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.
Then you do not see the problem because my actual position is exactly the opposite. I have no issue with the sexual acts because they are acts that BOTH heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in. So my position is not only NOT hung up on the physical acts, it is _entirely_ independent of it. It is you that is erroneously hung up on something.... which is the gender of the participants..... which is just one arbitrary and irrelevant attribute as any other.... like hair colour or body weight ect. The phrase "homosexual conduct" fails therefore because there IS no conduct unique to them. Who they are engaging in it with differs, but the conduct is the same.
So I would suggest you read it again and try again, maybe you will understand it this time. When you get hip to THAT...you will probably (though, maybe not) be able to understand it much better, and (hopefully) it will make sense to you.
To repeat the ACTUAL problem: You have taken the Kantian principle of extrapolating a maxim to the maximum and simply inserted a nonsense into it. And Rubbish in - Rubbish out as they say. Perhaps you can try again.
Read the part I highlighted above. JUST that. See?
Sex acts are always the same...and there isn't a whole lot to choose from. It is how the participants themselves DIFFER from other participants that the terms define.
By your logic, we should just do away with any terms that are indicative of particular characteristics of the participant(s)...because they all engage in the same physical acts. Because, I don't know...it bothers you for some strange reason?
"Homosexual conduct" is a descriptor of a characteristic of those engaging in the conduct...not the acts themselves. And it is informative in that way.
You seem to have an issue with it being said, "Those two men/women engaged in homosexual conduct"...instead of saying, "Those two men/women engaged in sexual conduct".
Neither bother me. I'm not so hung up on things as insignificant as that. I do feel sorry for those that are. Do you think a Prayer Thread request might help them?
I do not require my own words highlighted back at me. I both know them and understand them. The latter of which is not true of you. Nor am I the one "bothered" by anything here. Correcting your falsehoods, failure to understand terms, and misapplication of Kantian principles in no way indicates I am bothered by anything. I merely correct errors where I find them.
Once again the only issue here is you have taken a Kantian Principle and simply misapplied it with nonsense. Nor are principles from any philosopher a hard and fast rule to begin with.
The simple fact is there is no move towards homosexuality being anything but a minority practice, and as such fantastical nonsense about it becoming common place enough to harm our species will remain nonsense until a VAST change in the statistics comes about. So if that is the best argument you can manufacture to indict homosexuality, then you literally have nothing.
Seriously? Farmers are superfluous. It isn't just ecology you don't know much about then.
We are getting way off topic...but, what did mankind do for food before formal agricultural techniques?
If it is so necessary, how did humans survive, since we've existed much longer without it, than with it?
Many claim, with some pretty good data to back it up, that modern farming and agriculture have hurt the ecological well being of the Earth. So, who's correct?
I do not require my own words highlighted back at me. I both know them and understand them. The latter of which is not true of you. Nor am I the one "bothered" by anything here. Correcting your falsehoods, failure to understand terms, and misapplication of Kantian principles in no way indicates I am bothered by anything. I merely correct errors where I find them.
Once again the only issue here is you have taken a Kantian Principle and simply misapplied it with nonsense. Nor are principles from any philosopher a hard and fast rule to begin with.
The simple fact is there is no move towards homosexuality being anything but a minority practice, and as such fantastical nonsense about it becoming common place enough to harm our species will remain nonsense until a VAST change in the statistics comes about. So if that is the best argument you can manufacture to indict homosexuality, then you literally have nothing.
The OP was asking for possible nonreligious objections to homosexuality.
I posed one based upon a known philosophical concept..."I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law".
As respects the subject of homosexuality...that proposes that acting homosexually "should become universal law".
I noted...if everyone in human history followed the "universal law of homosexual conduct"...it would have ended the human race.
I posed that as a nonreligious objection to homosexuality, as per the OP.
Try not to get too upset over my reply to the OP. I stated the concept exactly as it reads...and applied it to the question posed in the thread title.
And my Gepetto Pavlov persona thanx you!
The OP was asking for possible nonreligious objections to homosexuality.
Just like I do not need my own words explained to me by someone who does not understand them, I do not need to be reminded the subject of the thread. I know what the OP is looking for, objections to homosexuality, it is there in the thread title. I also know you have not provided one. What you proposed is a non-sensical fantastical hypothetical for which there is no reason to EVER expect to come to pass in reality.
I will allow the OP to speak for themselves, but I imagine they were looking for realistic or credibly objections, not fantastical nonsense ones that will not likely ever come to pass, manufacture off the back of a nonsense application of a single philosophical rule.
At best (and this is a stretch even for a long olive branch) you have provided an objection to that application of that philisophical idea. Not against homosexuality itself. Perhaps you will try again.
We are getting way off topic...but, what did mankind do for food before formal agricultural techniques?
If it is so necessary, how did humans survive, since we've existed much longer without it, than with it?
Many claim, with some pretty good data to back it up, that modern farming and agriculture have hurt the ecological well being of the Earth. So, who's correct?
The same way that humans reproduce even though a small number of humans are homosexual. The answer is not everyone would ever become a dentist hence there will always be farmers and not everyone will become homosexuals hence they always will be offspring.
Is that a concern of yours? Perhaps you can start a free clinic at you church. You could also offer services for straights who have STD's. Of course the members of your church that have STD's would probably find another place for their health care needs.
You might as well have supported your earlier statement with hair conditioner or blue latex paint then, for all the relevance the two things have.
Anal sex is something that some homosexuals and some heterosexuals do, for reasons that have never been clear to me ... other than that you can develop a taste for most anything I guess. I don't know why some people eat vegemite either. To each their own.
But the discussion here is not about anal sex, it is about same gender sex, about which you apparently know even less than I.
Let me help you: people who don't like the idea of homosexuality routinely focus on one aspect of how some homosexuals, mainly men, sometimes engage in sex, because it paints a picture that is easy for you to dislike. It is rather like someone opposed to Australians telling you that being Australian is icky and bad because did you know that Australians actually eat vegemite???!?. When in fact that is entirely irrelevant to any supposed harms of Australians being allowed to exist, totally forgets that some people outside of Australians also eat vegemite, and that many, maybe even most, Australians don't eat it or don't eat it much.
It is simply a tactic for painting gays as evil, unsanitary, and awful. A technique more broadly known as "otherizing", a way of dehumanizing others so that you can treat them badly.
I'm sure that as a Christian you don't want to do that, do you, James? No, I thought not.
Now that you have been informed of this unsavory gay-baiting tactic I'm sure you won't engage in it any more, because it reflects so badly on your Lord and Savior, whose reputation you do, I'm sure, jealously guard.
Glad that we have that out of the way and can now carry on this discussion in a fashion that is actually constructive.
No, it's really just about the way the human body was designed (if you believe in a creator) or the way the body functions best (if you don't).
Which being translated meaneth 'Since my claim that homosexuality was "offensive" (which in itself needeth translation) to nature' was shown up to be untenable, I am shifting my ground to "homosexuality is harmful to those doing it" and pretending that it supports my previous refuted statement.'
Jimmie, we are too wary to fall for such tricks. and the claim itself also falls under the argument from the particular to the general which, being Interpreted, meaneth Special Pleading fallacy. There are lot of things we do which can be harmful, but we do them anyway and it is our choice whether we do them or not and the grubby pretence of being concerned for our welfare is just a smokescreen (if the mixed metaphor can be excused) for religion based determination to interfere in our choices of what we can and can't do,.
No. The proof that homosexual sex acts are offensive to nature is that they are harmful to the body.
So, stop participating in anal sex then, problem solved.
I don't, but you're correct, that would be the healthy choice.
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.
and the claim itself also falls under the argument from the particular to the general which, being Interpreted, meaneth Special Pleading fallacy. There are lot of things we do which can be harmful, but we do them anyway and it is our choice whether we do them or not and the grubby pretence of being concerned for our welfare is just a smokescreen (if the mixed metaphor can be excused) for religion based determination to interfere in our choices of what we can and can't do,.