distinguish between same-sex marriage and different sex marriage.
I do believe that people are born with a tendency as to which sex they are attracted to, how-ever also agree that in the scheme of things each member of the species is supposed to/should be attracted to the opposite sex.
In this, I'm willing to acknowledge that homosexuality is out of the ordinary, and not supposed to happen, how-ever do not acknowledge that it is unnatural or a matter of upbringing.
Unatural should not mean that which occurs in the minority, it is in fact defined as "contrary to the laws or course of nature". As in the course of nature some people are born homosexual, and thereby in natural law some people will be born homosexual, homosexuality cannot be classed as unnatural.
And even if you could twist a definition via the generative function to class it as unnatural, then by what reasoning does unnatural mean bad? The houses we live in are unnatural, the clothes we wear are unnatural, bread is quite technically unnatural - and as yes people are not condemned for the owenership or consumption of such things.
Hence I would lean toward the natural law, yet struggle to see the jump from homosexuals being unnatural to a contradiction of the human good. I also fail to see how a homo-sexual marriage would not be inclusive of relationships that involve "good" expressions of sexuality.
By what do we define "good" sexuality, and by what do we determine that it must be generative to become valid?
Since, by and large, sexuality is hard wired by our genetic environment, people who are practicing homosexuals are acting in accordance with their nature, rather than in opposition to it. I think it's far more unnatural to force someone who is wired to feel love and attraction towards a particular sex or have a particular sexual identity, when their genetic makeup suggests otherwise. If social conditions forced me into relationships with men, I'd feel trapped and alienated.
Also, our species is over-reproducing as it is. The argument that acting against reproduction is wrong is a very weak one in this day and age. Perhaps there was a time in human history when populations were so fragile that fecundity was important, but that day has passed. Now, avoiding reproduction is a very responsible choice, and people entering into relationships where reproduction is not necessarily part of the equation may be doing a good thing for the world. That said, homosexuals can and do reproduce, if not with eachother, through sperm or egg donors.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| Since, by and large, sexuality is hard wired by our genetic environment, people who are practicing homosexuals are acting in accordance with their nature, rather than in opposition to it. I think it's far more unnatural to force someone who is wired to feel love and attraction towards a particular sex or have a particular sexual identity, when their genetic makeup suggests otherwise. If social conditions forced me into relationships with men, I'd feel trapped and alienated. |
This is debatable. There seems to be some genetic component to sexuality but how important and decisive that is we do not really know. My own guess is that it is a combination of genetic predisposition and environment.
I always found the 'Natural Law' argument to be weak - it relies on predefined social constructs (such as marriage) and subjective definitions of morality for it's validity. The very word 'natural' has always struck me as a fairly meaningless term since it requires a subjective judgement about what is 'natural' and what is not. We know that homosexuality is fairly widespread in the animal kingdom - there seems to be a correlation between 'sociality' and homosexuality in that regard. According to the Natural Law argument all such behaviour must itself be un-natural which begs the question who defines what is and is not natural? The argument that reproduction is the natural function of sex is also suspect since that would mean that infertile individuals should abstain from sex and it completely disregards other functions such as social bonding (the Bonobo chimps being a case here) and individual pleasure giving/receiving.Hi, my vision:
1. the soul has no gender - therefore it can't be wrong to be gay!
2. Love is just as much hetero as to gay!
Inclusive of all degrees to which everyone believes homosexuality to be determined by inherent/biological factors (nature) or by developmental/social factors (nurture), do we apply the same logic as to why people are born heterosexual?
Are we to treat the sexualities as equally valid outcomes (although not equally prevelant), or that one has more merit than the other?
Is a man who knows he is attracted to men any further subject to the need to evaluate his sexuality than a man who knows he is attracted to women?
Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice?
If you can "choose" to be gay, then does that not mean the vast majority of the world is "choosing" to be straight?
Etc, etc.
I made a mistake earlier. While there is some reason to believe homosexuality may be weakly heritable, there also hypotheses positing that the prenatal environment influences development of sexual preference and sex trait expression. Of course, if these permanent changes are set by methylation of DNA, I'm not strictly wrong in saying that they are genetic!
| blackheart wrote: |
| Inclusive of all degrees to which everyone believes homosexuality to be determined by inherent/biological factors (nature) or by developmental/social factors (nurture), do we apply the same logic as to why people are born heterosexual? |
Yes, the hormones are needed by everyone, straight or gay. I was told once that a communication must occur between the fetus and the mother for gender development to occur. The fetus reports it's gender, and the mother responds by producing appropriate hormones to guide the development of the fetus. Sex trait development, gender identity development, and sexual preference development may be mediated by this process, for gays and straights alike.
| Quote: |
| Are we to treat the sexualities as equally valid outcomes (although not equally prevelant), or that one has more merit than the other? |
Scientifically, there is no reason to have emotional bias towards either condition, and personally I feel that we should treat them equally as well.
| Quote: |
| Is a man who knows he is attracted to men any further subject to the need to evaluate his sexuality than a man who knows he is attracted to women? |
Probably, for social reasons, this will always be the case. I doubt that the gay:straight ratio will be increasing any time soon. The fact is, homosexual relationships will always be less common, and will therefore always be going against the social norm. As to whether or not this form of going against the norm can become accepted, I believe that it can.
| Quote: |
| Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice? |
I'm sure there are many reasons, but I think that one of the most important is simply that there are more heterosexuals. There are obviously lots of old-fashioned reasons, too.
| Quote: |
| If you can "choose" to be gay, then does that not mean the vast majority of the world is "choosing" to be straight? |
I hope scientists are able to dispel the notion that gay-ness is a choice people make. I think it's pretty obvious that homosexuals feel just as heterosexuals do: that their sexual preference is an innate part of their being. The only real difference is that homosexuals usually have to think about it a little bit more, and they do have a courageous decision to make: to come out of the closet. I hope some day that decision is one that won't have to be made -- people will feel comfortable enough that no explanations are necessary. | blackheart wrote: |
| Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice? |
Are you freakin kidding me? Isnt that obvious? Just look at what males and females look like!? Just look at the reproduction process!?! | LimpFish wrote: |
| blackheart wrote: | | Why is heterosexuality generally viewed as the standard, and then homosexuality the choice? |
Are you freakin kidding me? Isnt that obvious? Just look at what males and females look like!? Just look at the reproduction process!?! |
You seem to be assuming that reproduction is always positive, it's not, we're overpopulated. The world could probably benefit from having more gay or asexual people, it'd bring the population down and thus actually might increase the species' chance of continuing long-term.
Unless you believe in creation (and if we're putting all religion aside as the OP suggests, that's irrelevant), physical gender differences don't mean anything in regards to some intention or purpose, but since they happen to be good at creating others, we evolved that way. Homosexuality isn't against any specific function that genitals are supposed to have, it's just using them in ways other than most do. Heterosexuals are by far the majority, so IMHO that's why it's considered the norm, which is reinforced by centuries of religion and tradition.
As long as no one's being sexually assaulted and no children are involved, I don't have any problem with any sexual orientation.Men is suppoused to match women. Humans are supposed not to kill each other. Boys are suposed to have a father and a mother. People is supposed to take care of nature. All these supposings are not racionally explained. The problem is that the world is so blind with the deceivings of materialism and galobalism and a lot other 'isms' the can not see the spiritual nature of these today most flagelated common beliefs. Without God everything is permited. If you, the reader, dont feel that it is right to go out to the street to kill humans, is because you are a creation of God and laws and rules of humanity stem from this spiritual nature. You will never found a rational proof or demonstration that it is wrong to polute earth with CO2. Nor you will find that it is wrong or right to be gay. Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. At this point you might have realized that I am a Christian. I am not against a person who is gay, but know he/she is wrong. Outside this spiritual reality you will be confused until the day of your death, as the mind can not tell what is right or wrong in the spiritual field.
The fool says in his heart,
"There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
Psalm 14:1
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Without God everything is permited. If you, the reader, dont feel that it is right to go out to the street to kill humans, is because you are a creation of God and laws and rules of humanity stem from this spiritual nature. |
I did ask that people refrain from bringing religion (and thereby religious beliefs) into this discussion , how-ever in response to your post.
I don't believe someone has to have faith in a god to have a sense of morality. With or without faith, people would be able to work out that adultery, murder, theft, abuse, pollution, etcetera are immoral, incorect and not the best course of action.
We act both through compassion and on the basis of the reciprocity principle, with or without the aid of any spirituality. I don't believe there's a god, but I'm not a bad person. Civilisations have prospered without a belief in the Christian God, groups of people have lived harmoniously without any belief in any god.
I.e. missionaries do do good in the communities they aid, how-ever I know organisations and individuals who do the same work with communities in the developped world, but still allow them to keep their original faith and belief system which they have held for centuries.
Faith is irrelevent, goodness is inherent in the person.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
You will never found a rational proof or demonstration that it is wrong to polute earth with CO2.
|
On the contrary, it is science which has the majority share in the push to reduce greenhouse emissions. In fact, we went through all of history up until the last century without a care int he world for CO2 emissions, and christianity is thousands of years old.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Nor you will find that it is wrong or right to be gay. Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. At this point you might have realized that I am a Christian. I am not against a person who is gay, but know he/she is wrong. |
This is the reason I created this dicussion sans religion - you have no personal, scientific or philosophical justification as to why you believe homosexuality is wrong, just that your interpretation of your religious text dictates that it is wrong.
Not everyone has faith in Christianity, and as such an argument based on the Bible cannot be used in determining the answer as to the morality of homosexuality on a universal level.
If you would like to continue discussing your religious views on homosexuality, please continue to do so here (The Church and Homosexuality) or even here (an open-ended discussion about homosexuality). | Quote: |
| I did ask that people refrain from bringing religion (and thereby religious beliefs) into this discussion |
That's ok, but we are in a Philosophy AND Religion forum. I brought "religion" here because without it a deep discussion of the subjet would go to a dead end.
| Quote: |
| With or without faith, people would be able to work out that adultery, murder, theft, abuse, pollution, etcetera are immoral, incorect and not the best course of action.We act both through compassion and on the basis of the reciprocity principle, with or without the aid of any spirituality. |
Can you rationally explain compassion? if that is the case, please do it. (Not a single philosopher or scientist in the history of human kind was able to do it)
| Quote: |
| I don't believe there's a god, but I'm not a bad person. |
Of course you are not a bad person, I didnt say that and no one should. I'm a christian and believe in god, but I'm not a bad person too. I dont understand why you bring this to the discussion, as if there was a conection between being good or bad and believing. We are talking about what is right and what is wrong. I could be a missionarie (like you said) doing good in the communities and at the same time smoke sixty cigarettes a day. Smoking dont make me a bad person, but it is wrong. And the problem is: why is wrong smoking so much? why is wrong to hurt your own body? Rationally we are an aglomerate of molecules that "self" organise. Our thoughts are not more than electrical imulses in our brains, then what is the problem if I smoke till death? why is wrong to pollute the atmosphere? we are molecules electrons and protons, were is right and wrong?
| Quote: |
Civilisations have prospered without a belief in the Christian God, groups of people have lived harmoniously without any belief in any god.
|
You are talking about "prosperity" in the technological sense. We have computers now and very nice cars and phones and big prosperous economies, driven by very unhappy and lonely people who dont know if it is right or not to abandon your wife and children to go with another woman and things like that. Yes we are very prosperous and unhappy at the same time.
| Quote: |
| On the contrary, it is science which has the majority share in the push to reduce greenhouse emissions. In fact, we went through all of history up until the last century without a care int he world for CO2 emissions, and christianity is thousands of years old. |
Science explains how CO2 produce greenhouse effect and things like that, but science can not decide if it is right or wrong to pollute.[/quote]Blackheart,
I believe you are right to leave God out of the arguement of whether or not homosexuality is "wrong". Mainly because I believe that God wouldn't punish homosexuality because it's just a romantic love shared between two people, and sex is an expression of that love. I really don't think God would punish someone for loving another person just because they're of the same sex. But, like you asked, I will set religion aside, even though my beliefe supports homosexuality.
All in all, there's not a damn thing wrong with it. Just because the majority are heterosexual, that doesn't make homosexuals "wrong" or "unatrual". Hell, I've seen my two male cats go at it. Animals have sex by instinct, so apparently it's not that unatural. Most claim that it is because it doesn't have any outcome as far as reproduction goes. So what? With our current population rate of the Earth, that should be considered a good thing. And no one seems to care when a married heterosexual couple,that does not have kids, chooses to use a condom because they don't want kids. I don't see anyone complaining about that.
As far as the human race goes, sex isn't just meant for reproduction. It's meant as an expression of love, pleasure, AND reproduction (not nessicarily all at the same time). Two males or females should be allowed to express love to each other as well as having sexual gradification. If you're a homosexual man, and you don't find women attractive, you won't find any sexual gradification when you have sex with another woman... Or if you're a man/woman that falls in love with someone of the same sex, you really can't help that either, now can you? You truely cannot help what you like or who you fall in love with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
| Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. |
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. I don't think it's a question of 'right' or 'wrong' - more one of statistical probability.
In nature - if homosexuality is a result of genetics - it would, of course, be very quickly all but eliminated. Few animals are homosexual. Those that are are, statistically, abnormal because they fall outside the range of normal behaviour for their species.
We're, probably, the only species that can actively choose whether to accept or reject homosexuality either as individuals or as part of our wider society. We're also, probably, the only species that can introduce our offspring to homosexuality as part of raising and educating them. They then have the free will to follow that path if they so choose.
So, I would see homosexuality as statistically abnormal but, as a species with free will, neither right nor wrong.
It's tempting to say that any trait that results in unsucessful reproduction would be quickly eliminated from the gene pool. However, there are many reasons why this is not necessarily the case.
One of these is gene silencing - a faulty gene may be silenced by certain environmental, epigenetic, or genetic conditions. As long as some individuals aren't expressing the deleterious gene due to silencing, it will remain in the population.
Another is that expression penetrance is not always 100%. Gene silencing drops penetrance, but so can random chance. Deleterious genes with <100% penetrance will be maintained in large interbreeding populations.
Some traits are quantitatitve: over- or under-expression is deleterious, but an expression optimum is beneficial. Many genes contribute to quantitative traits and are maintained in the gene pool, but some combinations of those genes are deleterious. Sexual orientation may be controlled by one or more quantitative traits.
Sometimes a gene has multiple functions. An allele that is deleterious in one sense may be profoundly beneficial in some other way. Particularly if the traits are quantitiative, this can maintain deleterious traits at high levels in a population.
The point of it is, there are reasons to believe that homosexuality is natural and can occur in nature. In fact, homosexuality is prevalent in nature, and some have hypothesized that is is beneficial in certain populations.
Lastly, homosexuality may not be deleterious to an individual's reproductive success. In the case of humans, social pressures may sustain genes that contribute to homosexuality, by supressing expression of homosexuality (or by producing an age-related penetrance). | Quote: |
| Quote: | | Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. |
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a
SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with
him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their
head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad
too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual
acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong. |
laurenrox, here is whot Bible says in the book of Romans chapter one:
25 -They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served created things rather
than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26-Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural ones.
27-In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for
one another. Men committed indecent acts with other
men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
The italics are mine and you can see that Bible says that homosexuality is a perversion, as I said before.
I think that if you all want to discuss homosexuaity from a statistical-scientific-evolutive point of view (non religious or philosophic) you should post in the Science AND nature forum. This is the first time I post in the philosophy and religion forum and am a little disappointed as long as no one want to talk about religion not even philosophy.
[/quote] | laurenrox wrote: |
| Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say. |
Um, nooooooo. It does not. It says that homosexual acts may be a SIGN of someone who is sinful. And to quote Indi (which is something I honestly agree with him on, believe it or not), "Getting drunk is bad. People sometimes put lamp shades on their head when they're drunk. That doesn't mean that putting a lamp shade on your head is bad too." Apply the same logic. Sin is wrong. Sometimes those who sin carry out homosexual acts. That doesn't mean that homosexuality is wrong.[/quote]
How many times do I and others have to point oout all the parts of the bible that say bad things?
Lev.18:22
| Quote: |
| Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. |
Lev.20:13
| Quote: |
| If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. |
And ofcorce what ptolomeo pointed out.
Why is it that theists don't read the bible (or what ever there holy book is)
With out religion, no homosexuality is not wrong.For myself homosexuality is wrong and now why? Well it is definately unnatural, there is a natural symmetry to a man and a woman, both compliment each other, in body and in mind. Now when you put 2 women together you have an unbalanced or unnatural union. You can look at the biology and even the psychological make-up of each they just don't match.
I am not a religous man, nor am i close minded, yet I will vigorously campaign against gay marriage and gay unions. Marriage is reserved for those wanting to begin a family and is a union with "creating a family" as its foundation. Which in any gay union is impossible.
But to make one thing clear "I do not hate gays" however if we put every gay person on an island together where all they could be was "gay" then how long would they last? remember they can only be "gay".
This is one of the things that annoys me about gays, they want to be gay, yet want children, "well your gay, you cant have children" you made the choice now you can live with it, you can't have your cake and eat it too, that would make you hypocritical.
| khunia wrote: |
| This is one of the things that annoys me about gays, they want to be gay, yet want children, "well your gay, you cant have children" you made the choice now you can live with it, you can't have your cake and eat it too, that would make you hypocritical. |
A) What makes you so sure it's a choice?
B) Adoption"its not natural" So what? Who cares? Why care? Thats a pathetic argument. Were humans! Unnatural is our way. Just look at the world around us. We are supposed to be hunter/gatherers and we are nothing like that. We are unnatural creators.
The "unnatural" argument is nothing more than a very week justification for homophobia.
| khunia wrote: |
| I am not a religous man, nor am i close minded, yet I will vigorously campaign against gay marriage and gay unions. Marriage is reserved for those wanting to begin a family and is a union with "creating a family" as its foundation. Which in any gay union is impossible. |
Good man! It's good to see someone who has thought this through without resorting to religion.
So you have determined that marriage is reserved for those who want to raise children. Presumably you also mean that it is only reserved for those who want to have children (together) and raise them - otherwise it would still be ok for gays to marry, because, after all, they're perfectly capable of raising children even if they can't conceive them.
So obviously, marriage is only reserved for those who are going to have children together and raise them. Excellent.
Then you obviously also agree with my proposal to ban all marriages between a man and a woman who cannot bear children. i mean, if a homosexual couple cannot be allowed to marry because they cannot have children together, then a sterile heterosexual couple should not be allowed to marry either. Right? "So Bob and Mary, you're high school sweethearts who have been in love for over a decade... everyone thinks you're a beautiful couple... and you both complete each other and make each other so happy... i don't see any objection to your marriage, so i'll just sign your marriage license approval right n- oh! wait a minute! Mary, you had a horrible illness when you were young that ruined your ovaries and now you can't bear children? Oh, i'm sorry, that means you can't get married. Too bad."
You also obviously agree that two people who get married but do not have children are abusing the system. i mean, they're getting all those perks of marriage, but are basically acting like a couple of homosexuals, right? i mean, they're not making any children, and marriage is reserved to those who want to begin a family. What do you think we should do with them? Should we just take away their marriage license and fine them for fraud, or do you think we should also jail them for not breeding?
What are your thoughts?
| khunia wrote: |
| This is one of the things that annoys me about gays, they want to be gay, yet want children, "well your gay, you cant have children" you made the choice now you can live with it, you can't have your cake and eat it too, that would make you hypocritical. |
Actually, recent evidence (the evidence is only, oh, a couple thousand years old), shows that it is possible for gay people to have children... they just can't have children with their partner. Those wily queers have figured out a number of ways to cheat nature! Apparently, what they do is... adopt! Wow. i mean, who would have thought of a gay person adopting someone else's unwanted child? Crafty! Know what else they do? They use a new-fangled technology called "artificial insemination". It lets people have children without having to involve themselves with anyone else. Amazing.
But that's not all! Those sneaky people have figured out that you don't actually need a valid marriage license to get pregnant from someone - or to get someone pregnant. Did you know that? It blew my mind, i tell you, but it's true. You can actually have a baby without marrying someone. And not only that, you don't even need to love them, or even really like them. A gay person can just hire someone whose genes they find to be a suitable match with theirs, then all they have to do is just close their eyes and think of something happy for a couple minutes while the person they hired does their thing, and whammo, nine months later the gay person has a baby! Amazing, isn't it? And you know what's really weird about it? Apparently, animals are copying gay people! O.O Because many kinds of animals have babies without ever getting married! Really! Most of them don't form any kind of attachment with the parent at all! Isn't that amazing?!?! Somehow, gay people even got wild animals to act unnaturally!
Blows your mind. | ptolomeo wrote: |
That's ok, but we are in a Philosophy AND Religion forum. I brought "religion" here because without it a deep discussion of the subjet would go to a dead end.
|
That the forum is called "Philosophy and Religion" does not mean that every thread must relate to both categories. The reason the two are combined is that they do share some commonalities, and similar topics are merged into one forum to reduce the number of forums.
Not everything relgious is philosophical, not everything philosophical must relate back to relgion.
Also, in response to your later post, the reason this thread is not under "science and nature" is that I am not looking for soley scientific/natural arguments either for or against, but also for reasoning etcetera beyond those contained within relgions.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Can you rationally explain compassion? if that is the case, please do it. (Not a single philosopher or scientist in the history of human kind was able to do it) |
Just because something cannot be rationally explained (down to the minutist detail) does not mean that it must have an answer only sourcable to a divine enitity. To an extent, compassion and love can be psychologically and biologically explained, through instincts and chemicals (hormones) - although I'm not learned enough in the sciences to know the theory off by heart.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
Of course you are not a bad person, I didnt say that and no one should. I'm a christian and believe in god, but I'm not a bad person too. I dont understand why you bring this to the discussion, as if there was a conection between being good or bad and believing. |
You stated that:
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Without God everything is permited. If you, the reader, dont feel that it is right to go out to the street to kill humans, is because you are a creation of God and laws and rules of humanity stem from this spiritual nature. |
And I responded in kind that I am not relgious, do not believe in a divine entity, how-ever am not a bad person. I don't feel that it would be right to go out into the street and kill someone, how-ever to me that stems back to nothing even remotely spiritual.
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| You are talking about "prosperity" in the technological sense. We have computers now and very nice cars and phones and big prosperous economies, driven by very unhappy and lonely people who dont know if it is right or not to abandon your wife and children to go with another woman and things like that. Yes we are very prosperous and unhappy at the same time. |
No, I'm talking about emotional, physical and communal prosperity - in fact for the most part refering back to small African tribes that have little to no resemblence of what we would call technology.
Religion is not neccessary to run a successful society, morals are. That religion is largely based on moralistic principles, does not mean that morals cannot exist without relgion. The have, can and will continue to exist without a need for faith, and for nothing more than those reciprocity based principles based in all man kind.[/quote]
| ptolomeo wrote: |
| Science explains how CO2 produce greenhouse effect and things like that, but science can not decide if it is right or wrong to pollute. |
This is true, one of my favourite quotes is one by Albert Einstein, that science can tell us what is, but not what should be (or something to similar wording).
How-ever religion is not required to figure out that pumping toxins, chemicals, etc into the atmosphere (that will eventually damage the earth we live on) is a bad thing. Common sense is enough. The need to protect each other is enough. A half-educated mind is enough.
I don't disagree with the merits or existence of religion, how-ever I created this thread to determine and/or develop an unbiased and universal consensus on the merit or existence of homosexuality.
This thread is not simple for agnostics and atheists, but people from all religions can join in. No religion is to be dicussed as evidence from one religion will not neccessarily be valid in the next etcetera.
I gave you links of threads you can dicuss homosexuality in with as much reference to your religious beliefs as you like. Please either refrain from discussing your religiously based arguments on sexuality here, or refrain from posting at all.
Such posts are, in fact, off topic and consitute as spam.[/i] | Quote: |
laurenrox, here is whot Bible says in the book of Romans chapter one:
25 -They exchanged the truth of God for a lie,
and worshiped and served created things rather
than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26-Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations
for unnatural ones.
27-In the same way the men also abandoned natural
relations with women and were inflamed with lust for
one another. Men committed indecent acts with other
men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
|
A couple of things here. First off, I don't believe half of what the Bible says. Yes, it's true, you can believe in God without believing in the Bible. Imagine that! Don't get me wrong, I believe that a few things in the Bible can be used somewhat for historical accuracy, but let's face it, the Bible is a bunch of crap. It was written by corrupted men in power trying to keep people under their control. Easy to do when you frighten people with eternal damnation. But like I said, I believe in God, not the Bible.
Second, you missed a couple of words.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Read that carefully.
And again I will establish that I personally believe that the Bible is a bunch of BS... but for those of you that don't believe that, then read that little bit I quoted from it. If you don't understand what I'm getting at, then it's probably best.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
And ofcorce what ptolomeo pointed out.
Why is it that theists don't read the bible (or what ever there holy book is)
With out religion, no homosexuality is not wrong. |
First off, let me just clear up that I'm not the one that typed "Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say." That was a quote in one of my messages that I was responding to.
Second, I've already stated that I believe in God, not the Bible. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I have to believe in any kind of scripture that people CLAIM to be the work of God.
Third, the only reason I read the Bible is for reference, and the only reference I found at the time on homosexuality was when the Pope made an address to a crowd.
Finally, there are religions or beliefes (such as my own) that allow for homosexuality AND belief in God. This is what upsets me about you, Conspirator. You ASSUME that I follow the mainstream Christian beliefe, when infact, I do not.
NOW LET'S REMOVE THE TOPIC OF GOD FROM THIS DISCUSSION AS BLACKHEART REQUESTED...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indi,
You get a cookie for the most sarcasm I've ever seen in one post. Lol. At least I hope it was sarcasm... MODERATION NOTE
Stop including religion now.
@Bikerman: I changed your second URL to a tinyurl-version as it didn't do any good to the forum lay-out. This seems to be a good time to intrudes animal homosexuality into the conversation.
Homosexuality is not confined to human, examples have been found in animals as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RlTAyNI8WE&NR=1 (I didn't seach Youtube, it came up in a google search)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php?page=all&p=y
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061024_gay-animals.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm
| laurenrox wrote: |
| Quote: | And ofcorce what ptolomeo pointed out.
Why is it that theists don't read the bible (or what ever there holy book is)
With out religion, no homosexuality is not wrong. |
First off, let me just clear up that I'm not the one that typed "Being gay is a perversion, thats what Bible say." That was a quote in one of my messages that I was responding to.
Second, I've already stated that I believe in God, not the Bible. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean I have to believe in any kind of scripture that people CLAIM to be the work of God.
Third, the only reason I read the Bible is for reference, and the only reference I found at the time on homosexuality was when the Pope made an address to a crowd.
Finally, there are religions or beliefes (such as my own) that allow for homosexuality AND belief in God. This is what upsets me about you, Conspirator. You ASSUME that I follow the mainstream Christian beliefe, when infact, I do not. |
I was not replying to you. We in fact were saying the same thing. If you had read my post you would have seen that.
Adition: Heres a question for those like khunia who use (the pathetic) "its unnatural" argument. How dose that make it wrong? How is unnatural wrong? | The Conspirator wrote: |
| Adition: Heres a question for those like khunia who use (the pathetic) "its unnatural" argument. How dose that make it wrong? How is unnatural wrong? |
How about this one: how is "unnatural" even possible? Humans are biological organisms after all. There is no natural law that we are exempt from -- we're just master manipulators of our environment. | laurenrox wrote: |
| You get a cookie for the most sarcasm I've ever seen in one post. Lol. At least I hope it was sarcasm... |
Sarcasm? Oh goodness no! i think defining marriage to be for the purpose of having/raising children is a splendid idea! i mean, if there are any other reasons for marriage - for example, the fact that the partners love each other very much, or that they want to make a commitment to support each other into old age, or that they want social recognition and legal protection/benefits for their union - then those reasons could apply to homosexuals, too, and thus we would have to allow them to marry. But we don't want that, do we? So we have to make sure that the only reasons to allow marriage are those that exclude homosexuals... therefore, it has to be defined in terms of the one thing that heterosexual couples can do that homosexuals cannot - which is reproduce together.
Why it makes perfect sense! That way we can reserve marriage for heterosexuals... marriage would become a government-approved, dual-person-powered, baby-making machine, and nothing more - a social construct that exists solely for the purpose of having fertile heterosexual men and fertile heterosexual women copulate to produce babies... hopefully fertile, heterosexual babies, of course.
We can then reserve something like "civil unions" for homosexuals... which would be government-approved, culturally-sanctioned, official recognition of a social commitment between two people. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? That way, if two people, homosexual or not, decide they want to form a union that is legally protected and officially recognized, they can do so without tarnishing the sacred, baby-producing tradition of marriage.
But of course, we have to be consistent. If the only purpose of marriage is to be baby-production, then we have to ensure that it is not abused. It would be discrimination if we allowed heterosexual couples to marry when they cannot or will not produce children... after all, aside from the sexes of the participants, what is the difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple except that the former have the capability of producing children while the latter do not? And we can't discriminate by sex, now can we? (i mean, it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals, but we can't discriminate by sex, after all. That's just wrong.) Therefore, any couple that cannot or will not produce children should not be allowed to marry. Thankfully, that excludes all homosexuals. Unfortunately, it includes any sterile heterosexuals, whether they're sterile by choice or not. Small price to pay for protecting the sacred tradition of marriage though, right?
Why, i even have a few more proposals to add!
Since marriage is solely for the purpose of having and raising children, then once those functions are complete there is no more need for the marriage, and it should be dissolved. So... a couple that has been married for 40 years, had a dozen or so children, raised them all, and have seen them all left the nest as adults... well, their marriage license has expired. Because they can no longer produce children or raise the children they produced. The idea of "the grandparents" is nice... but it looks like we'll have to relegate them to history's scrapyard. They can no longer make children, and they have no more children that they need to raise. If we allow them the concession of maintaining their marriage simply to support each other in old age... well, then we would have to allow that to homosexuals, too, and we don't want that. If your grandparents want to remain together, they can always get a civil union.
There is also the issue of what to do with married couples without children. Obviously ones that refuse to breed will have to be fined or jailed, but what about those that tried and failed? There will have to be a statute of limitations on marriage... if you fail to produce a baby within one year, the marriage must be dissolved. Those that wish to remain together without producing children... well they can always get a civil union.
Of course, there is also another situation to consider:
Government representative: Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes?
Government representative: Hi, i'm with the marriage licensing board. i'm here to talk to you about your marriage license.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Is this really necessary right now? We've had a family tragedy-
Government representative: Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, we are aware of that. Your young daughter recently died in a horrible, tragic accident, is that right?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, it is.
Government representative: My condolences on your loss. She was your only child, was she not?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, yes she was.
Government representative: My sympathies. However, we have a situation. You see, you are now childless, which means your marriage is illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: What? You've got to be kidding me. We just lost our daughter!
Government representative: Yes, yes, as i said, if i had a heart, it would be in pieces now. However, the situation remains. If you wish to remain married, you will have to begin the process of producing another child.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: WHAT!?!? We just lost our only daughter-!
Government representative: Yes, and she will have to be replaced.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: You have got to be kidding.
Government representative: i work with the government, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. i assure you, i am incapable of "kidding". We are not entirely unsympathetic to your loss, which is why we allow you a grace period of a few months before you have to start getting busy again. But if you are not pregnant by one year's time from the date of the death of your child, your marriage will have to be declared illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Wha-? We just-! Wha-?
Government representative: i understand that you wish to remain together to console each other over your loss. However, marriage is for the purpose of producing children - it's not about two people who love each other making a commitment to stand by each other. If you wish to maintain a recognized committed relationship with all the legal benefits and privileges entitled thereto, i recommend a civil union. Have a nice day.and some Brits still say that Americans don't do irony 
That was almost Swiftian...nice one. Heres a good interview, the interview is not on this topic but is relevant too it. Those who still cling to the false idea that people are not born gay pleas listen to it. being a gay is not wrong...
but involving with a same gender person sexually is wrong...
i mean even if you think you're a gay and does nothing immoral or things like that... there's nothing wrong with it... just don't do immoral things...
jah blez! | isyan wrote: |
being a gay is not wrong...
but involving with a same gender person sexually is wrong...
i mean even if you think you're a gay and does nothing immoral or things like that... there's nothing wrong with it... just don't do immoral things...
jah blez! |
And what makes it so wrong? (keep in mind the name of the thread)Nothing wrong with being yay, and nothing wrong with being traight. The world is overpopulated anyway.
| Quote: |
I was not replying to you. We in fact were saying the same thing. If you had read my post you would have seen that.
|
Yeah, I DID read your post. Just a simple misunderstanding is all. My bad. Apologies.
| Quote: |
Sarcasm? Oh goodness no! i think defining marriage to be for the purpose of having/raising children is a splendid idea! i mean, if there are any other reasons for marriage - for example, the fact that the partners love each other very much, or that they want to make a commitment to support each other into old age, or that they want social recognition and legal protection/benefits for their union - then those reasons could apply to homosexuals, too, and thus we would have to allow them to marry. But we don't want that, do we? So we have to make sure that the only reasons to allow marriage are those that exclude homosexuals... therefore, it has to be defined in terms of the one thing that heterosexual couples can do that homosexuals cannot - which is reproduce together.
Why it makes perfect sense! That way we can reserve marriage for heterosexuals... marriage would become a government-approved, dual-person-powered, baby-making machine, and nothing more - a social construct that exists solely for the purpose of having fertile heterosexual men and fertile heterosexual women copulate to produce babies... hopefully fertile, heterosexual babies, of course.
We can then reserve something like "civil unions" for homosexuals... which would be government-approved, culturally-sanctioned, official recognition of a social commitment between two people. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? That way, if two people, homosexual or not, decide they want to form a union that is legally protected and officially recognized, they can do so without tarnishing the sacred, baby-producing tradition of marriage.
But of course, we have to be consistent. If the only purpose of marriage is to be baby-production, then we have to ensure that it is not abused. It would be discrimination if we allowed heterosexual couples to marry when they cannot or will not produce children... after all, aside from the sexes of the participants, what is the difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple except that the former have the capability of producing children while the latter do not? And we can't discriminate by sex, now can we? (i mean, it's ok to discriminate against homosexuals, but we can't discriminate by sex, after all. That's just wrong.) Therefore, any couple that cannot or will not produce children should not be allowed to marry. Thankfully, that excludes all homosexuals. Unfortunately, it includes any sterile heterosexuals, whether they're sterile by choice or not. Small price to pay for protecting the sacred tradition of marriage though, right?
Why, i even have a few more proposals to add!
Since marriage is solely for the purpose of having and raising children, then once those functions are complete there is no more need for the marriage, and it should be dissolved. So... a couple that has been married for 40 years, had a dozen or so children, raised them all, and have seen them all left the nest as adults... well, their marriage license has expired. Because they can no longer produce children or raise the children they produced. The idea of "the grandparents" is nice... but it looks like we'll have to relegate them to history's scrapyard. They can no longer make children, and they have no more children that they need to raise. If we allow them the concession of maintaining their marriage simply to support each other in old age... well, then we would have to allow that to homosexuals, too, and we don't want that. If your grandparents want to remain together, they can always get a civil union.
There is also the issue of what to do with married couples without children. Obviously ones that refuse to breed will have to be fined or jailed, but what about those that tried and failed? There will have to be a statute of limitations on marriage... if you fail to produce a baby within one year, the marriage must be dissolved. Those that wish to remain together without producing children... well they can always get a civil union.
Of course, there is also another situation to consider:
Government representative: Hello, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes?
Government representative: Hi, i'm with the marriage licensing board. i'm here to talk to you about your marriage license.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Is this really necessary right now? We've had a family tragedy-
Government representative: Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, we are aware of that. Your young daughter recently died in a horrible, tragic accident, is that right?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, it is.
Government representative: My condolences on your loss. She was your only child, was she not?
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Yes, yes she was.
Government representative: My sympathies. However, we have a situation. You see, you are now childless, which means your marriage is illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: What? You've got to be kidding me. We just lost our daughter!
Government representative: Yes, yes, as i said, if i had a heart, it would be in pieces now. However, the situation remains. If you wish to remain married, you will have to begin the process of producing another child.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: WHAT!?!? We just lost our only daughter-!
Government representative: Yes, and she will have to be replaced.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: You have got to be kidding.
Government representative: i work with the government, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. i assure you, i am incapable of "kidding". We are not entirely unsympathetic to your loss, which is why we allow you a grace period of a few months before you have to start getting busy again. But if you are not pregnant by one year's time from the date of the death of your child, your marriage will have to be declared illegal.
Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: Wha-? We just-! Wha-?
Government representative: i understand that you wish to remain together to console each other over your loss. However, marriage is for the purpose of producing children - it's not about two people who love each other making a commitment to stand by each other. If you wish to maintain a recognized committed relationship with all the legal benefits and privileges entitled thereto, i recommend a civil union. Have a nice day. |
Oh me, oh my! *snickers* Sorry, I understand that this is a serious topic, but you would have to agree that Indi's use of irony is amusing.
| Quote: |
being a gay is not wrong...
but involving with a same gender person sexually is wrong...
i mean even if you think you're a gay and does nothing immoral or things like that... there's nothing wrong with it... just don't do immoral things...
|
Unless you give a reason for why you think sexual relations between two people of the same gender is immoral (for any reason other than religion), then your arguement is null and void.Yes it would be wrong to be gay setting all religion aside. Gay people can't reproduce, which means they are essentially useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving.
Gay people can, and do, reproduce all the time, as we mentioned above. Also, there's little reason to believe that increasing the human population of the world is leading to anything but trouble (also mentioned several times above). Refraining from reproducing is a more socially conscious choice than reproducing nowadays.
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Yes it would be wrong to be gay setting all religion aside. Gay people can't reproduce, which means they are essentially useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving. |
If a strait person never has children, is that person "useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving"? Or is that another meaningless excuse for homophobia?I'm ok with gay people as long as they don't express themselves. Back in the 80's and what not if a gay guy came out and start "expressing" he'd get his ass kicked. Now I think they do it a little too much. If your gay it doesn't mean you have to change your voice all high pitched and stuff like that its so annoying hearing people like that. then when they talk about their (gay) love life with other men its annoying and not acceptable for the work place. Thats the only time you will see me bash a fag. Its just totally wrong to do that. There is no point for you to have gay pride week etc.. But thats my opinion..
I'm not homophobic whatsoever. Just answering the question posed. And yes, obviously, the straight person who never has children would also be quite useless towards the goal of survival.
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| I'm not homophobic whatsoever. Just answering the question posed. And yes, obviously, the straight person who never has children would also be quite useless towards the goal of survival. |
So your saying I am "useless toward the goal of survive"? (cause I'm never having children, I've met my relatives and I do not won't to pass on these genes)
Another thing, there are 7 billion people in the world, if the human population keep growing we will hit a point where the earth can not support the human population (which then leads to famine and war and destruction) so isn't it about time many people stop having children? Wouldn't that benefit the human species ? Cause as the current generations die out there would be less people thus more space and resources for each individual person thus ultimately benefiting the species. In which would gay people and people like me be benefiting the survival of the species (cause imagine a would with 20 million people and nuclear weapons).
Whats my point? Just cause people do not reproduse, that dose not nmean there not helping the species.
Note: I don't mean to insinuate that many people should not be allowed to have children, just making a point.
I've noticed something. No one has paid any attention to the post I made about homosexual animals. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| I've noticed something. No one has paid any attention to the post I made about homosexual animals. |
I also made a point about homosexual animals.Conspirator, you're missing the point. The question was if it's wrong to be gay besides religious reasons. It is wrong to be gay because gay people do not contribute towards reproduction. Sure, gay people and anyone else can contribute to society in other ways such as inventing and discovering new things. But that has nothing to do with their status as a gay person. The fact that the person is gay means that he or she is not going to have children, which is wrong, in the sense that humanity is not expanding as much as it could be. And your point about crowding the world with 7+billion people is worthless because in the very grand, long scheme of things, we're going to need a lot more people to populate different planets around the universe. Right now, the earth can support a lot more people anyway, according to some of the latest research being done around the world.
As a gay I would like to say that being gay is NOT something one develops. It is not a disease. As you can't help it, I think nobody has the right to judge other persons as those persons can't help being the way they are. To the people who don't like gays: Try to put yourself in our position. You are young and you are not attracted to girls at ALL, but when a boy walks by, you tend to catch a glimpse. Construction error? It might be, if you think it is an error, but it is nothing you can help.
Our sexual preference doesn't affect our person in general. It doesn't make us any different from you.
The same thing for black people. Their color isn't bad, their color is different from ours (in my case). They can say the same thing about us. It doesn't make the one better than the other.
Their/our complexion doesn't affect our person in general. It doesn't make them/us different from us/them.
Then, to the people who say we shouldn't act like a "fag". You might not know, but not all homosexuals want to "high pitch" their voices, and even if they do, you should ask yourself WHY they are doing so?
Even I can't give a "straight on" reply to that question, but (being a gay) I see two explanations:
- We need to be recognizable for other gay people. We can't just ask a guy: "Hey are you gay?" as it is still a taboo and you might get attacked. So we need to be subtle by inserting a little over-the-top "s"-sound. Some gays go even further by acting girl like, the pink "oooooooooh my goood"-type fancy Nancy type. Even then, not all gays are like that, but it are THOSE people all straight people see on the television (gay pride for example). It's also psychological. We feel the need to form a "gay front" as still a lot of people want us gone from the planet. So, it is the result of us being a suppressed minority. It will fade away as we get accepted.
- Secondly, it could also be something we have from the beginning. I don't know why we tend to be more feminin. Maybe we need to compensate for the lack of a real woman? We like women, but we don't like their looks. That's why we are a girl's best friend.
Good... If anyone has questions... shoot! I have no questions for James007, but:
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| It is wrong to be gay because gay people do not contribute towards reproduction. |
Is it therefore also wrong to be sterile? A sterile guy is even less likely to reproduce than a gay guy, since for the sterile one it's completely impossible. | Dalv87 wrote: |
| Is it therefore also wrong to be sterile? A sterile guy is even less likely to reproduce than a gay guy, since for the sterile one it's completely impossible. |
It depends. If the person had a vasectomy, then yes its wrong. If the person was born that way or had an accident, then no. But this is all just my opinion so who am I to say if something's right or wrong. | asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Dalv87 wrote: | | Is it therefore also wrong to be sterile? A sterile guy is even less likely to reproduce than a gay guy, since for the sterile one it's completely impossible. |
It depends. If the person had a vasectomy, then yes its wrong. If the person was born that way or had an accident, then no. But this is all just my opinion so who am I to say if something's right or wrong. |
Gay people are born gay. | asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Many people aren't. |
You can testify?
The fact some people don't TELL or know for sure from the beginning is true.No, I can't testify. However, in a psychology course I took I learned that people can become gay from traumatic events such as sexual molestation.
Yes, but let's keep those people out of the discussion please. 
| asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Many people aren't. |
True, many people aren't born gay. About 90-95% of the population, in fact. The remainder are homosexuals, and are born as such. Of the 90-95% who aren't born gay, I doubt many would electively experience the difficulties that many members of the homosexual population face on a daily basis -- not to mention the fact that they would be forcing themselves into relationships with people they aren't naturally attracted to. I imagine a much higher proportion of people born as gay live a straight lifestyle than the proportion of people born straight who lead a gay lifestyle. | asianwannabe999 wrote: |
| Conspirator, you're missing the point. The question was if it's wrong to be gay besides religious reasons. It is wrong to be gay because gay people do not contribute towards reproduction. Sure, gay people and anyone else can contribute to society in other ways such as inventing and discovering new things. But that has nothing to do with their status as a gay person. The fact that the person is gay means that he or she is not going to have children, which is wrong, in the sense that humanity is not expanding as much as it could be. And your point about crowding the world with 7+billion people is worthless because in the very grand, long scheme of things, we're going to need a lot more people to populate different planets around the universe. Right now, the earth can support a lot more people anyway, according to some of the latest research being done around the world. |
And you missed mine. There would can only support so many people and at this point in history, it would be better for the future survival of humanity for the population to decrees. You say cause of gay people the human population is not expanding as much as it could be but the population is expanding despite them and further expansion is bad for humanity. We have the power to destroy the would, to wipe out humanity and send the would into a nuclear winter.
You colonisation argument doesn't would, that technology is century's away. We can barley get to the moon right now and mars is millions of miles away and barren and dead and (unlike in scifi story's) terephorming is not an option, it has no magnetic filed to protect it from soler flairs and that very bad. And going to another soler system, do you have any idea what that would require? You've been watching too many science fiction shows. And it wouldn't take that many people to colonise a planet, less than a thousand will do.
And you have ignored several things, the human population is still growing despite the existence of homosexuals, people are born gay and human are not the only species with homosexual tendency's.
And, how dose that make it wrong? There are 7 billion of us and the population is growing. And even if the population did drop low enough, do you think that guys and lesbians would not have sex with the opposite sex to have children and bring the population back up?Removed shenyls post, and all replies, from the discussion (as it were a little off topic).
asianwannabe999
| Quote: |
Yes it would be wrong to be gay setting all religion aside. Gay people can't reproduce, which means they are essentially useless to society's ultimate instinctual goal of surviving.
No, I can't testify. However, in a psychology course I took I learned that people can become gay from traumatic events such as sexual molestation. |
Even though a gay couple may be unlikely to reproduce, how does not benefiting the species make something wrong? They are in no way harming anyone else, or infringing on anyone else’s right to survival.
Also, I have (and continue to have) studied psychology. It is true that a person’s sexual orientation can change after a traumatic event, how-ever this is by far the exception, and very much the minority of those whom are homosexual. Also, there is the same ratio of people who are straight who develop a forced (often fake and superficial) homosexuality, as homosexuals who force themselves to become straight (perhaps even a higher ratio on this count, with a higher frequency of society based discrimination embodying that traumatic event, than rape).
Your point is also invalid in that in the study of psychology, you learn that homosexuality is no longer considered a psychological impairment, or even an abnormality. The orientation is, in fact, defined as inherent in an individual as heterosexuality in another – and normal as normal is defined not so simplistically as what is prevalent in a species. When confined to individual human behaviour and mental process, normal is in fact defined as what is consistent and regular with an individual. I.e. a homosexual would only be considered abnormal if they were acting beyond their inherent behaviour/mental process as per sexuality, in forcing themselves to be straight.
Vendetta50
| Quote: |
| I'm ok with gay people as long as they don't express themselves. Back in the 80's and what not if a gay guy came out and start "expressing" he'd get his ass kicked. Now I think they do it a little too much. If your gay it doesn't mean you have to change your voice all high pitched and stuff like that its so annoying hearing people like that. then when they talk about their (gay) love life with other men its annoying and not acceptable for the work place. Thats the only time you will see me bash a fag. Its just totally wrong to do that. There is no point for you to have gay pride week etc.. But thats my opinion.. |
Most gays don’t display recognisably homosexual behaviour. What you see, in fact, is the minority – and there are probably more homosexuals around than you would crealise.
If you are not willing to tolerate homosexual persons exhibiting such behaviours – then maybe you should consider never exhibiting stereotypically heterosexually male behaviour in a gay man’s presence. Don’t ever talk about women, or look at women, when out in public, etc.
Last edited by blackheart on Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total I've been convinced. I guess I didn't really think about the question enough. Thanks for the quick psych lesson blackheart.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | Adition: Heres a question for those like khunia who use (the pathetic) "its unnatural" argument. How dose that make it wrong? How is unnatural wrong? |
How about this one: how is "unnatural" even possible? Humans are biological organisms after all. There is no natural law that we are exempt from -- we're just master manipulators of our environment. |
With the definition of natural being not altered by man, I think a better question is, is it possible for anything man does to be natural.
As for the question, being gay is wrong - certainly. Male homosexual sex causes damage to the rectum and severe urinary infection. This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure.
So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males.
SORY FOLKS, but-sex is BAD.
As for two individuals of the same sex living together, for some this is ideal.
| Quote: |
| Even though a gay couple may be unlikely to reproduce, how does not benefiting the species make something wrong? They are in no way harming anyone else, or infringing on anyone else’s right to survival. |
In fact it does harm others. Perhaps in our modern society it doesn't. However, throughout history fertility has been the first thing on people's minds. Rightly so. If you and you fellow villagers don't bring up a healthy crop of young, the next village over will be farming your land soon.
Like I said, a privilege. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
As for the question, being gay is wrong - certainly. Male homosexual sex causes damage to the rectum and severe urinary infection. This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure.
So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males.
SORY FOLKS, but-sex is BAD. |
All sex can spread STDs, and how is damaging your own rectum morally wrong anyway?
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Even though a gay couple may be unlikely to reproduce, how does not benefiting the species make something wrong? They are in no way harming anyone else, or infringing on anyone else’s right to survival. |
In fact it does harm others. Perhaps in our modern society it doesn't. However, throughout history fertility has been the first thing on people's minds. Rightly so. If you and you fellow villagers don't bring up a healthy crop of young, the next village over will be farming your land soon.
Like I said, a privilege. |
In modern society though, one might call reproduction a privilege. The world isn't lacking in people, it's lacking in resources to provide those people, meaning that by reproducing you're adding another mouth, which might harm others because it takes from what they might have. Gay people cause no such problems.
That aside, even if we were short on people, no one has any particular obligation to add to the population. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| As for the question, being gay is wrong - certainly. Male homosexual sex causes damage to the rectum and severe urinary infection. This means if you’re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure. |
Makes you wonder how societies throughout history managed then. I wonder if the ancient Greeks would have had an abnormally high mortality from renal failure that would support this contention...difficult to say I guess. There must be statistics available about today's societies however, so I would challenge you to back this view up with some evidence. | Quote: |
| So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males. |
Evidence for this view? | Quote: |
In fact it does harm others. Perhaps in our modern society it doesn't. However, throughout history fertility has been the first thing on people's minds. Rightly so. If you and you fellow villagers don't bring up a healthy crop of young, the next village over will be farming your land soon.
Like I said, a privilege. |
Any society has many other indicators of success, apart from it's survival and growth. Even if we assume this narrow definition of success/harm then it is simple to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the idea that non-reproducing elements are, by definition, harmful. Take a simple case of a gay doctor/medicine man...saving more than one life would be a net benefit, in this system of measure, and would therefore make that individual beneficial rather than harmful to the society, would it not? So even adopting this narrow measure of good/harm you would have to include non-reproductive elements of behaviour into the overall calculation of good/harm and although homosexuality might count as a minus point, it does not itself determine the final score.
If we widen the system to include definitions of good and bad which go beyond simple fecundity measures, then the importance of sexuality is diminished still further as a determinant of positive/negative benefit.@horseatingweeds: Do you know that most gay people don't even DO anal sex? And even then, some straight people do it too, so it is actually wrong to be straight as some straight people have that kind of sex?
[ AAAARGH! ]
I think we are still talking about gay LOVE and not gay sex.
| Dalv87 wrote: |
| All sex can spread STDs, and how is damaging your own rectum morally wrong anyway? |
Come on Dalv, keep up. What's more morally wrong that damaging your or you lover's body? And e coli ain't an STD. You have in up there you know....
| Dalv87 wrote: |
In modern society though, one might call reproduction a privilege. The world isn't lacking in people, it's lacking in resources to provide those people, meaning that by reproducing you're adding another mouth, which might harm others because it takes from what they might have. Gay people cause no such problems.
That aside, even if we were short on people, no one has any particular obligation to add to the population. |
You missed it. I wasn't speaking of modern society. In primitive society, YES, you are obligated to make kids. Whether for your own preservation or as a duty to your tribe. Like planting farms or fighting in battles. Again, modern society has developed new mechanisms to free us from such.
Also, the trouble isn't resources, it is allocation, efficiency, and infrastructure.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Makes you wonder how societies throughout history managed then. I wonder if the ancient Greeks would have had an abnormally high mortality from renal failure that would support this contention...difficult to say I guess. There must be statistics available about today's societies however, so I would challenge you to back this view up with some evidence. |
They managed by not being gay! And dieing before such infections reached a chronic stage. I'd sift up some stuff on homosexuals and but-lovers in general, but just believe me on this. If you go to the Dr. with painful pissing, they just assume you've got an e coli from anal dabbling. I'm involved in the Med comunity and my brother is a physician.
Also, the Greek that had man love where usually rich or soldiers. Soldiers died from numerous other disease and the rich didn't have to make babies like the populous.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | So, homosexuality is a privilege of the antibiotic age, or in earlier cases, societies with high mortality rates and low life spans for males. |
Evidence for this view? |
<removed>
I know you at least know enough about history to accept this.
| Bikerman wrote: |
Any society has many other indicators of success, apart from it's survival and growth. Even if we assume this narrow definition of success/harm then it is simple to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the idea that non-reproducing elements are, by definition, harmful. Take a simple case of a gay doctor/medicine man...saving more than one life would be a net benefit, in this system of measure, and would therefore make that individual beneficial rather than harmful to the society, would it not? So even adopting this narrow measure of good/harm you would have to include non-reproductive elements of behaviour into the overall calculation of good/harm and although homosexuality might count as a minus point, it does not itself determine the final score.
If we widen the system to include definitions of good and bad which go beyond simple fecundity measures, then the importance of sexuality is diminished still further as a determinant of positive/negative benefit. |
Primitive society Bikerman, not modern. When speaking of such things I find it silly to dwell on modern society, which is brand new and represents a fraction of a percent of human history.
You can come up with particular examples, but over all fertility has been paramount. That's why we are always finding fertility trinkets and all that. I think it's something like 5 babies every woman has to have just to maintain a society when the life expectancy is less than thirty, as it most often is.
@ James007
Yeah, I tried specifying that when I said "gay sex." We can just say "but sex" if you want.
DO NOT CHANGE USERNAMESI think you need to separate homosexuality from anal sex. Whether anal sex is a good idea is a totally different argument from whether it's wrong to be homosexual. Homosexual men are perfectly free to abstain from anal sex, while still enjoying a rewarding sex life. Homosexual women are also relevant to this discussion, and are probably not going to be engaging in anal sex.
Regarding the moral obligation to be fecund -- I don't understand why people are so fixated on this argument. Even in 'primitive' societies, fecundity is not necessarily an absolute priority for some or even all members of the society. Fecundity certainly has been important, but it has never been the be-all-end-all of ancient life.
Why do you think it is silly to focus on modern society? That's the society we live in. If the ancient importance of fecundity means that fecundity is important in modern life, does that mean that the second most important thing is to not get eaten by lions? I'll spend the rest of my life having lots of unprotected sex and looking out for lions.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| They managed by not being gay! And dieing before such infections reached a chronic stage. I'd sift up some stuff on homosexuals and but-lovers in general, but just believe me on this. If you go to the Dr. with painful pissing, they just assume you've got an e coli from anal dabbling. I'm involved in the Med comunity and my brother is a physician. |
Nah, sorry, I never take controversial claims on trust if I can help it. I have little doubt that anal sex produces undesirable health effects in some cases. That's a bit different, however, from the statement | Quote: |
| This means if you 19re a gay man without access to antibiotics you'll die of renal failure. |
which is why I asked for something to back such a claim-up. I didn't really expect any evidence, of course, but it seemed reasonable to ask.
Without some idea of numbers, the assertion is just an unsupported opinion. If 0.2% of those engaging in regular anal sex became infected with a kidney-damaging disease then that has completely different implications and outcomes to an infection rate of 10% or 50%. Without knowing what the ballpark figure is there is no way to reasonably make the assertions you have...
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Any society has many other indicators of success, apart from it's survival and growth. Even if we assume this narrow definition of success/harm then it is simple to demonstrate the fallacious nature of the idea that non-reproducing elements are, by definition, harmful. Take a simple case of a gay doctor/medicine man...saving more than one life would be a net benefit, in this system of measure, and would therefore make that individual beneficial rather than harmful to the society, would it not? So even adopting t |
|