Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Hmm, it seems there's little to say which hasn't already been said. I agree with Rallymama.

 

According similar benefits without setting similar requirements is no equal rights. A gay union is not the same as a mutually complementing union of a man and a woman, no matter how you put it. The privileges that marriage enjoyed are geared towards and tailored for prolongation of families, which is no goal that a gay union can reach. All that a gay union can achieve is to emulate the union of a man and a woman committed to each other and the life they beget.

Adoption of children is not a right.

Children learn their societal roles from parents. For some reason, I don't want a fresh new human being to be taught how to be a good same-gender-spouse and co-same-gender-parent of adopted children.

Which is no valid justification for making petty concession in such an important matter as the good formation of family.

Dignity is innately human, but respect is innately due to fellow human so long as it is respect for him or her as a human being. No one has any right to respect for his or her chosen lifestyle. In fact, affirmative stance has not much to do with respect. It's based more on general indolence.

It is a debatable matter what makes narrow-mindedness. To me, narrow-mindedness is, for instance, happy affirmation of gay life style including such travesty as male anal intercourse or male oral intercourse, which creeps out most people even on purely aesthetical grounds. Not all that exists is good.

In fact, you are taking it out of context, because it was clearly given in reply to arguments against the significance of condemnation of homosexual carnal activity in the Bible. The Bible favours marital sexual activity and, given the Bible only knows heterosexual marriage and refers to gay pairing as travesty, there can be no marital homosexual carnal activity, simply because there's no homosexual marriage.

Over-crowded, you say? But if there is an even proportion between males and female, just what purpose would such a method of regulation serve? There's about the same number of men and women in the world (in fact, women are slightly more numerous, but it's not a big difference). Also, the sole fact that something happens in the animal world doesn't make it natural. Example: two-headed animals are born. Is that natural?

Apart from homosexuality, also rape appears among animals. It's no secret sex is not always consensual for both animals involved. And you can't expect animals to know what is reasonable or required (mild objection as to the latter, btw). So, is rape a perversion then? Only because people claim it to be so because for them, it is unreasonable...

The Greek Spartans also left weak infants to die in mountains with mutilated heels so as to make sure they wouldn't survive. So, is infanticide good because the Greek Spartans did it? Mind you, the Greek world knew its fair share of pillage and slaughter. Is that good as well?

By this kind of logic, we can arrive at a conclusion that whatever happens in the world is good and natural and can't be wrong. Don't even need examples to know that for absurd.

 

But Chev, there are SO many other 'undesirable' roles that parents could model for their kids, several of which I have mentioned above. I would much prefer orphaned children to be raised by a couple of loving, caring, homosexuals than a couple of drug-running, swinging, child-beating, drunk, techno-music playing suicide cult heterosexual gangsters.

 

Define 'good formation of family'.

Why is this narrow-minded to you?
Define 'good'.

Not everyone agrees with the Bible.

If it happens in nature, without interference, and you still deem it unnatural, I don't see what you define as 'natural'. Not common, perhaps, but, by very definition, natural.

So, consensual homosexuality is now akin to rape?

Define 'wrong'.
You're implying firstly that the Spartans were wrong on all counts, and then suggesting that by invalidating some of the the currently-morally-distasteful acts (infanticide, for example), it also invalidates homosexuality. It may not be what you meant, but it is what you convey.

If I may ask, why is homosexuality wrong, in your opinion (without quoting, or getting reference from anywhere)?

[ October 28, 2004, 01:01: Message edited by: Midwinter ]

 

Well, Chev, I think we can definitely see a progress here. Not so long ago the disclaimer 'male' would not have been included Welcome to the light side. And, surely, even you must admit that no such argument of aesthetic disapproval can be made for sexual intercourse between two women

But seriously now, I have a major problem with the following statement:

Does that mean that a marriage of a man and a woman which have no [intention of having] children, in your eyes, deserves the same condemnation as gay marriage?

 

My point with the bible thing was that it is sued as a tool of hate, when all it is, is a good fantasy novel, written way back when.

And I'll use the "i know some gay people" thing here, becosue well I do, and both are great guys and will make great fathers some day.

But I think it is about change, peopel are afraid of change, and they dont want to do it with the oldest institutions, Religion and Family.

 

You want change ? The just rewrote the whole bible. If such a divine item as the bible can change, surely us puny mortals can do the same thing ?

 

I wont comment on my veiws of religion. It might get me stoned to death.

 

Lets not forget that morals change. It USED to be morally acceptable to crucify people, to own slaves - now it is not acceptable. It used to not be morally acceptable for a black man and a white woman to have a sexual relationship - now it is acceptable.

If you think homosexuality is forever going to be immoral then you've got a new thing coming. Morality changes, even the Bible recognises that, the problem is that there hasn't been a new edition of the Bible for the last 2000 odd years - morals have changed significantly since then.

Homosexuality does appear in the natural world, as with rape. Yet rape is immoral because it is one being forcing themselves upon the other, the other has no choice in the matter. Homosexuality is mutual consent between both parties. You might as well say sex is immoral since it involves two people having a good time despite not harming anyone else (assuming contraceptives are involved).

 

Well said Abomination.

 

the same could be said about incest - that can be between 2 consenting parties but its still wrong.

 

Good points about society's moral evolution, Abomination. If anyone wants to read something about this, just look at Norbert Elias' "The Civilising Process". Somewhat archaic, but relevant nonetheless. Social morals change - this is not a good or bad thing, better or worse, it just is. It's how we react to those changes that defines our perceptions of it as good/bad.

Unfortunately, though, the matter is not as simple as the evolution of morality and socially-accepted norms (although to be fair, that's the part that gets the most play since it's the most emotionally charged aspect of it). Your argument makes the fatal mistake of assuming that it is not value-laden in and of itself. And here's where this post goes a bit post-modern... my apologies.

As much as I don't agree with Chev in principle (I'm very much a liberal at heart), he is right when he says that because something happens in nature, it doesn't mean that it's an inevitably good thing. We construct meaning over the top of "the real"; we assign a value to it that has nothing to do with the actual phenomenon itself, only our take on it. "Natural" does not equal "good" - by this logic, we shouldn't try to prevent flooding or bushfires, for example. If we wanted to stick with that line of thought, then virtually any form of sexual activity is "natural", and therefore unassailable, unless you get into degrees of naturalness, which is absurd for a binary thing like natural/unnatural. It's an excessively fatalistic step to take, and one which oversimplifies the issues here (as does a resort to the Bible or any other document as the sole justification for action).

Human beings are unique in that (1) we can affect our environment in a massive way, (2) we have a written history and historical traditions that are culturally and racially defined, (3) we are capable of abstract thought, unlike most animals, and (4) the capability to form abstract thought and eventually progress to philosophical considerations means that we are outside of nature, to a point. Our perspectives and understandings are not simply determined by genetics, instinct and personal experience; there is a wealth of external influences. If it was as easy as you would have us believe, we wouldn't be arguing about it.

I wish it was, though, I truly do.

@ Midwinter: I know Chev can defend himself, but you're being a bit nit-picking by asking for definitions of "good" and "wrong". From your post, you obviously know they're subjective personally-delineated concepts. In your defence, though, I think the word "abnormal" might be a better choice than "unnatural".

 

NonSequitur: I disagree about nit-picking. When Chev uses these words, I want to know what *he* means. He should also know it's not the best idea to use them in a debate, unless everyone is crystal-clear on their meaning. Given that, as you said, they are subjective, this is difficult.

As for abnormal\unnatural, this was *exactly* the point I was trying to make - the examples are not common, they could be said to be abnormal. They cannot, however, be said to be unnatural. There is a clear dividing line.

Abomination - your points on moral evolution are well-constructed.

Cesard - again, moral evolution plays a large part in this. Was it wrong in Ancient Eygpt? No - it kept the family bloodline 'pure'. Nowadays, it is frowned on.

 

I think that they should be entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals. Marriage, adoption, whatver. They are people to.

I hate the religous argument against homosexuality. But thats mostly because I find that organized religions are the downfall of society, but we'll burn that bridge when we get there.

 

No, Cesard, I don't view it that way. The very thing about incest is that (in most cases) there aren't two consenting parties. If there were, I wouldn't see anything wrong with incest (mor-ally culpable bastard that I am). And I don't talk about child abuse here, at least not in a physical manner.

The main drawback of incest is (skipping the obvious genetical implications that can be avoi-ded technically) that the parties can be and mostly are being mislead in their emotions and feelings. Love and affection between close relatives can adopt many forms, but as soon as sexual attraction comes into play this is an indicator of something being fundamentally wrong. For example, a girl emotionally neglected by her father may view her sexuality as the only way to secure her the badly needed bond of affection to him. Is this healthy and right? I doubt it. Is she really consenting, so that her father may be free to act upon this displayed sexuality? Not so.

The consent between the two involved persons is there only at first glance. It vanishes at closer inspection.

Again: if there was a healthy and satisfying incestous relation of 2 consenting adults, what could possibly be wrong with that?

(This is not in order to provoke dissent; this is what I believe.)

@Dendri: Maybe the Broder thingy had been a mistake. I am (or at least try to be) open min-ded, you know. I am just precociously aggressive. And egocentric.

 

This is all a matter of opinion really. If there *are* things that can be "proven", then this is not one of them. Telling one's own view is one thing, but some of you are taking this way out there with attempts to prove why things are the way you think they are.

I would say I agree with Chev though, mainly because he has the energy and the information to say something generally more acceptable in a debate than my own "I think..."

Yes if it's a hypocrite lie. In my case however, it's true. And saying that serves a purpose, as it was there to prove that despite my opinion of gays being repulsive, I don't hate them. Call it an example to tell the over-interpreting sort that I'm not a nazi.

As for the intelligence comment.. You know I learned something a long time ago. People who provoke others can rarely be taken seriously, because they tend to base their opinions on anything that invokes a reaction, rather than something that makes sense. Although the world is pretending to be tolerant of gays, the reality is still far from it (for good and bad). That 'intelligent' response gave me a good chuckle too. How nice that we're both having fun.

Refer to my signature. Unlike the previous one, that one's there for a reason. I prefer simplicity and consideration for others to egoism and elitism, even if the latter might seem to accomplish more (well the words aren't exactly opposites or mutually exclusive, but I find they fit this situation best). And I didn't say that to provoke anyone, I just felt a reminder was in order for all the people here in general.

 

But if all people would try to make sense, we would be going nowhere. Common sense is something like the smallest denominator. It's boring as hell - as Sarevok* would say.

Your signature speaks the truth: life is very simple. We won't change each other through a debate on the internet, so why try? Like Ragusa said. Debates really are pointless in most cases; people listening to themselves all the time, trying to feel cosy in the knowledge that they are not alone with their thoughts and feelings.

I will try to make sense now: I can't understand anyone not seeing the eroticism of his own gender. The only possible explanation I can come up with would be fear of one's own body, emotions and instincts. Something I'm sure chevalier would reject forcefully. But what other explanation is there?

 

From Midwinter:

Please, let's not take extreme examples in place of general outlook. While a homosexual "family" is innately flawed, not all heterosexual couples are drug-running, swinging, child-beating, drunk, techno-music playing suicide cult heterosexual gangsters. How could you even think that? I'm hetero and techno music is awful to me!

I believe I have already. I don't think there can be an accurate short definition, but at any rate, it starts from a healthy union between a man and a woman, complementing each other, committed to passing on life and protecting it, also teaching, by example and otherwise, healthy standards of social coexistence and interaction. Healthy does not include homosexual, by definition of healthy.

Why is the opposite (i.e. my stance) narrow-minded to the other side of the fence?

However, to answer your question: as Foradasthar said, too much tolerance implies ignorance. That is because adopting total affirmation as one's default stance of things is not really a sign of ability to ponder things and embrace complex concepts. In fact, there's nothing "mental" in such a stance.

Please...

Of course. But here's something on which every logical debater will agree, regardlessly of his religious convictions or lack thereof: if someone calls upon the Bible for arguments to support his or her position, he or she cannot exempt himself or herself from Bible-based arguments against that position.

In short, if someone calls upon the Bible to dispel a certain point, it's only logical to dispel the dispelling point basing on the Bible, isn't it? If I, let's say, call upon the US Constitution, I can't say "sorry, I'm not American, the US Constitution is not relevant to me" when I meet opposition on the grounds of the US Constitution. Right?

You know, this way all sort of travesty should be natural to you if you aren't involved in it yourself. After all, it happens without your interference. Ah, and define interference. From the point of view of a passive human beholder, rape amongst animals happens without interference, as a natural thing. You can say it's between animals, so it doesn't really count because it can't be good or bad between animals. But the same I can say about homosexualism happening among animals.

How in the universe did you conceive that analogy? The link is that both homosexuality and rape happen among animals. You say that, because it happens between animals, homosexuality is good for people. If we use only this and no other distinction, then rape is good for people, too. Why? Because it happens among animals. And incest, too, if we are at it.

See? That something happens between animals doesn't really make it good for people.

Please... what next am I going to define? True and false?

From Vukodlak:

No. I'm only showing that validating currently morally distasteful acts through ancient Spartans doesn't work. That Spartans did it, doesn't mean it's good. Spartans had gay sex, so it must be good? Wrong! Spartans killed infants and no one is telling me killing infants is morally good.

Apparently, we're in disagreement here.

Eerr.. how do you imagine female anal? Oral maybe, but it's more in the petting than sex area for women. Not like it's good, of course. Anyway, yeah, lesbian sex is also disgusting to me if that's what you're asking?

If they have no children? No. If they can't have children? No. If they can but don't want (yet)? Well, maybe they will want them later. No intention of having any kids ever? Well then, why marry? I plead Ockham's Razor here.

From Darkthrone:

First you say:

Then you say:

So, do you see something morally wrong in incest or not? It can't be both nothing wrong and fundamentally wrong.

The same way, I could say that love and affection between people of the same gender can take many forms, but if sexual attraction comes into play, somthing is being fundamentally wrong. In fact, I do say that, anyway.

And it's not so much about attraction as about acting on it. I'm not saying that being homosexual is wrong - so long as it isn't chosen by the individual, it can't be counted as morally good or wrong. Acting on it is a different thing.

So much as incest can be used to cement fading bonds between family members, gay sex can happen because of misled feelings towards friends (there's a difference between needing physical contact and needing sexual contact, and this difference sometimes escapes people), because of social pressure ("oh my, I think my friend is an attractive guy, so I should probably sleep with him or I'll be a homophobe denying my natural instincts").

Forcefully? Haven't seen me forceful...

Well, men just aren't erotic to me. Sure, they can be objectively attractive and one guy can be more attractive than another. Unavoidably, if we took a group of men, you would sooner or later differ with me on which guy is the more attractive one of a random two. So there's something subjective about it, too. But does that mean I see guys as sex object? Hell, no. I've been dumped by various women more than 20 times in my 21 years and somehow I still haven't switched to gay mode!

 

Ummm... quite a few. By the way, they turned out alright. Again, I'll ask you the same question: what can a father provide that another woman can not? Please answer the question instead of avoiding it for a second time.

 

What similar requirements are you after? Other’s have already pointed out that single people can adopt, so it’s can’t be purely based on having both Male & Female role models. Please explain how a Gay couple could not fulfil any “requirements” other than being of different sexes.

Why is a gay union not the same as a heterosexual union, other than a question of the sex of the people involved? What makes it different, other than someones attitude to it?

As other’s have pointed out, people with no intent of having families enjoy those privileges, so why shouldn’t a gay couple. We are also discussing the opportunity for gay couples to have families.

I agree, they can only emulate it, because as a society we refuse to recognise it. They can be as equally committed to each other.

What reason? How can this possibly impact on you? Should we lock up the children of murderers because they might have been taught by their parents how to murder? Sexuality can’t be just about the societal roles of parents otherwise we wouldn’t have homosexual behaviour!

Oxford Dictionary of Common English:
Narrow Minded: intolerant, prejudiced, rigid or restricted in ones views.
Please explain how being narrow-minded applies to the description “happy affirmation”, but not to the description “travesty”.

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly, not for the first time. My point is that the Bible (New Testament) equally condemns all non-marital sexual activity (i.e. Fornicators, used in exactly the same sentence as (translation in Bible) Homosexuality). You've already indicated we shouldn't be able to pick & choose.

So if you use the bible as an argument against Homosexuality, you must equally use it as an argument about any non-marital sexual activity.

I rather object to this Foradasthar, I have used reasoned arguments and facts to challenge Chev’s statements, as have most people in this thread.

Which dictionary do you use? Health: State of being well in body or mind, person’s mental or physical condition. No statement of Homosexuality anywhere. If you are referring to Male Anal/Oral intercourse then it’s not exactly confined to homosexuality, and I would imagine Heterosexual intercourse for women is a lot less healthy for women than Lesbianism. Or do you mean mental health? Very dangerous ground if you do.

Totally agree, which is why I’ve been quoting from the bible to combat your arguments.

I can almost agree with that. My main objection is that because it is a sensitive matter, the people that make decisions to allow such things to occur (especially if any politicians are involved) will think long and hard about it. It would be fair to say that most people in this debate with the opposing view to you have a fairly good ability to think for themselves, and still believe your view is wrong.

I think the interference alluded to is, rather obviously, human and not an individual. If humans are in no-way involved then something is natural.

Which was never my point, just that in previous societies it was acceptable to be homosexual. It is a product of our current society that it is not.

Why marry?, well other than to stop the Government getting their hands on more of your money, then possibly as a means of showing affirmation of love for each other. As it happens, I don’t believe in Marriage and neither my girlfriend or myself feel the need to affirm our to love in any form of ceremony.

I believe the point was that it was an indicator of deeper problems, not that it was wrong in itself. The main argument against incest is genetic. Incest is not so common in the Natural world, but is common in breeding programs, especially Dog.