A Philosophical Arguement Against Homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soulewolf said:
i would say philosophy has no room for the soul until the soul is proven logically.
Click to expand...
You’re close to tilting at windmills, my friend.

Soul is not by any means a concept, term, or thing for which philosophy has no room, and neither is philosophy limited by your understanding of that word, nor by its present majority meaning.

Do you have any idea how many references to “the soul” there are in the Hellenistic philosophies?

Also, as I referenced Aurelius directly, it would not have failed you to learn the concept of soul within stoicism before making your reply.

Please note the following definitions, especially that which would be indicated when predicated by the word moral:
  1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
  2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
  3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
  4. A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
  5. The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this network … may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin Kalb).
  6. A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
  7. A person’s emotional or moral nature: “An actor is … often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).
  8. A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music.
  9. A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an artist.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
An arguement from authority. Thats very weak.

And quite frankly, while Freud may have said things that were true and deserving of acclaim, he also said things that are absurd and unsupportable, and are thus not supported by any serious academic.
Click to expand...
hmm i’ll change it then. “Religion: it’s not a leap of faith, it’s high-functioning autism!”
  • Eugene Mirman
just because i use authority figures as a reference does not mean that its a fallacy. it means that i will believe people who put YEARS into research and development of their theories using the scientific method rather than a random person in a forum with an absurd claim.

You base your argument on the idea that because a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina, then the ONLY way these organs should be used is to procreate. well let me further that line of thinking

penises and vaginas cause pleasure in an individual. thus penises and vaginas are to be used for pleasure.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
He has not proven anything he just asserted something and you agreed with the assertion.
Click to expand...
no you see i proved that:
A
B
.’.C (your argument) is a falacy

but i also proved that
A
A
B
B
.’.A
.’.B
.’. A,A
.’.B,B
.’.A,A.B
.’.B,B,A
.’.A,A,B,B
 
Ravemacneil said:
You’re close to tilting at windmills, my friend.

Soul is not by any means a concept, term, or thing for which philosophy has no room, and neither is philosophy limited by your understanding of that word, nor by its present majority meaning.

Do you have any idea how many references to “the soul” there are in the Hellenistic philosophies?

Also, as I referenced Aurelius directly, it would not have failed you to learn the concept of soul within stoicism before making your reply.

Please note the following definitions, especially that which would be indicated when predicated by the word moral:
  1. The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
  2. The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.
  3. The disembodied spirit of a dead human.
  4. A human: “the homes of some nine hundred souls” (Garrison Keillor).
  5. The central or integral part; the vital core: “It saddens me that this network … may lose its soul, which is after all the quest for news” (Marvin Kalb).
  6. A person considered as the perfect embodiment of an intangible quality; a personification: I am the very soul of discretion.
  7. A person’s emotional or moral nature: “An actor is … often a soul which wishes to reveal itself to the world but dare not” (Alec Guinness).
  8. A sense of ethnic pride among Black people and especially African Americans, expressed in areas such as language, social customs, religion, and music.
  9. A strong, deeply felt emotion conveyed by a speaker, a performer, or an artist.
Click to expand...
ah i see. so you say that an objective moral argument only makes sense if it complies with the completely subjective “conscience?”

now im completely convinced << >> 🙂
 
Soulewolf said:
no you see i proved that:
A
B
.’.C (your argument) is a falacy

but i also proved that
A
A
B
B
.’.A
.’.B
.’. A,A
.’.B,B
.’.A,A.B
.’.B,B,A
.’.A,A,B,B
Click to expand...
I like I said before, you have failed to communicate any evidence against my argument.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I like I said before, you have failed to communicate any evidence against my argument.
Click to expand...
A
B
.’.C (your argument) is a falacy

how many times do i have to post it? you have failed to communicate any evidence against MY argument.
 
Soulewolf said:
A
B
.’.C (your argument) is a falacy

how many times do i have to post it? you have failed to communicate any evidence against MY argument.
Click to expand...
Repeating it won’t make any more believable or understandable.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Of course, in order to understand that, you would have to first value human nature in it entirety and you would have to admit the teleological nature that is evident in our sexuality and moral discourse.
Click to expand...
It’s possible that we have an in-built ability to maintain a healthy number of people. In times when there are not enough people, fewer are homosexual. In times of a world population explosion, more are homosexual. Just a thought, don’t know if there’s anything going for it.
 
Once again, I wish to state that even though stimulation is part of sex, it is not the end of sex itself but merely a means to enhance a pregnancy. God put all these pleasures in the sex act for procreation, not just for stimulation as an end in itself. Therefore, according to the teachings of the church, the only correct sex is within marriage, not in other relationships.
As for loving a friend, I believe that there are many forms of love and sex is not necessarily a part of all kinds of love. Friendship is love but unless it occurs within marriage, it must not include sexual activity with that friend. It is a sad thing when people today must include sex in everything they think about when it comes to relationships. I have gay friends and transsexual friends, and I certainly do not have to include sex with those friends. Friendship is a great thing but adding sex ruins it for me. Love does not have to include sex at all. It is marital love that includes sex to have children and to grow a family with a mother and a father for the children. It gives it a proper balance which God intends.
As for animals mounting the same sex, that is only to show dominance, not actual mating. I have seen it in dogs, and the top dog mounts both females and males in a pack to show he or she is top dog. That is all that is.
Humans are not the same as other beings in that humans have a concept of God and if we are christians, we know what the commandments are and should strive to keep them and confess when we don’t. We know what is right or wrong and animals operate on a different level and do not have the concept of love as humans do when it comes to sexuality. I do not believe in using animals as a justification for sexual activities not approved by the church.
God bless all,
Mtngal
 
Soulewolf said:
ah i see. so you say that an objective moral argument only makes sense if it complies with the completely subjective “conscience?”

now im completely convinced << >> 🙂
Click to expand...
No, I’m saying that your statement that philosophy has no room for “the soul” depended on your limited definition and previous conceptions of what that word means, without regard to what it may have meant to the philosopher to whom I referred.

RMN
 
I suppose there is an argument against all forms of sexuality.

I mean, in theory.

For me, homosexuality strikes a cord. I’m gay, so I suppose it does show in my reply. I told my parents and my mother’s Priest. Whilst I expected to hear about fire and brimstone, all he said was “God loves you. No matter what”. He didn’t go any further than that.

Sexuality is really something humanity has attributed to us. Sexologists, primary German ones in the 19th Century, sytarted putting labels on people’s sexual appetites. Reproduction did not come into it. From nature’s point of view, a species has to advance by reproduction, but controlled reproduction. Overpopulation would make the humans stop advancing.

Heterosexuality as a word came after homosexuality. Homosexuality is a word invented in the mid 1800s by a German. It didn’t enter England or America until the 1900s. Other words, such as invert, were popular before that. The attraction between two of the same sex doesn’t necessarily exclude the ability to reproduce with a female (or male, for lesbians), but it removes the physical, mental and perhaps spiritual attraction. From nature’s point of view there’s nothing wrong, because the body still functions.

From religious point of views, it depends. Some people consider it a sin, others don’t. Doctrines and such dictate, based on the general state of it. At one point, sodomy was punishable by death, then ten years to life, then maximum two years of hard labour, then it was legal. But in the UK, there were no laws about lesbians because Queen Victoria did not believe women could have sex with each other, and no one dared explaining it to her (possible urban myth, but I was taught it when I did my Undergrad).

As a gay man, I see it as how I am, how I was made. Now, if God made me, did He not make this too? Just a thought…my two cents so to speak.
 
What I don’t understand is the obsession that some religious people, (and I use religious purposely rather than any particular religion, as I have encountered it across different religions), have with this particular issue, as opposed to all the other issues/sins that religions try and teach against. Especially as many of the people who so vehemently speak out against it, sometimes very unpleasantly, do things or live in a manner that was once also frowned upon but are now ‘accepted’ as part of modern life.
 
Like eating shellfish, only having one wife and mixing cotton with other fabrics!

I agree…don’t get it either. I suppose I always get defensive regardless though…
 
HauntedJame said:
I suppose I always get defensive regardless though…
Click to expand...
Isn’t there a rallying cry? It’s not “burn your bra”. It’s not “black is beautiful”. Oh well, can’t remember, but my hair is starting to lose its color so I’m proud to be gray. I think I’ll dye it ginger though. Look at this thread on a site for the police, about setting up a support association for red-headed coppers. They’ve designed their own logo and everything. I particularly like a moderator’s post:

Oooh ohh ohhh, just had another thought. Can ginger coppers have copper handcuffs as a special prviledge?

(Sorry, way off topic).
 
inocent, that’s hilarious! And there should be a rallying cry…in the 50s it was the word gay, which stood for Good as You, not meaning happy…but it’s lost it’s meaning now
 
My reply to Michael concerning why people talk so much about homosexuality rather than other things is because of our society today. When I was young in the 1950’s, I never knew about homosexuality–it was just not talked about. I later learned about it from friends in school. When I went to college, I did not know anyone who was openly gay as they were all in the closet and led quiet lives about it. It was not an issue just as abortion was not an issue then. If someone suspected it in a person, nothing was said. People just sailed along without incidents. Gays had jobs and led normal lives within the community in a don’t ask don’t tell society.
However, today, after the hippy movement in the 60’s, all hell broke loose and everything came out into the open and people talked about things on tv and movies that were never mentioned before. Then when the gay lobbiests began pushing for adoption and marriage, then that is what caused the topic to be discussed so often and why there are all these sexual issues today. Sex ed in schools for little kids also has caused reactions so I can understand why people have problems with these issues today as they are always hammered on in the news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top