Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your moral compass is not too well formed, eh? The discipline of monogamy is no more freakish than the discipline required to keep one's self from becoming obese or the discipline required to turn one's self into a competent prize fighter.
Your comment seems to evidence the suggestion made by the Church that once gay marriage is allowed soon to follow will be a decline in marriage altogether and an increase in multiple sexual relationships.
Try and keep up. I was speaking to the customary argument from you folks that homosexuality is "unnatural," and therefore there is something morally wrong with it. Monogamy is also "unnatural," in that our inclination as humans is to not be monogamous. Does that make monogamy immoral?
I've often said this before, but I wish you guys could just be honest about this issue. You find homosexuality "icky," so you want to restrict it. I'll be honest with you, about the last thing I want to see on this Earth is two men having sex. That's true for most heterosexual men, but that doesn't mean because something does not appeal to me, we should ban it. If I believed in that, we'd never again have country music, garlic or guys who wear skinny, chick jeans.
Always such fail when a person brings up pedophilia, bestiality, etc. in discussions of homosexuality. The two are not the same. Also, the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
Quote:
That does not mean one can not change the way one thinks.
Why should homosexuals feel the need to change? It harms nobody and nothing.
Quote:
I like how when an English major or a 12 year old child or high school dropout parrots the view people are either born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (from conception) then these people are "educated."
...I just don't subscribe to the view that people are born homosexual or heterosexual or that people's sexual attractions (to whatever morphology or phenotype) can not change--for whatever reason--over time.
Also a completely irrelevant and immaterial point of discussion on the topic.
It doesn't matter one bit whether a person is "born" gay or is gay as a result of "nurture" body/brain chemistry, etc. If you or anyone else whats to argue that people aren't born with an inherent sexual orientation, fine.
The point is, who cares? What does it matter?
It matters not at all.
Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone or impinge on the rights of anyone. If people "choose" to engage in it, or be attracted to their same gender, that's their business.
To peclude consensual adult couples from marrying based solely on gender is the very definition of bigotry, intolerance and discrimination.
And, to point out the fact once again:
There is not one single reason to be offended by or disgusted by homosexuality that doesn't arise from hate, fear, ignorance, bigotry, or some combination of those things. Not a single one.
He's a jerk. A man is ALL about doing the right thing. He had a wife and 2 children who depended on him. To up a leave is a disgrace as a man, and a disgrace as a parent.
Try and keep up. I was speaking to the customary argument from you folks that homosexuality is "unnatural," and therefore there is something morally wrong with it. Monogamy is also "unnatural," in that our inclination as humans is to not be monogamous. Does that make monogamy immoral?
I would tend to agree with you that humans, at least male humans, tend to be sexually promiscuous creatures.
Monogamy is arguably a discipline we impose upon ourselves, often with vows, and where vows are not given, due to cultural customs of the West the expectation is usually there. So, it's a discipline like celibacy.
I think the argument of homosexuality being "unnatural" is one of philosophical proposition, its not one you'd find in the sciences of biology or anthropology. In fact, pedophilia, incest, and what we term as rape are regarded as "natural" as homosexuality and heterosexuality in the scientific fields of inquiry as biology and anthropology. Bearing in mind here that HIV and cancer are "natural" within the sciences too.
Bonbos are apes and close evolutionary relatives of humans. And anthropologists are fond of referring to humans as apes. Bonobos engaging in heterosexual, homosexual, and pedophilia incest. But philosophical inquiry dealing with morals (humans are the only animals that have philosophy) will prod as to whether pedophilia incest, homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex are moral or immoral.
What may not be physically "natural," however, is inserting a penis or object in an anus. Not "natural" for the receiving person that is.
Quote:
I've often said this before, but I wish you guys could just be honest about this issue. You find homosexuality "icky," so you want to restrict it.
For one thing... you have a presumption about my sexual history.
What I can say is that I am being honest about the issue of homosexuality. But one has to differentiate philosophy from the science of biology. They can overlap and in fields like the philosophy of biology the attempt is to work the two harmoniously.
The principle reason--from a stand point of science--of the male and female genitalia of humans and their use in sexual intercourse is reproductive. And that's being honest about the issue.
We are the only animals on earth with gay pride parades too. I'm not certain... but I would take an educated guess and say we are the only animals where a section of our population identifies and labels themselves "gay" strictly.
Quote:
I'll be honest with you, about the last thing I want to see on this Earth is two men having sex. That's true for most heterosexual men, but that doesn't mean because something does not appeal to me, we should ban it. If I believed in that, we'd never again have country music, garlic or guys who wear skinny, chick jeans.
Who is arguing for banning homosexuality? It's rampant so far as I can tell and quite legal. I've been to a few gay clubs in my life. They were all legal establishments.
I think your aversion to male homosexuality--which I have little to none of--stems in large part from the concepts and messages you received in your society about who you are. Basically, indoctrination.
I'm male but I'm more repulsed by the idea of two women making out than I am by the image of two good looking men making out.
There are also a number of things about the female bodily functions I regard as "icky." Does that mean I'm out to "ban" heterosexuality? No.
But bringing this back to the OP, marriage between man and woman, and children created in the process between that union, comes with some obligations. Irrespective of how one identifies in sexual orientation.
And so, monogamous marriage under the Christian tradition, was instituted for children, for their rights to inheritance, and a man became bound to the woman he had sex with an impregnated.
In the "natural" world of animals, where philosophy does not exist, there does exist any ritual marriages governed by a legislative body or a religion. Courts do not exist either.
But among humans we say that men that marry women, men that create children with a woman, have obligations to both that woman and the child or children he produced with her. The man in 20/20 news story basically abandoned all his obligations to his wife and children.
"Homophobia is directly related to the lack of education" - What does that mean? Let's define what education is. Is education something that at it's core fosters learning - awareness...the love of learning or is education simply conditioning or brain washing? Can you educate a person who does not like the flavor of vanilla - to like vanilla- tolerate vanilla - pretend to appreciate vanilla? So a person who finds somethings unpleasant and undesirable is simply just un-educated and ignorant by choice?
Homosexuality is not immoral.
Obesity is not immoral.
End of story.
I'm sorry, you do not control my thinking. I'll freely think as I wish.
I incurred the dislike on some conservative Catholics online when I suggested obesity (gluttony--possibly even physical sloth) may be more immoral than homosexuality.
Your last sentence suggests you wish you were God or a supreme dictator that starts and ends all discussions, inquiries, or philosophies.
You are free to view homosexuality and obesity as amoral issues (they are from a purely scientific point of inquiry--but I don't think so from a stand point of moral philosophy). I'm free to view them as moral issues. And that's objectively the "end of story."
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.[1] The term comes from the Greek word ethos, which means "character". Ethics is a complement to Aesthetics in the philosophy field of Axiology. In philosophy, ethics studies the moral behavior in humans and how one should act. Ethics may be divided into four major areas of study:[1]
"Homophobia is directly related to the lack of education" - What does that mean? Let's define what education is. Is education something that at it's core fosters learning - awareness...the love of learning or is education simply conditioning or brain washing? Can you educate a person who does not like the flavor of vanilla - to like vanilla- tolerate vanilla - pretend to appreciate vanilla? So a person who finds somethings unpleasant and undesirable is simply just un-educated and ignorant by choice?
I'm sorry, you do not control my thinking. I'll freely think as I wish.
I incurred the dislike on some conservative Catholics online when I suggested obesity (gluttony--possibly even physical sloth) may be more immoral than homosexuality.
Your last sentence suggests you wish you were God or a supreme dictator that starts and ends all discussions, inquiries, or philosophies.
You are free to view homosexuality and obesity as amoral issues (they are from a purely scientific point of inquiry--but I don't think so from a stand point of moral philosophy). I'm free to view them as moral issues. And that's objectively the "end of story."
Obesity can come with adverse health effects (e.g., diabetes).
Go ahead & think what you want. You put two statements out there & I put out two statements out there in response. End of story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
