How can homosexuality be immoral or contrary to natural ends if there is a genetic/evolutionary/biological reason for it?
- Status
N
niceatheist
Guest
My youngest daughter is gay. Good to know she’s the recipient of such Christian love
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t think that poster was expressing love or the converse. Just expressing the view that sexual acts are chosen.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
He compared homosexual acts to beastiality.
R
Rau
Guest
Compared in what sense? I think the only comparison s/he made is to identify two characteristics these things have in common:
- homosexual and bestial acts are both a perversion of our sexuality;
- both acts are chosen (as opposed to compelled).
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Sex is purposed for procreation. The sexual act makes use of complementary bodily organs to express love AND the desire to procreate.
To use the sexual act purely for gratification (self and other) or merely to express affection for a being/individual who is not sexually complementary assumes that the sex act is justified purely for the sake of expressing affection or for pleasure.
So what, precisely, would be the difference between expressing affection for another human being or for an animal if sex is justified purely for pleasure or affection?
Care to tackle that, given you are proposing a difference between homosexual acts and bestiality.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Probably the connection to another human being, as opposed to…you know, an animal.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Imagine any gay person reading that whether they are sexually active or not. Comparing consensual relations to sexual activity with a creature who cannot on legal or ethical grounds provide consent.
I’m sorry. I see no love only judgement, hatred and fear mongering (not to mention argumentum ad absurdum).
I’m sorry. I see no love only judgement, hatred and fear mongering (not to mention argumentum ad absurdum).
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So you are unable to discuss the subject without assuming the worst of me? Is that what you mean by “only judgement, hatred and fear mongering?” My question was purely to view the issue from the perspective of philosophical discussion. You appear to be unable to discuss the question from the standpoint of disinterested reason. Why would that be?
N
niceatheist
Guest
I can only judge by your words
F
Freddy
Guest
If I may paraphrase: ‘How is your neice/daughter/mother having sex with another woman any different to having sex with an animal? And I’m asking purely from the perspective of a philosophical position’.niceatheist:
So you are unable to discuss the subject without assuming the worst of me? Is that what you mean by “only judgement, hatred and fear mongering?” My question was purely to view the issue from the perspective of philosophical discussion. You appear to be unable to discuss the question from the standpoint of disinterested reason. Why would that be?
Do you really, honestly think in your wildest imaginings that throwing in that second sentence doesn’t make the first the most odious, disgusting, insulting, contemptable and abhorrent question you could put to an uncle/father/son?
Shamefull.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Who asked you to judge me?
You are supposed to be discussing the words and what they mean, simply because that is all that is available to you.
Ergo, you are incorrect when you move to judge me based upon merely words that express ideas.
I asked what you thought of the ideas. I didn’t ask what you thought of me, since you don’t know me from Adam.
Seems very presumptuous and disingenuous of you to make that huge step.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Nonsense.HarryStotle:
If I may paraphrase: ‘How is your neice/daughter/mother having sex with another woman any different to having sex with an animal? And I’m asking purely from the perspective of a philosophical position’.niceatheist:
So you are unable to discuss the subject without assuming the worst of me? Is that what you mean by “only judgement, hatred and fear mongering?” My question was purely to view the issue from the perspective of philosophical discussion. You appear to be unable to discuss the question from the standpoint of disinterested reason. Why would that be?
Do you really, honestly think in your wildest imaginings that throwing in that second sentence doesn’t make the first the most odious, disgusting, insulting, contemptable and abhorrent question you could put to an uncle/father/son?
Shamefull.
What is shameful is the proclivity of some to judge others on the pretext of not wanting to engage in ideas for fear that those ideas might reveal something they don’t want to broach.
If you cannot rationally defend a position, merely accusing someone of being contemptible doesn’t resolve your lack of willingness to engage in resolving the issue.
F
Freddy
Guest
Your comments are not worthy of response by any standard. This will be my last to you on this thread.Freddy:
Nonsense.HarryStotle:
If I may paraphrase: ‘How is your neice/daughter/mother having sex with another woman any different to having sex with an animal? And I’m asking purely from the perspective of a philosophical position’.niceatheist:
So you are unable to discuss the subject without assuming the worst of me? Is that what you mean by “only judgement, hatred and fear mongering?” My question was purely to view the issue from the perspective of philosophical discussion. You appear to be unable to discuss the question from the standpoint of disinterested reason. Why would that be?
Do you really, honestly think in your wildest imaginings that throwing in that second sentence doesn’t make the first the most odious, disgusting, insulting, contemptable and abhorrent question you could put to an uncle/father/son?
Shamefull.
What is shameful is the proclivity of some to judge others on the pretext of not wanting to engage in ideas for fear that those ideas might reveal something they don’t want to broach.
If you cannot rationally defend a position, merely accusing someone of being contemptible doesn’t resolve your lack of willingness to engage in resolving the issue.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You know when I studied philosophy in the 1970s there was a kind of intellectual freedom available in academic institutions and in society in general where issues could be brought up and discussed openly where there wasn’t an implicit assumption that just because someone brought up an idea in discussion that necessarily implied the person cherished it in the deepest recesses of his/her mind.HarryStotle:
If I may paraphrase: ‘How is your neice/daughter/mother having sex with another woman any different to having sex with an animal? And I’m asking purely from the perspective of a philosophical position’.
Do you really, honestly think in your wildest imaginings that throwing in that second sentence doesn’t make the first the most odious, disgusting, insulting, contemptable and abhorrent question you could put to an uncle/father/son?
Shamefull.
It was called being “open-minded,” in a philosophical sense. It meant an idea was an object that could be looked at, analyzed and assessed, kind of like scientists look at physical or natural phenomena objectively as from a distance. Ideas are “objects” in just that sense.
Unfortunately, with the rise of subjective narcissism and the inability to think logically and objectively, the assumption today is that if an idea enters your mind it is yours and reflects something deeply about you as a person.
Unfortunately, that presumption has stifled thought and the pursuit of knowledge because individuals like you are ready to pounce on anything spoken or written on the presumption that those ideas can be taken in whatever way YOU choose to take them rather than in the way they were intended by the writer or speaker.
That would be YOUR way of attempting to control the discussion and seize the upper hand by never permitting an idea that you tacitly approve or disapprove get out of your control. You will use whatever means, whatever accusation, whatever rhetoric you decide to lob to control the opposition.
Discussion is stifled and you presume that you own and control the idea along with all of its repercussions. Very authoritarian of you. In your own mind, you have won. Congratulations!
On a different thread I decided not to engage with you any longer. And I won’t since you are correct in your own mind and cannot permit ideas to lead you to the truth. You already possess it, apparently.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Make that on all threads. Thank you.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I thought a person who is same sex attracted cannot overcome their attraction to the same sex?
In what sense are they giving full consent if they have no control over their sexual attraction?
The capacity for consent seems impeded by the fact that the person isn’t in control of their desires to begin with. It isn’t a consensual relationship in any full sense because the persons involved have a prohibition operating that is beyond their capacity to fully control.
In fact, I would submit that actual love is reasonable and considers all facets of any decision; and is, in fact, in full control of consent. Which is why the discussion evaporates very quickly at this point because the subject of self valuation is put into jeopardy
My suspicion is that a proper discussion of sexual consent and orientation is very difficult because what is at stake is personal self-worth, which is why most won’t discuss it beyond superficialities on the pretext that the “offence” to the person is not worth engaging in the topic. See your comment.
Kind of a stilted maturity in play here – an incapacity to be fully responsible for one’s behaviour at the same time as finding a suitable extenuating allowance in one’s “attraction” that cannot be helped.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
?? I’m not following that Harry. It may be the case that the same sex attracted person cannot alter that orientation, much as I can’t eliminate my natural interest towards women. But neither of those circumstances obligates particular acts that are in accord with those interests. The acts are chosen, perhaps despite knowing said acts are not right or appropriate.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So you are essentially acknowledging that choosing an act takes primacy over attraction or orientation. That what is the salient feature of a sexual relationship is choice and not attraction.HarryStotle:
?? I’m not following that Harry. It may be the case that the same sex attracted person cannot alter that orientation, much as I can’t eliminate my natural interest towards women. But neither of those circumstances obligates particular acts that are in accord with those interests. The acts are chosen, perhaps despite knowing said acts are not right or appropriate.
So if your “natural interest towards women” isn’t determinative of your deliberate choice, why is it even a factor at all? The decision isn’t made on “natural interest” but on something else – future plans, moral world-view, shared interests, what is good for the other, and the like.
What are the grounds or parameters within which consent ought to operate? Is “natural interest” even in the field of view? And when and where does consent even come into play?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
From the perspective of the individual, it offers a Prima facie scope. One is unlikely to pursue a romantic relationship other than in the direction of natural interest (orientation). At that point, one faces choices. If one knows same sex sexual relationships are inappropriate, one may choose to decline them. If one knows that sexual relationships outside marriage are wrong (or simply inadvisable) one may choose to decline them. If one does not know these things, or doesn’t care to think too deeply about it, one may choose to go forward with what you and I would see as a poor choice.
Last edited:
- Status