P
pathia
Guest
You get an increased number of births like my own. It doesn’t have to come from odd chromosomes like my own, chemicals are perfectly capable of causing someone to be born intersexed.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
iamme
Guest
man boobs.What do you think happens when a male is constantly dosed with estrogen? Or anti-androgens?
A
Arandur
Guest
No, I’m not. This is errant on two counts. The first is that my arguments as part of this discussion have mostly been focused on pointing out the similarities between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts with various other categories of human predispositions and acts. If you’re going to consider the morality of a thing, whatever rationale you apply needs to be consistent across similar situations. This is where most arguments justifying homosexual behavior break down, because to be consistent they also have to justify other things influenced by genetics or developmental factors, other things that we often by default consider morally problematic at best–such as tendencies towards violence and aggression, alcoholism, and other sexual behaviors. You don’t get a pass to excuse yourself from this argument because you by default assume that homosexual behavior is morally acceptable. Sorry. And again, my arguments have not depended upon that assumption.You are operating under the axiom that being gay is wrong.
The second thing I should point out is the distinction between “being” homosexual (being attracted to the same sex) and performing homosexual sex. Many homosexuals have a lot of trouble with this, but again, there is a big difference between having a predisposition and acting on it. There is a big difference between having problems with rage or alcohol, as has been pointed out, and lashing out with rage or drinking to excess.
I have not stated that, either, in point of fact. Most true alcoholics who have recovered fully would indeed say that they should never drink alcohol, ever, because of the danger it poses to them.Also, I have the ‘alcoholic gene’ yet I am not an alcoholic and I drink. Moderation is the key in all things. What you are stating here is that anyone who has even the slightest chance of being alcoholic, should never drink alcohol, ever.
The other level that you err here is that you are limiting your argument to only alcoholism, not even including any of the other similar examples we have discussed. Drinking alcohol in moderation is nor considered morally wrong by many because it does not necessarily significantly impair judgment or cause physical or emotional harm. Acting out in rage, however, does typically cause harm (rage, not anger, is not moderate and by definition is in excess) and thus is morally wrong. Compulsive lying is similar. Some other sexual behaviors (nonconsensual fetishes, pedophilia, bestiality) are always morally wrong for various reasons.
In moral theology we make the distinction between actions that are intrinsically evil and thus always wrong, and actions that are good under certain circumstances and bad in others. Drinking alcohol and heterosexual sex fall into the latter category, being wrong if not done in the proper context. Killing another human being, coveting another person’s possessions, disrespecting or dehumanizing another human being, and various other things are all intrinsic evils because they are actions that are never properly ordered and thus never good. Things can mitigate the degree of moral culpability, but the fundamental action is never correct.
Iamme:
I was referring to how you are rebelling against the idea of God. And yes, you can rebel against something you don’t even acknowledge. This even happens politically, where people don’t recognize a government. It’s a lot more applicable in light of God. Your lack of belief in His existence doesn’t change the fact that He does exist, and given who He is, rejecting belief in Him is a rebellion.in order to rebel against someone you have to acknowledge them
B
buffalo
Guest
It would be interesting to see what the health insurance industry would charge for health and life insurance if the “gay” box could be checked on the application.those are all health risks of ANY kind of sex. youll forgive me if i take an article on homosexual sex from a catholic site with a grain of salt. furthermore, every activity listed can also be found in a heterosexual relationship. AND sex is between two consenting adults, and if youre going to have sex with someone, you need to know that if you dont protect yourself, you can get a disease, or get hurt.
nothing in that article shows that homosexuals pose any threat to anyone around them, or at least not any more so than heterosexuals do.
in regards to the psychiatric illness that is mentioned, much of that can be attributed to society, small or large, demonizing them for who they are. i know that growing up, i felt horrible about it, because people had no problem tossing the word ****** around, and basically turning people into something subhuman. luckily, ive figured out that thats their deal, it doesnt have to be mine. but of course, when youre part of a persecuted minority, which homosexuals are, if only because its acceptable to demean and hate gays, then there are going to be depression issues.
youre alcoholism is inherently more dangerous to people around than homosexuality could ever hope to be. its not possible to gay drive, or to get someone so gay that they get raped, or get black out gay, or get gay poisoning.
edit: its sincerely awesome to see that the derogatory word for a gay man is censored here!
A
Arandur
Guest
Don’t fall into the same intellectually lazy trap that so many others do of trying to dismiss something you don’t like just because it comes from a source you think is biased. First off, every argument should be considered on its own merits. More importantly in this case, if you care to read carefully and check the annotations, that article (and indeed most from Catholic sources) is very extensively documented, linking to a great many independent scientific studies that have been accepted as sufficiently unbiased to become part of the general medical or anthropological literature. It is therefore authoritative, and thus it is foolish to dismiss such widely-accepted data without any valid argument as to why the data err.those are all health risks of ANY kind of sex. youll forgive me if i take an article on homosexual sex from a catholic site with a grain of salt. furthermore, every activity listed can also be found in a heterosexual relationship. AND sex is between two consenting adults, and if youre going to have sex with someone, you need to know that if you dont protect yourself, you can get a disease, or get hurt.
nothing in that article shows that homosexuals pose any threat to anyone around them, or at least not any more so than heterosexuals do…
Also, that article does indeed show how the homosexual lifestyle is different from and more dangerous than the heterosexual lifestyle. It is not talking just about particular sex acts that can be performed by heterosexuals. It is talking about much different trends and statistics in the homosexual population. Since that population is a subset of the overall human population, and since there is crossover between the two as far as sex acts and human inter-relationships, then yes, any ills that affect the homosexual population also affect and do harm to the heterosexual population.
P
pathia
Guest
I don’t really see how homosexuality and alcoholism, or any of the other things are even vaguely related. Alcoholism involves causing destructive pain to yourself and others (particularly with drunk driving). Promiscuity is artificially high, because there’s no incentive to settle down. There’s a stigma, there’s no acceptable way to introduce your partner in social situations, society seems completely dead set against creating stable relationships between gays.No, I’m not. This is errant on two counts. The first is that my arguments as part of this discussion have mostly been focused on pointing out the similarities between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts with various other categories of human predispositions and acts. If you’re going to consider the morality of a thing, whatever rationale you apply needs to be consistent across similar situations.
I am absolutely terrified to ever mention that I have a ‘partner’ at work. I don’t wear a ring despite having been legally married for eight years. I don’t want anyone to ask, I don’t want anyone to yell or fuss or try to convert anymore, I’m just so sick of it. I want sit down and work. The last time it came out I was fired four times in a row because they didn’t want a trans employee. I keep my past and my personal life in a locked box that no one at work has a clue about, I don’t even let them know where I live.
And I could care less whether it’s a choice of if it is genetic. I don’t think the behavior is wrong, period. It doesn’t matter the source, it’s obviously mixed due to the conflicting studies. So I don’t think it matters and I don’t care for a genetic reason for it outside of a general scientific curiosity, nothing more.
A
Arandur
Guest
I think you came in on this conversation late and may have missed the context of the discussion a few pages earlier. The whole point of the OP was to explore whether or to what extent homosexuality is genetic, and then seemingly to discuss whether that mattered. We’re actually in agreement on something: I pointed out earlier that I don’t think whether homosexuality is genetic or developmental matters to the moral question.I don’t really see how homosexuality and alcoholism, or any of the other things are even vaguely related. …
And I could care less whether it’s a choice of if it is genetic. I don’t think the behavior is wrong, period. It doesn’t matter the source, it’s obviously mixed due to the conflicting studies. So I don’t think it matters and I don’t care for a genetic reason for it outside of a general scientific curiosity, nothing more.
The point of bringing up alcoholism and all the other conditions that keep being ignored is to point out there are other things that we do consider to be wrong that are genetic or developmental in various degrees. Thus using genetic or developmental pre-dispositions to argue that a behavior is right or wrong doesn’t work. You can’t say that not having any choice in whether you have homosexual attractions means that it is okay for you to engage in homosexual acts. You have to use some other justification.
So what is your justification for why homosexual acts are morally acceptable?
If you want, I can explain the moral reasoning behind why heterosexual sex is acceptable, or why it is acceptable only in the context of marriage (without needing to appeal to religious belief).
I
iamme
Guest
but thats discrimination, and illegal. besides, they CAN ask if youve ever participated in anal sex, or if you have hiv/aids. the fact that theres not a “gay” box proves that those things are not homosexual in nature. im not going to argue that homosexuals dont have a higher risk of contracting an std, but i dont think anyone will say that someone of the heterosexual orientation with the same sexual habits has a LOWER risk, either. and again, homosexuality does not pose a physical risk to those around them, any more than a heterosexual does.It would be interesting to see what the health insurance industry would charge for health and life insurance if the “gay” box could be checked on the application.
P
pathia
Guest
I believe love has no boundaries when it involves consenting adults. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and if one argues gay sex is unclean/hurtful etc, it is a chosen act between the two adults. It does not hurt me, or you or anyone else that two men or women have sex in their bedroom in a apartment we’ll never be in.So what is your justification for why homosexual acts are morally acceptable?
If you want, I can explain the moral reasoning behind why heterosexual sex is acceptable, or why it is acceptable only in the context of marriage (without needing to appeal to religious belief).
I
iamme
Guest
your entire argument is flawed. i dont THINK the source is biased, it IS biased. the source is the catholic church, and they are wholly against homosexuality, and work to spread the word that it is wrong, so something purported by them cannot be taken at its word without some external sources to back it up. also, i explained how almost every single bullet point they had was just as applicable to heterosexual sex.Don’t fall into the same intellectually lazy trap that so many others do of trying to dismiss something you don’t like just because it comes from a source you think is biased. First off, every argument should be considered on its own merits. More importantly in this case, if you care to read carefully and check the annotations, that article (and indeed most from Catholic sources) is very extensively documented, linking to a great many independent scientific studies that have been accepted as sufficiently unbiased to become part of the general medical or anthropological literature. It is therefore authoritative, and thus it is foolish to dismiss such widely-accepted data without any valid argument as to why the data err.
Also, that article does indeed show how the homosexual lifestyle is different from and more dangerous than the heterosexual lifestyle. It is not talking just about particular sex acts that can be performed by heterosexuals. It is talking about much different trends and statistics in the homosexual population. Since that population is a subset of the overall human population, and since there is crossover between the two as far as sex acts and human inter-relationships, then yes, any ills that affect the homosexual population also affect and do harm to the heterosexual population.
and do you know what causes the overlap into the “heterosexual populace”? slutty people. if you want to lower the risk of catching something, dont be slutty and dont sleep with slutty people, its that simple. funny side note, the hiv virus was orignally passed from a male pilot, to a female prostitute, so thanks, heterosexuals, for spreading aids around! there is no heterosexual or homosexual populace, there is a sexual populace. these diseases (excluding hiv, which, as stated, started as a heterosexual disease) have been in existence for a looooooooong time, much longer than any study on homosexual activity has been around, and they were all probably started with heterosexuals.
A
Arandur
Guest
On a deeper level, it does. Morality is the question of what ought we to do, both of what is the best thing to do and what is harmful to do.I believe love has no boundaries when it involves consenting adults. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and if one argues gay sex is unclean/hurtful etc, it is a chosen act between the two adults. It does not hurt me, or you or anyone else that two men or women have sex in their bedroom in a apartment we’ll never be in.
Just because two adults choose to do something willingly does not make the action right. Plenty of consentual choices are morally wrong. Do you need me to go into that? It’s really not useful as a justification for any action.
Perhaps it would help first to explain why heterosexual fornication is wrong. This is just the tip of the iceberg (books have been written about it), but it does cause harm in many ways.
- Sex has emotional consequences. Uncommitted sex causes damage to the human emotional psyche, to some more than others, but damage nonetheless. This is individual harm, but it is also societal harm.
- Sex with more than one partner exponentially raises the risks of transmitting venereal diseases. This harms individuals and the greater population.
- Sex is naturally designed for intimacy and reproduction. The most emotionally (and also physically) beneficial relationship for human adults has been shown to be a lifetime monogamous relationship (marriage); it is also by far the best for children, and thus the only responsible context in which sex can be had. The life and health of individuals and their offspring matters to both the individual and society.
- Sex with multiple partners is dehumanizing, diminishing the respect for individuals and encouraging their objectification. Along similar lines, it is narcissistically self-serving and self-oriented, rather than other-oriented and giving.
F
fix
Guest
Just so I can follow you here are you claiming that the health risks between normal heterosexual married sexual acts are equal to homosexual acts acts?i explained how almost every single bullet point they had was just as applicable to heterosexual sex.
I ask becuase we need to define terms. Just living carries a health risk. Eating carries a health risk. Walking carries a health risk. But these “risks” are not excessive and unusal.
The paper in question points out that homsexual behaviors do not carry the normal health risks we all face, but different and worse risks.
P
pathia
Guest
When did I say I was talking about fornication willy nilly and running around with tons of partners? I’m talking about two gay people in a stable relationship.On a deeper level, it does. Morality is the question of what ought we to do, both of what is the best thing to do and what is harmful to do.
Just because two adults choose to do something willingly does not make the action right. Plenty of consentual choices are morally wrong. Do you need me to go into that? It’s really not useful as a justification for any action.
Perhaps it would help first to explain why heterosexual fornication is wrong. This is just the tip of the iceberg (books have been written about it), but it does cause harm in many ways.
- Sex has emotional consequences. Uncommitted sex causes damage to the human emotional psyche, to some more than others, but damage nonetheless. This is individual harm, but it is also societal harm.
- Sex with more than one partner exponentially raises the risks of transmitting venereal diseases. This harms individuals and the greater population.
- Sex is naturally designed for intimacy and reproduction. The most emotionally (and also physically) beneficial relationship for human adults has been shown to be a lifetime monogamous relationship (marriage); it is also by far the best for children, and thus the only responsible context in which sex can be had. The life and health of individuals and their offspring matters to both the individual and society.
- Sex with multiple partners is dehumanizing, diminishing the respect for individuals and encouraging their objectification. Along similar lines, it is narcissistically self-serving and self-oriented, rather than other-oriented and giving.
P
pathia
Guest
So do smoking and transfats, but we haven’t banned either of those completely.The paper in question points out that homsexual behaviors do not carry the normal health risks we all face, but different and worse risks.
F
fix
Guest
Yes, but my point is there is no moral or physiological equivalence.So do smoking and transfats, but we haven’t banned either of those completely.
B
buffalo
Guest
I would get charged more if I check the smokers box.but thats discrimination, and illegal. besides, they CAN ask if youve ever participated in anal sex, or if you have hiv/aids. the fact that theres not a “gay” box proves that those things are not homosexual in nature. im not going to argue that homosexuals dont have a higher risk of contracting an std, but i dont think anyone will say that someone of the heterosexual orientation with the same sexual habits has a LOWER risk, either. and again, homosexuality does not pose a physical risk to those around them, any more than a heterosexual does.
P
pathia
Guest
I would hold that smoking is immoral, especially if you have children.Yes, but my point is there is no moral or physiological equivalence.
A
Arandur
Guest
I don’t appreciate it when people almost completely ignore what I have said and then accuse me of things.your entire argument is flawed. i dont THINK the source is biased, it IS biased. the source is the catholic church, and they are wholly against homosexuality, and work to spread the word that it is wrong, so something purported by them cannot be taken at its word without some external sources to back it up. also, i explained how almost every single bullet point they had was just as applicable to heterosexual sex.
and do you know what causes the overlap into the “heterosexual populace”? slutty people. if you want to lower the risk of catching something, dont be slutty and dont sleep with slutty people, its that simple. funny side note, the hiv virus was orignally passed from a male pilot, to a female prostitute, so thanks, heterosexuals, for spreading aids around! there is no heterosexual or homosexual populace, there is a sexual populace. these diseases (excluding hiv, which, as stated, started as a heterosexual disease) have been in existence for a looooooooong time, much longer than any study on homosexual activity has been around, and they were all probably started with heterosexuals.
If you bothered to read either my post or the article in question, you will see that the article was EXTENSIVELY referenced and backed up by unbiased, widely-accepted outside sources for medical research. This alone completely invalidates your argument. Learn to argue responsibly or don’t do it at all and save us the time and trouble.so something purported by them cannot be taken at its word without some external sources to back it up.
Since you apparently need a wake-up call along those lines, another aspect of arguing responsibly is, as I said before, that every argument should be taken on its merits. To dismiss it because you don’t like the conclusion or the source is dishonest and is not a counterargument at all. In fact, since the whole point of argument is to present different sides of an issue, what you basically do when you dismiss the opposite side is you refuse to even engage in the argument. In doing so, you effectively forfeit.
No, you didn’t, because much of the article was devoted to showing trends among the homosexual population that are different from the heterosexual population. Your comparison of types of sex only applied to a portion of the article, and was hardly unassailable anyway.also, i explained how almost every single bullet point they had was just as applicable to heterosexual sex.
The article cited much greater incidence of promiscuity among the homosexual population. Point being that your “slutty people” apparently are more prevalent among homosexuals. Sounds like you’re now calling bisexuality wrong, as well. Your BiGALA sympathizers might not be so sympathetic with you anymore.and do you know what causes the overlap into the “heterosexual populace”? slutty people.
You contradict your earlier statement about overlap. As sexually active populations, they are indeed separate, except for incidences of crossover. For them to be not separate at all, everyone would have to be bisexual and non-monogamous.there is no heterosexual or homosexual populace, there is a sexual populace.
I fail to see your point about sexually transmitted diseases. We’re in agreement that they plague heterosexuals as well and are a problem because of promiscuity, which requires fornication, which I’ve been talking about as morally wrong. Some types of sex make transmission of venereal diseases more prevalent, and multiple partners increase transmission exponentially.
A
Arandur
Guest
You said:When did I say I was talking about fornication willy nilly and running around with tons of partners? I’m talking about two gay people in a stable relationship.
This statement seemed to use as an argument 1. it involves consenting adults; 2. it doesn’t hurt anyone; 3. it is no more wrong than heterosexual sex between consenting adults.I believe love has no boundaries when it involves consenting adults. It doesn’t hurt anyone, and if one argues gay sex is unclean/hurtful etc, it is a chosen act between the two adults. It does not hurt me, or you or anyone else that two men or women have sex in their bedroom in a apartment we’ll never be in.
I responded by explaining briefly why 1 does not apply; 2 has been addressed partially by the medical studies cited; and I also addressed 2 and 3 partially by using the example of why fornication is wrong for heterosexuals.
If we look at social trends like the medical studies do, true monogamy is apparently pretty rare among homosexuals, more more rare than it is among heterosexuals. You may be faithfully monogamous and so may everyone you know, but the point of the studies was that the opposite is more supported by the homosexual community. I don’t think that can be entirely chalked up to lack of societal support for it.
To get into the difference between true heterosexual monogamy and true homosexual monogamy, we have to talk about nature, the differences between the sexes, intrinsic rights and wrongs. I only have a few more minutes right now, so I’ll have to save those for later. I did hint at the natural argument in my last response to you. If you’re interested enough, there is a lengthy discussion on gay marriage on another forum that involved a lot of related topics. I talked about some of this stuff there.
agameofthrones.com/agotforums/posts/list/795/7049.page
F
fix
Guest
I mean that homosexual acts are not illegal does not mean they are equal to heterosexual acts physically or morally.I would hold that smoking is immoral, especially if you have children.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.