Homosexuality

Remove all ads!

Chev, this doesn't make much sense to me. People who never intend to have children probably get married for the exact same reasons as people who intend to have children, but then find out they cannot. To be specific, I don't see why having children is necessary to affirm a marriage.

Maybe you aren't saying this but this is how I interperet this arguement: Case A - Two people who have no intention to have children should not bother being married.

Case B - Two people intend to have children, but later find out that one of them is incapable of having children. To me, applying the reasoning in Case A to Case B, these people should get divorced. Once they find out that they cannot have children, they obviously no longer have any intention of having them, as they know they cannot. From Case A, people who have no intention of having children should not bother being married, so the people of Case B should no longer bother being married.

I know you can't possibly mean this to be true, as it just makes no fundamental sense. You could even expand that arguement more ridiculously to the point where you say a couple that was married for 25 years, but has now reached an age where the woman has entered menopause should not remained married because they have no intention of having children. There's a disconnect here. Why is having children, or at least the desire to have children essential in a marriage?

 

I couldn't agree more with Ankiseth, Carcaroth and Aldeth. One more thing springs to the eye in chevaliers posts: chevalier, you seem to be quite obsessed with the idea of sexual intercourse between men. What with all your careful differentiating between being homosexual and acting upon it, or between gay, penetrating sex and lesbian, non-penetrating sex. How comes?

This was the very reason for my last post. Do you think of yourself of erotic? Or do you think there's some kind of dirty, immoral component to what you are doing during sex?

Being more explicit: if you like receiving oral pleasures, how should it be possible that giving them to someone could make you vomit? Do the women do so in your case? Same holds for kissing.

 

This strikes me as curious, chev.
Homosexuality wasnt considered an "unnatural" act by some cultures of the past. Your reply to this is that these cultures acted wrong in other situations, when measured by our standards. Therefor their acceptance of gay relations has no meaning. They are ill-suited to be a moral compass. Okay. If you put it this way - agreed.
However, Carcaroth listed some commands of the Bible - commands that advocate slavery, slaying of infidels and those who wont behave according to the Holy Book.
Nothing of this is deemed morally acceptable by our society, no more than the slaying of crippled chrildren. Thus by your logic, what the Bible has to say on homosexuality must not necessarily be right for our time, with its different morals.
When the people who compiled the Bible some 2000 years ago were without a doubt immoral, rigid-minded, intolerant from our point of view in these aspects, why should we trust their dubious wisdom when it comes to our gay fellows? Where is the difference here? Perhaps it is not a good idea to make these sources of the past our guides without questioning their authority. Obviously we havent that much in common with their time anymore.

 

And lest anyone think there's a unified Catholic stance on sexuality, there's always this line of reasoning. Then again, I doubt that Chev has much of an opinion of Rosemary Ruether and her ilk, but there are alot of people like her out there...

 

You shouldn't for it's a matter of opinion. I wasn't saying Chev is doing better in this debate than you all were, I was only saying that I agree with most of what he's said because we share a smiliar opinion in this matter. Opinions are based on things far greater and more important than a piece of text in an internet discussion forum, so it would be rather unrealistic to assume someone would change his just like that. Especially since general debates are filled with information that would have to be verified to be true in the way the reader would understand, before you should believe it. And as I said, I don't have the energy to do that with the 10-20 serious debates I browse through and comment upon each day.

 

Appologies, I misinterpreted your sentence to mean you agreed with Chev because the others of us were only able to use the argument "I think".
I tend to skim read sometimes as I dislike the brown writing on black background.

 

I guess the only thing we can say about homosexuality is that time will tell. In time homosexuals will not be persecuted by the majority but by the minority who in turn will be persecuted themselves for persecuting the homosexuals... gee that gets confuddling. In fact I would say that we are approaching or have already approached that stage where the majority will not insult or harass a homosexual.

In my opinion the harassment is the main problem. The only real reason homosexuals are denied the ability* to adopt a child is to protect the child from harassment due to his or her homosexual parents. When that harassment diminishes to the stage that people who harass homosexuals are viewed as either insensitive or downright stupid (and it will diminish to this stage - you can count on it) then a government will be faced with a time to change. Homosexuals will be granted equality in ALL areas, no longer must a couple have to be a man and a woman in order to adopt a child but merely have to be a couple. You all know this will happen. The only people who openly object to homosexuals are Bible-bashers and bigots.

What makes them bigots? The fact that they are intolerant of homosexuals. Circular argument I know, but that’s what a bigot is – someone who is intolerant of other being different to them. The occupation of the bigot is becoming less and less popular with racism being a serious social offence and sexism is gone (at least in western society). Religions have stopped trying to burn infidels a long time ago (had a habit of earning more enemies than friends – not to mention it doesn’t help conversion rates, despite appearances). However, on the note of religions, the only common ground for hate is against Islam extremists who themselves are hated for being bigots, very harmful to society and downright insane. Bigotry is losing heaps of popularity.

Although not the main problem there is a problem of the idea that homosexuals will raise homosexual children. This argument is completely unfounded. On what evidence do they base this? It's simply a theory. It's not even a rule! Homosexuals MIGHT raise homosexual children or bisexual children but, so what? But they might also raise heterosexual children, nobody knows. However this argument in itself is flawed. Using it as a reason to not allow homosexuals to raise children is the same as saying that homosexuality is bad for society. Why is it the same as saying homosexuality is bad for society? Well, if you try to prevent something you don't prevent it because it is good for society... do you? You try to prevent something because it is bad. Why is there a tax on alcohol and cigarettes? Because they are deemed to be harmful to society. Why is heroin and other ‘hard’ drugs illegal? Because they are deemed to be harmful to society. Preventing homosexuals from raising children due to the theory that homosexuals have a higher chance of raising homosexual children can only be justified if homosexuals are deemed harmful to society.

Are homosexuals harmful to society? I guess that’s something someone has to prove in order to justify denying them the ability* to adopt children. I’d love to see someone prove it. They reduce the number of births? Well, who cares? It’s not like we’re going to run out of people anytime soon and damned if we can keep this rate of population growth for a few more centuries.

If you can prove that homosexuals are bad for society then by all means deny them the ability* to adopt children. However if you cannot then there is no justification to homosexuals being denied thus.

* - I use the word ‘ability’ rather than ‘right’ since I hear it is not a ‘right’ to adopt a child. However if a homosexual couple is declined in adopting a child because they are homosexual then could an adoption agency decline an Asian couple from adopting a child because they are Asian? I don’t think so.

 

First of all, I don't think it's fair to say:

I think this misses the point. I don't think we even need the part "if homosexuals are deemed harful to society" because I do not think one can be influenced to become a homosexual. While I do not doubt that a child raised in a homosexual household would probably be more accepting of homosexuals, and be more in favor of granting homosexuals equal rights, I do not think you can become homosexual because your foster parents are. That just doesn't seem right, as it implies homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe it is.

 

From Ankiseth Vanir:

I can't say that men raised without a father (which doesn't automatically equal biological father) whom I know haven't turned out all right, but they all have difficulties with relationships with women, ranging from mild complications to serious issues. While lacking a father figure doesn't automatically make issues, the risk is so high that it cannot be considered a desirable environment, therefore invalidating a homosexual union as desirable foster parents. Also, we need to realise that foster parents is all they can possibly be.

From Carcaroth:

Answered in the last post or one or two before.

As above.

As above.

Friendships can be more committed than marriages, so what? Next, social recognition has no bearing on biological differences. I refuse to discard my sense of perceived biological reality in the name of political correctness and its current trends.
It's not society what makes people male and female.

Children learn from parents and living in a homosexual environment is not what I want any children in the society to learn.

You must realise that aprioric affirmation of anything that happens is a very rigid stance and imposes severe restrictions on your views. It is usually associated with a firm negation of the opposing stance on a fairly personal and emotional level, thus making the term "prejudice" well merited.

Indeed. Agreed with you, as well.

Before it escapes some people, there is a need to point out one thing: the degree of immorality of an act on its own is not always the same as the degree of moral culpability of the persons who performed an act. For instance, the moral culpability for one particular instance of a certain behaviour may be reduced almost to null by mitigating circumstances. However, it doesn't make the act (or type of acts, to be precise) any less immoral.

That I do, in fact. Although it's not like I chase people and shout it in their ears.

Arguments yes, but facts... not really. Most of it is questions and the rest is quite ostensibly based in the sphere of evaluation and judgement. That isn't wrong, of course, but there's a long way from there to facts.

Is flu healthy? And which dictionary on this planet includes flu under the word "healthy"? I have to reject this argument.

Yeah, I know, I'll be sssoooo politically incorrect. Like I care. Look, what is trendy or not makes such a big difference to me that I'm inclined to yawn and ask "what next?". Homosexualism is not just an alternative orientation. Homosexual carnal activity is not just an acceptable alternative way of "doing it".

That is more or less correct, although from arguments used in this thread it all too often transpires that whatever happens on this planet we should tolerate. Errr... except lack of tolerance (hint, hint).

Ergo: rape is natural, incest is natural, infanticide is natural.

In what previous societies? Ancient Israel or Rome maybe? Mediaeval Europe?

The economical benefit of marriage is not made for two people to escape taxes. It is made to offset child raising expenses to some extent.

Aldeth:

Eerr... decide if they can't or don't intend to. That they don't intend to implies they make a choice, that they can't implies they have no choice. 1!=0

From Darkthrone:

I believe this quote gives more insight into your personality than mine.

Yes, there is a difference between feeling a drive to do something and actually doing it. Also, that sexual activity that doesn't include penetration is not intercourse is pretty obvious, unless you make no such difference because it's all the same to you. Again, I don't want to hear anything about your sex life and I'll be grateful if you stay away from mine.

Look, I appreciate you as a fellow SP-er and all, but your investigation of my sex life makes me feel quite uncomfortable. Nothing personal, I just prefer women. Hope you don't mind.

From Dendri:

Missing the point. I'm not invalidating gay sex through Spartans. I refuse to acknowledge the validation of gay sex through Spartans.

Reasoning like "It's OK because someone else did it." doesn't really make it.

From Bion:

The whole document keeps repeating words like "new" and "recent" as if they were positive qualities (note: that they aren't positive qualities doesn't make them negative qualities - just in case someone feels an urge to make such an assumption; they are neutral descriptions, which means neither positive nor negative per se).

Also, they fall into a serious fallacy: they insist on person-based view rather than act-based view, but they try to validate particular acts or even whole categories of acts through potential non-culpability of actors. That is a contradiction and they are in denial.

Supposing we have an adulterer. We can find lots of excuses for just him in his given case. As a result, we can claim that his moral guilt is vastly reduced. Perhaps there's even no "crime" of adultery (in the moral sense of crime), but was there no adultery in the objective sense, in the very first place? Is it a good thing that this adultery has taken place? Heck, no. Even less can we claim that all adultery should be allowed because in a small percentage of cases the culpability of offenders can be reduced. Their reduced culpability doesn't validate the whole category of acts as morally positive or even morally neutral.

Next, they make a couple of false assumptions about marriage, and the most important one of them is that Catholic marriage is a matter between two people. Sorry, there's God still. The matter is between two people and God and God's laws come into question. They're expressed in the Bible, so here goes. Neither spouse has the authority to exempt the other from fidelity, for instance. No arrangements can make group sex, swinging, beastiality (mentioned in the article) etc right and proper in the light of Catholic doctrine. I guess this is also true for non-Catholic Christian Churches, but with so many denominations as they are, there probably are exceptions.

From the article:

Sorry, but what moral good comes from swinging? How does it teach you responsible commitment to ONE partner? Unless you consider learning through mistakes but the idea behind mistakes is that they aren't right. You can't have a cake and have it eaten.

As for adultery, the matter is more complex and in some cases, where the adulterer seems to have found loving, lasting and responsible commitment outside his marriage, it is possible that his consent to marriage was invalid because he simply had no idea to what he was consenting. If that is true, the whole marriage is invalid and the statement of mutual consent needs to be repeated in order to validate the marriage. If the marriage is declared void, he can marry his partner and live together happily ever after. But does it make it right to seek fulfilment outside your marriage? No.

Plus a couple of doctrinal errors. Well, it's obvious the document is written by someone who wants the church to allow more freedom to the faithful and considers the doctrine to be of secondary importance compared to his wishes. Inconsistency with the Bible is not even addressed. Is that an alternative Catholic view? No. It's a view represented by some Catholics who want leeway to do things and still receive benefits of being Catholic.

Well, that's it for now.

 

I realize this is going to be unpopular with some folks, and may be perceived as trolling, but...

All of this pseudo-intellectual justification of dislike/discrimination/whathaveyou of homosexuals is no different than the tripe certain people spouted to justify discrimination against blacks.

What you have is a dislike of homosexuality on an emotional level. All of this "well they can't have kids and are harmful to society, etc, etc, etc" nonsense stems from that, not the other way around. Don't bother trying to argue against folks like that; their dislike of homosexuality isn't rational, so rational discussion won't change it.

*braces for flames*

 

chevalier, I couldn't be less interested in your sex life, as it is. I'm more after Abomination, y'know. Your dodging all the arguments that are brought up against yours. Nothing new. Quite a lengthy post of yours just to say "I said it all before, and now stop bothering me."

AMaster is right, of course.

 

Ah, he is just flattering himself.

@ AMaster
If I may be so bold: I absolutely agree with you.

 

*hands AMaster a big bucket of water*

Agreed.

*sigh*

 

I think we need to clarify what "homosexual marriage" actually means.

As far as I can see, Chev thinks about catholic marriage in a church conducted by a priest. IMHO, there is no chance that this is going to happen. Ever.

Could it be that the others here think about it as an act of the state the couple lives in? Like in Denmark or Germany?

 

Read my post again. I said that it is a THEORY that is used to deny homosexuals the ability to adopt children. I'm simply arguing away the theory by saying that even IF homosexuals had a higher chance of raising homosexual children (raising, not breeding - the argument of a homosexual gene is itself a theory) then it could only be justified denying them the ability to raise these 'higher probability of homosexuality children' if homosexuality is deemed harmful to society.

My argument is based on IF the theory that 'homosexuals raise homosexual children' was a rule. But it is not a rule. Even so people use it in argument.

Chev:

The risk is high and due to this risk it INVALIDATES homosexual unions as desireable foster parents? Just like that? You would deny these people the ability to adopt based on a slightly higher chance the child will have problems in later life? It's a theory! It could also be argued that children raised by single parents lacking a father figure have problems in later life because they only had ONE parent. One parent who had to work all day to raise the child and pay all the bills. If a homosexual MALE couple adopted a child would you have this problem? Since there is obviously a father figure - two in fact - so shouldn't the risk of having problems in later life be HALF of a normal hetrosexual couple based on your argument?

Why? What could the negative effects be here? The child would be very tolerant of homosexuals, we can be quite certain of that. But apart from that there is no real proof that this child will be disadvantaged in later life.

And we have yet to see any hard evidence from the anti-homosexual viewpoint either. Theories are not facts. Linking single parent problems to homosexual couple problems when raising children is not valid because the situations are different.

You're missing the point chev. People are allowed to get married and they're not asked at the alter to state if they are going to have children or not and if they say they do not intend on having children then the minister/bishop/cardinal/reverend/monk whatever won't suddenly declare the marriage null and void. People get married as a statement to society expressing their love and devotion to each other in both legal and real terms - children are not the main ingredient for marriage. Even so there is no reason to deny homosexuals a 'form' of marriage - not marriage per se but something that emulates marriage. Obviously they can't look to the churches for this but they can look to the state yet the state will not grant this based on religious grounds... something's up and it smells - I thought church and state were supposed to be separate?

 

Once again, Chevalier, your statements are highly problematic. Seriously, who are you to make such value judgments as to what's desirable and what isn't? The fact is your claims are completely baseless; you have no statistics, no reasoning, no nothing. Sadly, for the sake of your argument, you have failed to show 'why' such a thing is true.

And, for the second time, you have utterly failed in the very simple task I put before you. To answer the question "what can a man provide to a child that another woman cannot?"

If you can answer this you might actually have an argument. (And, no "legitimacy" is not an acceptable answer.)

And another huge problem with your "argument" is the whole problem with that darned slippery slope. Perhaps we should bar working class families from adopting children because it is a "less desirable environment" than an adoption from say, 2 well educated, well-off college professors. Hmmm? But that is still a moot point because you have failed to show why a homosexual couple is less capable. Do that first then you can address the next obstacle, the slippery slope.

 

"Marriage" is a union of a man and a woman.

Bull, marriage is supposed to be about love. Marriage shouldn't be able to discriminate especially in this day and age.

Marriage is marriage, when two people love each they should be able to get married regardless of sexual preference.

 

Well, I kinda agree with chev in his first post, the gay movement is way of chart and needs a good kick in the head, every year there is the gay parade in Amsterdam, boats filled with half-naked homos dancing around making asses of themselves sail around the canals, and oh boy do we have *fun*... where did I left that shotgun?
Gay Olympics? Bull, why not have Pedo Olympics? Or Necro Olympics.

Equal rights, yeah.
Special rights, no.

However, since christianity holds no copyrights on marriage (christianity officialy only existing since Jesus started his cult in give or take 30 AD),
and earliest mention we know of marriage is around 2350 BC in Mesopotamia, we can therefor conclude that Jews, and it's decending religions; did not invent marriage, teehee.

Technically, you should be able to marry your goat (but except PETA to drop by soon).
But because marriage should remain a serious ritual, let's put the definition at:
A legal union between two consenting people.

 

(Flame suit? Check)

@ AMaster: As I said to Abomination earlier, as much as I can't agree with your statement entirely, I truly wish I could, because things would be much simpler and much better for it. Please don't count this as a flame; it isn't intended as one, just a discussion of your assertion.

(damned inner Devil's Advocate...)

I don't see how it can ever be reduced to this. Certainly their response is amplified by emotionality; that is unquestionable. If you adopt a liberal rationality, then yes; this is as simple as emotionality clouding the point that in the end, homosexuality is not innately harmful, therefore there is no need to define people's entitlements differently based on sexual orientation. But if you strip away ALL the artifice and emotionality from the arguments against homosexuality, there are still justifications for opposition. From a purely rational (utilitarian) point of view, any coupling which cannot produce offspring is undesirable (unless you have an overcrowded planet - which is another issue). Like I said earlier, though, it will never be this detached, and there will presumably always be disapproval for homosexuality in some way. Sixty years ago, the vast majority of us would have been in near-complete agreement with Chev. Three hundred years ago, a lot of us wouldn't have been anti-slavery, either. A lot of things change, but utilitarian biological arguments have not. Homosexuality is comparatively mainstream now in terms of its acceptance, but your position on it is a value judgement, no matter what.

On that point, though, we have plenty of evidence that homosexuality occurs in "natural" settings (I hate that description, it's as though human society is completely divorced from that, which is BS). We can probably throw any pretense of rationality out the window quite safely, because any claim to detachment and "rationality" on a constructed social issue is tenuous at best. I guess it goes to show that most concepts of rationality are better suited to a debating hall or a lab than to the whole of creation.

Racism is one thing - it's absolute **** and shouldn't be tolerated, because it is utterly groundless garbage that has no purpose except to impose a new form of societal division based on something as immutable as parentage. The problem exists only because it is constructed to have meaning. Depending on what you believe about sexual orientation, you may have a different belief about heteromania/homophobia. That in itself is a value judgement, and I'm sure many people who are rabidly anti-homosexual feel the same way but with opposite priorities.

In a nutshell: some people will act on a purely emotional basis, without thinking, either for or against homosexuality. To say that you have the rational high-ground is right IMO, AMaster, but rationality is not an exclusive property in this debate. I agree, though, that more often than not, people who are anti-gay have no reasoned basis for it, just vilification and hatred, and I have nothing but contempt for the simians who preach hellfire and brimstone or violence.

 

This isnt going to be resolved easily is it?
Wait, let me rephrase that: This isnt gonna be resolved full stop.

All each person can really do is state their own opinions, so:
(so you know my bias, I am hetrosexual with several gay friends)
IMO, homosexuals should be allowed to marry as it is not hurting anyone.
IMO, homosexuals should NOT be able to have or adopt children because, as any psychologist will tell you, it is important for a child's mental development to have a MOTHER and a FATHER and anyone who puts their own wish to have a child before this should CERTAINLY not have a child anyway.
And (I'm really gonna get FLAMED) IMHO, religion first evolved as a mental crutch to avoid having to confront entropy and inevtible oblivion, therefore it is not a good schema (means transmitted idea) to build law upon. How much blood has God (or the idea of him) spilt? Religion is inherently very conservative and therefore resistant to change, and so will never keep itself up to date.

BTW, if you want to yell at me about this, PM me.