C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Leela
See the last paragraph in post # 535.
See the last paragraph in post # 535.
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
First of all, note that to saying such sex acts are “unnatural” is to say nothing more than that they are objectionable. You haven’t really said anything about why they are morally wrong. You are just claiming the authority of Nature without any justification.Well then, if physical pleasure is your criteria for what is normal, and a man finds it romantic pleasure to stick his penis into his donkey, you would not find that perverse?
Exactly where would you draw the line. Or is there no line to draw with respect to sex? Would sado-masochistic sex be fine with you, just because it gives pleasure? Would sex between children be fine with you, just because it gives pleasure? Would sex between parents and children be fine with you, just because it gives pleasure?
Secondly, it is reasonable to draw a line based on the capability of consent. Children are considered to incompetent to consent to sex and animals are obviously morally incompetent as well. Sex without competent consent is akin to rape and treated as rape in courts of law. So this “slippery slope” argument about homosexuality doesn’t hold water. Homosexual sex between competent consenting adults is nothing like bestiality or pedophile where no competent consent is possible.
As for sado-masochism between consenting and competent adults, I see no moral problem, only perhaps concerns about the safety of such people psychological about such people who get pleasure from willfully inflicting and receiving pain. That isn’t a phenomenon that I understand very well at all. But again, to just say it is unnatural is isn’t to explain anything. It is like explaining why someone is an outsider by saying he is a misfit. Or explaining why opium makes people sleepy by saying it has a dormitive virtue.
L
larkin31
Guest
Donkey’s do not give “consent” in the human sense to anything, ever. You should use more accurate and specific terms in your questions.*A donkey couldn’t give consent to such an act, so I believe that would be abusive. *
If a donkey can give consent to being ridden, why can’t he give consent to sex with a man?
L
larkin31
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*Donkey’s do not give “consent” in the human sense to anything, ever. You should use more accurate and specific terms in your questions. *
Then is it abusive to ride a donkey?
*As for sado-masochism between consenting and competent adults, I see no moral problem, only perhaps concerns about the safety of such people psychological about such people who get pleasure from willfully inflicting and receiving pain. That isn’t a phenomenon that I understand very well at all. But again, to just say it is unnatural is isn’t to explain anything. It is like explaining why someone is an outsider by saying he is a misfit. Or explaining why opium makes people sleepy by saying it has a dormitive virtue. *
Well then, I would say the sexual organs were not intended for inflicting or receiving pain. As such, that is against nature, and therefore unnatural. Just as it would be unnatural for an adult mother and her adult son to have sex, which is against nature. Just as it would be against nature for adult sisters and brothers to have sex. This has been the moral code for all civilizations from ancient times to the present. You don’t get to just say none of these things is unnatural just because they produce pleasurable sensations between consenting adults.
Recently in Germany two men in a sado-masochistic relationship agreed that one of them should be murdered by the other. That perhaps produced pleasurable sensations for both, but it doesn’t mean that the agreement to be murdered was natural. Rather, what it means is that both of them were in a sick, unnatural relationship.
Or do you think they were not?
*Donkey’s do not give “consent” in the human sense to anything, ever. You should use more accurate and specific terms in your questions. *
Then is it abusive to ride a donkey?
*As for sado-masochism between consenting and competent adults, I see no moral problem, only perhaps concerns about the safety of such people psychological about such people who get pleasure from willfully inflicting and receiving pain. That isn’t a phenomenon that I understand very well at all. But again, to just say it is unnatural is isn’t to explain anything. It is like explaining why someone is an outsider by saying he is a misfit. Or explaining why opium makes people sleepy by saying it has a dormitive virtue. *
Well then, I would say the sexual organs were not intended for inflicting or receiving pain. As such, that is against nature, and therefore unnatural. Just as it would be unnatural for an adult mother and her adult son to have sex, which is against nature. Just as it would be against nature for adult sisters and brothers to have sex. This has been the moral code for all civilizations from ancient times to the present. You don’t get to just say none of these things is unnatural just because they produce pleasurable sensations between consenting adults.
Recently in Germany two men in a sado-masochistic relationship agreed that one of them should be murdered by the other. That perhaps produced pleasurable sensations for both, but it doesn’t mean that the agreement to be murdered was natural. Rather, what it means is that both of them were in a sick, unnatural relationship.
Or do you think they were not?
S
Soulewolf
Guest
you can catch scabies, get carpal tunnel, blisters. you can also catch aids from putting a penis in a vagina. or even kissing.soulewolf
The foot wasnt designed for shoes. The body wasnt designed for clothes. the hands were not designed for a keyboard, mouse etc.
Can you catch Aids from shoes, clothes, or a keyboard mouse?
The human mind was designed to benefit the whole organism. How does using that mind to justify sticking a penis up the anus benefit the organism? But I can tell you several ways how buggery works** against** the organism!
i could show you many ways in which Christianity works against the organism. Especially in the psychological sphere. Does that make it morally wrong? I do not believe so.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Soulewolfe
*i could show you many ways in which Christianity works against the organism. *
How does the Christian view of homosexuality work against the organism, since the Christian view of homosexuality would discourage death from Aids?
Through 2007, more than 576,000 people with AIDS in the United States have died since the epidemic began. That’s 76,000 more than the number of Americans who died in WWII.
*i could show you many ways in which Christianity works against the organism. *
How does the Christian view of homosexuality work against the organism, since the Christian view of homosexuality would discourage death from Aids?
Through 2007, more than 576,000 people with AIDS in the United States have died since the epidemic began. That’s 76,000 more than the number of Americans who died in WWII.
L
larkin31
Guest
Depends on how it is done. But I do not have many qualms over “breaking” animals and using them against their “wild nature” for beneficial human purposes. If this is “immoral,” then I will ask why Adam was given “dominion” over all the animals to begin with.
But why do you keep bringing up sex with animals? I find the topic rather bizarre, actually, and rather irrelevant.
L
larkin31
Guest
Our sex organs clearly are loaded with pain receptors, and for very good reasons: to convey the pain impulses to our brains. This is clearly a “purpose” in the structure of the system. Furthermore, on a different level, intense sexual pleasure has been likened many times by many very able and sophisticated writers and wise persons to a form of “pain”–the line between intense pleasure and pain is a thin, at times indistinguishable, one. Le petit mort, to the French.
L
Leela
Guest
What do you suppose went down in the Garden of Eden if not such “unnatural” sex acts?
L
Leela
Guest
As I understand him, his point is to justify Natural Law by pointing to acts that we all probably agree are immoral. But as usual in discussions about morality in terns of Natural Law, the cart is being put before the horse. The question at hand is whether or not the notion of Natural Law can be used not to justify one’s existing prejudices but to aid in moral deliberation where one does not already presume to know what is and is not good.
I’ve asked Charlemagne and others in this thread several times now whether they have been merely using Natural Law as a way of baptizing their prejudices in declaring “that’s unnatural!”–attempting to lend their past practices the prestige of the Eternally True–or if they have ever used Natural Law in real moral deliberation in their own lives. I have yet to find someone who will say that they applied Natural Law as other than such a tool of oppression–to claim the authority of the Natural for their condemnations of what other people do.
What is so bizarre about this phenomenon among this group of Christians is that Jesus reserved his scorn for the self-righteous, for those with all kinds of ideas about how* other people* can improve at no cost to themselves, for those cost-free moralizers who think that they are pious because simply for holding the right ideas in their heads without having to do more than condemn others. Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, he asked, when you don’t notice the log in your own?
Unless Natural Law has any utility in seeing the log in your own eye–for making moral discernments where one doesn’t think they know in advance what will turn out to be right–and is only useful for condemning others, I don’t see anything very Christian about the notion. It is just a way of confirming one’s own prejudices to one’s self and of no use in situations where the conclusion is not predetermined by such prejudices. That is why Aristotle could use Natural Law to justify slavery and others could use it to condemn slavery. It is nothing more than an empty way of trying to claim authority for what one already believes to be true rather than a way of learning about the truth.
Best,
Leela
S
Soulewolf
Guest
so if you’re so against aids why arent you a proponent of safe sex instead of an opponent of homosexuality?
The christian view of homosexuality has caused suicide rates in young homosexuals to be higher than any other group of people. Especially in places like exodus where the suicide rates are higher than the success rates.
D
davidv
Guest
Because there is no such thing as “safe sex”.
Where is your evidence this absurd claim. Don’t answer that. It’s off topic.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Do you perceive this as a justification of homosexuality?
S
Soulewolf
Guest
safer sex then.
yes it is relevant to the conversation. It is direct evidence showing that christian belief has a very negative impact on the mental health of homosexuals.
if his argument is that homosexuality is harmful to the organism, my argument is that christian belief is also harmful to the organism.
here are the stats
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_suicide#Sexual_orientation_and_suicide
S
Soulewolf
Guest
more like a reason to ignore christian belief on the subject. blah thats a bad way of putting it.
if homosexuality is immoral because it causes harm
then christian belief on the subject is immoral because it causes harm.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Why?
S
Soulewolf
Guest
already answered in my edited post.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
It depends on the context in which ones says that something is harmful. What do you mean by immoral, and why does the suicide of homosexuals justify homosexuality?
S
Soulewolf
Guest
ask Charlemagne on the first two, i was just playing his logic game he was the one that defined the terms.
i never said it did. Why does christian belief justify prejudice against them?
- Status