What do you think of homosexuality?

[Libero]

Scott Waddell:

What about them? That is, I’m sure that there are atheists that can discern the wrongness of homosexuality using non-theistic arguments.

Never come across Buddhism?

Buddhism (whilst not technically a “religion” rather a “philosophical belief system”) only objects to ‘sexual misconduct’ - and homosexuality was never - throughout it’s entire history - considered to be ‘misconduct’ until 17th Century European Imperialism, where by European ideals were forced onto a religion.

In fact the Dalai Lama (leader of Tibetan Buddhism) has even described homosexuality as “harmless” and of “mutal benefit to society”.

Not all religions do or did condemn homosexuality, and many do not make such a huge fuss over it as Catholics (or at least American Catholics) choose to - see Archbishop Tutu.

Note: please read my signature, I am not an official representative of God, and my words are not condoned by an authority that is God - they are my opinions grounded in fact - I am displaying them as is the function of a forum. Thankyou.

 

[inara153]

I think homosexuality is okay. my parents have many gay friends. they were nice, lovely people. there nothing wrong with being homosexual. if god had not intended that humans make the choice to be gay or straight, he would not have given us the choice at all.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I think homosexuality is okay. my parents have many gay friends. they were nice, lovely people. there nothing wrong with being homosexual. if god had not intended that humans make the choice to be gay or straight, he would not have given us the choice at all.

That is about the dumbest thing that I’ve ever heard. He gave us free will to choose between right and wrong. The ability to choose does not mean that every choice is acceptable. You should know that by now if you’re Catholic.

 

[Libero]

JSmitty2005:

That is about the dumbest thing that I’ve ever heard. He gave us free will to choose between right and wrong. The ability to choose does not mean that every choice is acceptable. You should know that by now if you’re Catholic.

Do you not think that is a little bit of an exaggeration?

Do you not think God has the ability to create everyone heterosexual? Who are you to say that it is always the fault of the human and not the power of the God?

I would not go claiming things that Jesus did not say…

NOTE: Please take notice of signature, I am not an official representative of God, and my words are not condoned by an authority that is God - they are my opinions grounded in fact - I am displaying them as is the function of a forum. Thankyou.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Libero:

Do you not think that is a little bit of an exaggeration?

Not in the slightest.

Do you not think God has the ability to create everyone heterosexual? Who are you to say that it is always the fault of the human and not the power of the God?

God cannot will something that is contrary to His will. He has made it quite clear through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium that homosexuality is an abomination. The tendency to have SSA is a result of Original Sin.

I would not go claiming things that Jesus did not say…

What I said *should * be common sense to anyone and especially to a Christian.

 

[RyanL]

Siamese,

Thank you for taking the time to respond!

I would like to, if I may, walk through your analysis.

Question 1:

siamesecat:

1. My personal opinion…

**[Subjectivism rears it’s ugly head] **

…is that sex with a dog is animal abuse…
**
[Objective statement about the act - bravo!]**

…because a dog cannot consent to it…
**
[Oops, spoke too soon - it was* an objective statement, but it has switched to a subjectivist-only basis for your analysis, focusing only on the subjective intent of the animal…we’ll see where this takes us…]

…nor does it benefit at all from it.
**
[Naturally, the beastialist would disagree with you on both points, stating that the dog could bite him if the dog didn’t consent, and this act in fact brings them closer together in “love” - so who is right? Him? You? No one? Your statement about benefits seems to tilt towards a Natural Law analysis of objective morality, but since you’ve stayed away from that so far I’ll credit you with internally consistant statements and assume that’s not what you meant.] **

Morally I don’t think it’s evil just really bizarre and disturbed…
**
[Subjective opinion that carries no real moral weight - this doesn’t tell me why it is intrinsically moral or immoral (if it is at all). It would seem from your statement about “don’t think it’s evil” that there’s actually nothing wrong with beastiality.] **

Having a sexual relationship with a clueless animal is much different from having a relationship with a consenting adult with whom you can have an emotional connection and possibly love…
**
[Again, this is subjective opinion, to which the beastialist disagrees - so who is right? Is beastiality, in fact, wrong? Have you unwittingly justified beastiality? Is this where subjectivism leads? Is this the best morality that subjectivism can produce?]**

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Question 2:

1. I’m not sure the age group NAMBLA is after.
   **
   [Me either, but I assume it’s all ages.] **

If it’s prepubescent boys that’s completely wrong because they are simply children and their bodies aren’t ready. **

[Is it wrong only because their bodies aren’t ready? Their bodies are certainly ready for some* of the contact the pedophile desires - would those acts be morally wrong?]

I suppose teen boys they could have a case for, as not so long ago it was legal for 14 year old girls to marry 40 year old guys and still is in some places.
**
[This is more of a relativist argument, stating that what is moral is dependant on the time/society in which you live, and in the end it comes down to a rationale which states that what society permits is what is moral. So what is moral is what is legally permissable? If there was no age limit imposed by the government and people were allowed to marry toddlers, would it then be moral to have sexual relations with them? Again, is this the best morality which subjectivism can produce? Did you just justified pedophilia if we only change a law?]**

However, I don’t believe anyone legally considered a minor, meaning someone who hasn’t had a chance to finish school and who likely isn’t mature enough to enter a sexual relationship particularly one with someoe older, should be allowed to do what NAMBLA wants.
**
**

This is different than two consenting adults.
**
[How? Is it objectively** different? Is it always different? Absolutely? Is it in some way actually disordered, or is it all relative/subjective?]**

I hope I didn’t offend you with this analysis, but I want people to take a serious look at the natural result of their moral reasoning. If we are to be responsible members of society, we need to pay attention to our justifications - moral analysis has a far more significant role to play than most Americans give it credit. Most of us simply dismiss it as a “feelings” statement, and as such any number of things, from beastiality to pedophilia, can be morally justified.

Case in point, you have justified both beastility and pedophilia - I can hardly think of the number of people who would be proud of this.

This is why subjectivism/relativism is such a cancer on society’s intellect! Don’t feel too terrible about having justified things which every rational person abhors - it’s a result of the fact that we don’t teach moral analysis in our society.

If you want, we can go through using the subjectivist analysis to justify rape, incest, murder, adultry, and pretty much everything else you desire. That’s simply what happens when you divorce objectivism from a moral analysis…you end up with the Holocaust.

Whereas I can understand the issues regarding homosexuality, I think it is miles above bestiality in terms of morality and at least somewhat more moral than the views of NAMBLA.

I would agree that it is a lesser evil than beastiality or pedophilia, but that does not make it either morally right or morally acceptable. Using your analysis it would seem that all of these are morally OK as long as the law permits it - is that really what you’re going for? Is there anything that is actually morally wrong?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Libero]

JSmitty2005:

Not in the slightest.

God cannot will something that is contrary to His will. He has made it quite clear through Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium that homosexuality is an abomination. The tendency to have SSA is a result of Original Sin.

What I said *should * be common sense to anyone and especially to a Christian.

I think you may be telling a little bit of a lie there - but then again I don’t know you so feel free to defend yourself

I am not so sure that God has made it clear - I think he definitely showed me this when he chose (as Jesus) not to mention the matter at all - this is something that really concerns me… As for original sin - well, I am not sure what to make of this, I have looked into Original sin quite a bit and cannot help but be skeptical of it…

I think rather than “Christian” you mean “Conservative Catholic”?

NOTE: Please take notice of signature, I am not an official representative of God, and my words are not condoned by an authority that is God - they are my opinions grounded in fact - I am displaying them as is the function of a forum. Thankyou.

 

[Libero]

RyanL:

…cont’d…

Question 2:

I hope I didn’t offend you with this analysis, but I want people to take a serious look at the natural result of their moral reasoning. If we are to be responsible members of society, we need to pay attention to our justifications - moral analysis has a far more significant role to play than most Americans give it credit. Most of us simply dismiss it as a “feelings” statement, and as such any number of things, from beastiality to pedophilia, can be morally justified.

Case in point, you have justified both beastility and pedophilia - I can hardly think of the number of people who would be proud of this.

This is why subjectivism/relativism is such a cancer on society’s intellect! Don’t feel too terrible about having justified things which every rational person abhors - it’s a result of the fact that we don’t teach moral analysis in our society.

If you want, we can go through using the subjectivist analysis to justify rape, incest, murder, adultry, and pretty much everything else you desire. That’s simply what happens when you divorce objectivism from a moral analysis…you end up with the Holocaust.

I would agree that it is a lesser evil than beastiality or pedophilia, but that does not make it either morally right or morally acceptable. Using your analysis it would seem that all of these are morally OK as long as the law permits it - is that really what you’re going for? Is there anything that is actually morally wrong?

God Bless,
RyanL

Paedophillia and bestiality cannot be justified as homosexuality can, on the grounds that they lack the consent of all parties involved.

Some may argue that the child in a paedophillia case can be convinced into consent - but this child does not have the physical or psychological maturity and capacity to engage in sexual relations.

Equating homosexual intercourse to bestiality or paedophillia is no doubt very insulting to the homosexual, as it infers that homosexuals are so deranged they are on the same levels as those who would use animals for sex…

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Libero:

I think you may be telling a little bit of a lie there - but then again I don’t know you so feel free to defend yourself

Yes, he can defend himself and I hope he demands an apology and a retraction for this appalling tidbit.

Scott

 

[Libero]

Scott Waddell:

Yes, he can defend himself and I hope he demands an apology and a retraction for this appalling tidbit.

Scott

Asking for an apology would be far more polite, and much more likely to acquire one, bearing in mind my comment was light hearted (as shown with an emotion - smiley face). Further, I am sure he can speak for himself, and does not require you to harass other forum members…

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Libero:

Asking for an apology would be far more polite, and much more likely to acquire one, bearing in mind my comment was light hearted (as shown with an emotion - smiley face). Further, I am sure he can speak for himself, and does not require you to harass other forum members…

Pointing out wrongdoing is not harassment. If you think so, report me to the mods. I will happily submit to their judgement.

 

[Libero]

Scott Waddell:

Pointing out wrongdoing is not harassment. If you think so, report me to the mods. I will happily submit to their judgement.

Oh as a general rule I don’t report people - I usually let people hold their opinions of me

Apart from one time when I was called a bigot - if there is one thing I am not, it is a bigot!

 

[RyanL]

Libero:

Paedophillia and bestiality cannot be justified as homosexuality can, on the grounds that they lack the consent of all parties involved.

Says who? The dog comes when the owner calls, and doesn’t bite the person when they engage in sexual relations. How much more consent from an animal would you require?

Further, NAMBLA would insist that consent be present.

Why, then, aren’t these “morally justified”?

Some may argue that the child in a paedophillia case can be convinced into consent - but this child does not have the physical or psychological maturity and capacity to engage in sexual relations.

Again - says who? Says you? Why should they accept that? Why should anyone accept that? Part of the claim is that sexual contact is simply a more intimate form of hugging - are you saying that a child cannot consent to a hug? At what age, precisely, can a child consent? 3? 7? 9? 13? Says who? The answer you give will only be a judgment call…and who are you to make that judgment?

Is this morally wrong? Why?

Equating homosexual intercourse to bestiality or paedophillia is no doubt very insulting to the homosexual, as it infers that homosexuals are so deranged they are on the same levels as those who would use animals for sex…

1. I have not equated these acts. In fact, I have tried to take pains to say that I think that pedophilia and beastiality are graver wrongs (but I have not shown my objectivist cards as to why). They are not equal acts, just like stealing and betrayal are not equal acts. That doesn’t mean that either stealing or betrayal is a “moral good” in an of itself.
2. What I have tried to show, quite simply, is that if you reject the grounds used to condemn homosexuality, the floodgates of immorality are opened and anything becomes morally justifiable. If you eliminate the “objective” character of the act itself, you destroy proper moral thinking and what is justifiable becomes whatever is rationalizable.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Libero]

RyanL:

Says who? The dog comes when the owner calls, and doesn’t bite the person when they engage in sexual relations. How much more consent from an animal would you require?

Further, NAMBLA would insist that consent be present.

God Bless,
RyanL

Well, you can say this, but the duty is upon you to find any respectable law official who would agree that the there is acceptable consent from the child or animal, and thus no prosecution is appropriate. I on the other hand can go to my local court, police station or RSPCA centre and enquire and I am pretty sure that all the officials would claim that a prosecution is required - if I asked about two homosexuals who had engaged in sexual relations, I doubt that the same response would arise.

As for the animal not biting - I will have to take your word for this, I would expect otherwise, but then again I am no expert

Similarly, God bless you

 

[RyanL]

Libero:

Well, you can say this, but the duty is upon you to find any respectable law official who would agree that the there is acceptable consent from the child or animal, and thus no prosecution is appropriate. I on the other hand can go to my local court, police station or RSPCA centre and enquire and I am pretty sure that all the officials would claim that a prosecution is required - if I asked about two homosexuals who had engaged in sexual relations, I doubt that the same response would arise.

Again, you’re engaging in the silly argument that whatever is legal is morally right, which is a fairly poor standard for moral thinking. Sodomy is still prohibited on the books in several states - is sodomy therefore immoral in those states, but moral elsewhere? THIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT!

Further, this goes to illustrate that you have “morally justified” pedophilia and beastiality as soon as a law changes. How can any rational person agree with this position?!?

As for the animal not biting - I will have to take your word for this, I would expect otherwise, but then again I am no expert

Similarly, God bless you

Cute. I have to give you props for the snap.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Digger71]

goofyjim:

I only know that with myself SSA has always been there, meaning an admiration for certain males. Yet I’ve only desired heterosexual relationships.

Hmmm, ‘admiration for certain males’ isnt the same as being homosexual. I admire certain males, that does not mean they feature in my minds eye or that I want to rip their clothes off with my teeth.

I don’t know what to make of your posting.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Digger71:

that does not mean they feature in my minds eye or that I want to rip their clothes off with my teeth.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes:

 

[Digger71]

Libero:

Paedophillia and bestiality cannot be justified as homosexuality .

I believe people throw in these two things and then add homosexuality because they require the conflation for their emotional state, or to fearmonger…

You get the same thing with evolution “darwinism, atheism and marxism”

 

[RyanL]

Digger71:

I believe people throw in these two things and then add homosexuality because they require the conflation for their emotional state, or to fearmonger…

I’m not trying to fearmonger or stir up an emotional response. Far from it - I’m trying to elicit an intellectual response to a moral question.

Beastiality is real, and rational people find it really morally reprehensible.

Pedophilia is real, and rational people find it really morally reprehensible.

Homosexuality is real, and rational people disagree - why? On what grounds?

No one has adequately addressed the objections I have voiced as to the argument that homosexuality is moral and beastiality/pedophilia is immoral. I’m not looking for fear or anger - I’m looking for a well reasoned and internally consistant response that can withstand intellectual scrutiny. Thus far I have been offered only opinion, so I’ve worked with what I received.

If you would like to justify homosexual relations through a morally coherent system to the exclusion of beastiality or pedophilia, please give it a shot. I’m all ears!

God Bless,
RyanL