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.
God opposes it
The Bible says its wrong
Its a sin
My church teaches its wrong
or other such reasons that puts the blame for your attitudes on God, please explain your opposition to consenting adults having a desire to have a romantic and sexual relationship with other consenting adults of the same gender.
Back a few years ago...this was part of a discussion/debate I took part in...here are some of the points I made in the discussion...it applies here too:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was looking at the matter from many angles...especially philosophically.
For example...Look at the matter from the standpoint of one of the most notable philosophical concepts EVER...Immanuel Kants' "Categorical Imperative": "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law". Kant saw this as the principle which motivates a good will, and which he held to be the fundamental principle of all of morality.
So...look at these three with that principle in mind.
1. Homosexuality
2. Sexual Abstinence
3. Heterosexuality
How does the future of mankind fare if you apply Kants' idea to each one of those?
I submit...Under that principle, only #3 results in anything but the complete demise of mankind...and indicative of the viability and standing of each within the realm of logical and reasonable human moral conduct.
It was then noted-- That is not a reasonable conclusion...It could only come about if everyone practiced abstinence, artificial insemination and test tube conception didn't exist.
I rebutted-- You're a sharp guy...and I'm sure you are familiar with the finer points on Kants' "Categorical Imperative" and it's formulations. Of course, even the most cursory search will bring up a plethora of stuff to refresh your memory. This is quick and pretty good (I found it once when looking for comparisons of the Categorical Imperative to The Golden Rule): Categorical Imperative.
Its application wouldn't just be for the last minute of human history where women could go to a sperm bank or undergo IVF. To pass muster the agents action would have to be applicable at all times of human history, by everyone in a similar circumstance, without exception (even to ones self).
On that basis: Homosexuality does not cut it...neither does abstinence. Only heterosexuality works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the most basic ways to compel preferred behavior in a subject you are trying to direct, is to ask them, "How would this operation as a whole fare if everyone were to always act as you just did?"
I submit: There are very few behaviors that all could have adopted that is void of any violence/agression that could have wiped out the entire human race in 120 years or less...except Pedigree abstinence and/or homosexuality.
Many may object to anything man can do, or not do, that has even the potential to wipe out all mankind in such a short time.
One of the most basic ways to compel preferred behavior in a subject you are trying to direct, is to ask them, "How would this operation as a whole fare if everyone were to always act as you just did?"
I submit: There are very few behaviors that all could have adopted that is void of any violence/agression that could have wiped out the entire human race in 120 years or less...except Pedigree abstinence and/or homosexuality.
Many may object to anything man can do, or not do, that has even the potential to wipe out all mankind in such a short time.
It has nothing to do with "ickiness". It's Biology 101.
That is a fallacy known as 'appeal to nature'. And it may be arguable that it is a correct fallacious appeal to nature. For example, there are a lot of things in our nature that are considered wrong to do, either because of what society says or because of what the bible says.
So I suspect that 'Biology' is just a pretext for objections based on 'Bible'.
Instead of some attempt at a backdoor insult in the form of a question...a technique I notice is typical of the more inept participants...put forth something of substance.
So, do you have a point? Please note that I qualified my statement with, "behaviors...void of any violence/agression". Damaging the ecosystem to such a degree that it wipes out the human race would be a inherently/intrinsically agressive act...so that wouldn't pass muster in the context of my statement qualifer.
Now, whatayagot?
Interesting that you say "exactly" and then go on to affirm something the person you are replying to never actually said. He said it was offensive and disgusting _to him_. More than this he did not say.
That is as useless as the ecology fails we see in other posts above. As if homosexuality could wipe us out because it does not "work". For a line of argument of that sort to have any relevance _at all_ the prevalence of homosexuality would have to be of a level to have any kind of evolutionary or genetic impact. And it is currently not even remotely close to a statistical significance so we have to use Kant to create an imaginary world where it might.... simply to manufacture an argument where none actually exist. That is the desperation the anti homosexual lobby has reached.
Interesting that you say "exactly" and then go on to affirm something the person you are replying to never actually said. He said it was offensive and disgusting _to him_. More than this he did not say.
That is as useless as the ecology fails we see in other posts above. As if homosexuality could wipe us out because it does not "work". For a line of argument of that sort to have any relevance _at all_ the prevalence of homosexuality would have to be of a level to have any kind of evolutionary or genetic impact. And it is currently not even remotely close to a statistical significance so we have to use Kant to create an imaginary world where it might.... simply to manufacture an argument where none actually exist. That is the desperation the anti homosexual lobby has reached.
Look Nozz...I didn't make Kants' "Categorical Imperative" one of the most noted and exalted philosophical concepts ever...it just is.
The OP posed a question...and I gave a answer, using that concept. And I felt it had as much, if not more, merit than most of the others put forth.
As I have stated before...though I find homosexual conduct to be revolting and disgusting...I am hip to the fact that it is only my own subjective opinion that makes that determination...and that in no way is it "morally wrong" just because it turns me off. I am only "anti-homosexual" relative to my personal sexual preferences...I fully accept that others are into it. I even present female homosexuality as a "product" that I sell...and thus I am around it on a near daily basis. I hold nothing against any of them because of it. Hey...many people find my sexual lifestyle to be debased and depraved...and if anything, my sexual behavior is about the only behavior that has more of a negative view towards it than the homos. The difference is...I don't let it bother me. I've been told to leave so many places, and refused service at so many businesses, I've lost count. No big deal, I just go elsewhere. I'm not about to diminish my enjoyment of life experience by getting all twisted up over someone that takes offense to my preferences. I just find a different place, that's all. These people that try to use the government as their henchman to FORCE others to serve them against their will...when, at worse, they would be mildly inconvenienced by having to go somewhere else for what they want...THEY are the real bullies and haters. I know...first hand...and it's really nothing to get all worked up about...unless one lacks the self control and character to deal with mild annoyance and the negligible hassles we all encounter in life about a myriad of things.
Very little of your speech appears to reply to my post at all so I will only indulge the part that does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I didn't make Kants' "Categorical Imperative" one of the most noted and exalted philosophical concepts ever...it just is.
It has it's flaws even at the best of times, let alone when it is as badly misused as you just did. You are attempting to make homosexuality itself the "maxim" that will become universal in order to manufacture a fantastical nonsense hypothetical where our species becomes pre-dominantly homosexual, or entirely, to the point it becomes a species killer.
That is a nonsense application of an otherwise OFTEN (but not always) useful philosophical precept. Frankly I have not met a single person ever, homosexual or otherwise, who would be seeking to make homosexuality the maxim in the first place, thus rendering your point the nonsense use of the Kantian Principle that it is.
Rather the maxim I would slot into the precept would be that each should seek a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a consenting adult of ones own choosing, regardless of age, sex, race or creed. And making THAT maxim a Kantian Universal will in no way lead to the fantastical repercussions you invent in order to manufacture a contrived non-point.
I myself find their "conduct" neither disgusting or revolting. Especially given I can not think of a single piece of their "conduct" that heterosexuals do not always engage in. So I do not even recognize "homosexual conduct" as a thing in the first place. Just another manufactured narrative with no content in fact. I simply know myself not to be sexually attracted to males.
That is a fallacy known as 'appeal to nature'. And it may be arguable that it is a correct fallacious appeal to nature. For example, there are a lot of things in our nature that are considered wrong to do, either because of what society says or because of what the bible says.
So I suspect that 'Biology' is just a pretext for objections based on 'Bible'.
Nice try, but you don't need religion to know same sex is offensive to nature.
Nice try, but you don't need religion to know same sex is offensive to nature.
I am not aware of any non-conscious entities that are capable of taking offense. I find myself suspecting you have no evidence whatsoever to offer that nature is conscious however.
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.
