Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 Morality of Homosexuality 
Author Message
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
Actually, being gay does not have any necessity that one will eventually have sex with another of the same sex. Even less does being homosexual.
After all, being Straight does not mean you will ever have sex with one of the opposite sex, nor being heterosexual.
A desire or inclination can be there and not satisfied, whether the person would like it to be or not. If things were otherwise no one would be hungry or thirsty in the world except the anorexic or otherwise diseased.

I've listened to and known plenty of men and women, both homosexual and heterosexual, who speak of how they intend willingly to never have sex at all or anything else. I've known some of both, as I'm sure you have, who would like to but never will or never have at an old age.

The world is actually, by best scientific estimates (and not at all from the religious nor did I study this in a religious setting), not yet overpopulated. The sustainability point is with best science somewhere between 6 and 16 Billion humans (yea, a big gap, this is a tricky science). But most agree more narrowly around 9-11 billion, more leaning to the 9 range usually. Now, we are actually likely to achieve this range within the next century, although possibly not with various trends.
Yet, why do you think this at all helps your argument is what I wonder. I could tell you of the various natural ways of altering this, some of which are actually a bit surprising (if you send more women to upper level education, you slow down population growth considerably, for instance), but that's not really relevant right now.
The interesting thing is, if the culture as a whole was less focused on the necessity for everyone to get laid to be worth living, we wouldn't have so much of a problem either. If more people simply dedicated their lives to something else and accepted things that way, we'd have less people reproducing. The occurrence of homosexuality, if a natural event of nature or even a fluke of nature (though some openly and unapologetically gay friends I've had have said with much certainty that it is in fact not 'natural' in the sense we seem to be speaking or anything at all), then it could simply be a control to take some people out of the sex loop without further prompting. The religious would call it a calling to greater things, the various philosophers would, well they would call it various things.

And how do you know it isn't hurting anyone? What form of hurt do you even mean? There are so many factors beyond the scope of even what I would consider.
But, I could say often it does actually harm someone in a physical way. As far as I am aware less with lesbian sex, but particularly with gay male sex there is an extreme, some doctors would say even garunteed, risk of sickness as a direct result. This ranges from simply getting under the whether or bed ridden for a day or two to more severe sicknesses which are far easier to pick up in this form of sex. And, if you excuse the graphics of this, the risks are on both ends of the situation. The receiver has on top of other risks a higher than otherwise normal risk of damaging, bruising, and tearing their anal and rectal walls, which can be a bad thing on its own, but has an extremely high risk of bad infection that can even be deadly (this is a risk in anal sex in general). Part of this is due to the fact that the rectum doesn't have natural lubrication to help prevent the initial tear, part from the fact that waste goes through it, and there are other factors as well. On the giving end, the penis which is highly susceptible to picking up all kinds of things into the body is being placed in a very dirty (even when 'cleaned') area, and thus running the risk of picking up much. Even were you to wear a condom there is still a higher than normal risk, and again, the condom will not help the other very much.
Thus, even without going into spiritual harm or transgression against natural law or various other philosophical, ethical, metaphysical, and theological issues usually involved with all things we call 'immoral', you can see there very much is at least a high risk of great harm in gay sex.

As for you first claim, the matter is more complicated than I think you would be willing to even try to put enough brain power into, but some would say going by your rather simplistic formula: well, it would reduce the spread of AIDS and solve some other problems. And beyond that it would help with that "overpopulation" problem you mentioned, now wouldn't it?

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Fri Aug 28, 2009 11:32 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
The popular religions can believe w/e they want, to be frank, i'm tired of discussing religion and homosexuality.

Here's the Christian break down:
It's wrong to have sex without the intentions of having a child. It's wrong to have a child without being married, for a marriage guarantees a strong family that can properly raise this child.
Therefore, gays can not have sex because it will not result in them having babies. And therefore, marriage can not be between gays because marriage is for the family. Fine for those times, but times are different now.

We have many children in foster homes who need to be adopted. Gays can do that. In fact, that's what most gay couples do.

Now, the religions find sex to be wrong for many different reasons, and they can keep on thinking that. To those of us who aren't religious, though, sex isn't wrong, usually. It feels good and is fun and if you're careful, nothing bad results from it (same with religion, fun and feels good and as long as you're careful, nothing bad results from it).

Morality is subjective because it can't be proven. Morality itself is based on opinion. How we apply it to civilization purely depends on the civilization. What human beings accept as the right thing to do. This is why murder being wrong is universal. But, there are tribal civilizations that find sacrifices to be appropriate. To us, it is wrong, but to them it is right. How do we prove who's right? We can't. So we accept that there are tribes that do such things but we will NOT let it happen in our civilizations.

So the morality of homosexuality:
I, myself, do not find the act to be wrong. It doesn't hurt me or anyone else. If it doesn't hurt anyone, it is not wrong. The religions can claim that it makes Jesus cry, but until Jesus comes and tells me that it's making him cry, I don't give a fuck what the religions think.

_________________
Image


Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 am
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
You're comments don't actually apply to all of Christianity, or even to most of it as far as I'm aware. They have some half-accurate ideas and statements mixed in, but thats kinda it.

Also you didn't read what was said above you did you, which explains why you didn't try to address it possibly. I might try to correct some of your mistakes but I now kinda doubt you're even reading this.

And morality cannot be subjective as it is a term for particular ethical concepts which are universal. You can deny that morals actually exist and say that what some call morals are actually values, cultural or otherwise, but if a thing is not a universal and objective it is not a moral. Or you could even not go that far and say we have no way of knowing whether that are morals or not, or that we cannot know which ideas about what IS morality or morals are the right ones or the wrongs ones so we shouldn't bother with that level of things. It's simply contradictory though to say morals are subjective.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:13 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
Wait, just because YOU say that morals are objective, that makes them objective?

That, is actually, a contradiction. Morals are NOT objective. They are based on what we find morally right or wrong. They're based on the idea of "right and wrong", which is, in all actuality, subjective.

The only thing that is objective is what we can touch, feel, see, smell, or hear. We know it's there because we have a means of proving it's there.

There is no means of proving right or wrong when it comes to morals. We can talk about the social contract, but the social contract is an idea made up by man to ensure natural order. If we were to wipe man's idea of the social contract, it would not exist.

_________________
Image


Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:52 am
Profile E-mail WWW
FH Doujin King
FH Doujin King
User avatar

Cash on hand:
6,227.00
Posts: 2406
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:35 pm
Location: Someplace VERY warm
Group: Oldies
Country: United States (us)
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
My personal opinion is that I couldn't care a less really whether someone is gay or not. "Whatever rocks your boat" is the way I look at it. I'm not gay myself but I do have relatives who are and that doesn't affect how I see them in anyway.

If it was considered to be some kind of horrible god forsaken sin, you'd think a plague would have appeared or lightning would have begun striking people down by now given how widely it's already spread. Since I don't see either of those things happening I can only go based on my own beliefs and instincts which tell me that it doesn't really matter either way.

Yes I realize the bible at least in some religions says it's bad but if you look back into the history of that religion I'd wager that at least in most cases, earlier versions of that very same bible didn't mention a thing about it. Which means to me that it was humans who added that part therefore I can't completely accept it as the word of god or some other deity.

PS: This is just my personal opinion, I'm not trying to talk down to anyone nor am I trying to start an arguement or even a debate. I'm just letting my own opinion out there.

_________________
Image


Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:47 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 19
Level 19
User avatar

Cash on hand:
57,018.00
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 1:28 pm
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
CarsitoPyg wrote:
Wait, just because YOU say that morals are objective, that makes them objective?

That, is actually, a contradiction. Morals are NOT objective. They are based on what we find morally right or wrong. They're based on the idea of "right and wrong", which is, in all actuality, subjective.

The only thing that is objective is what we can touch, feel, see, smell, or hear. We know it's there because we have a means of proving it's there.

There is no means of proving right or wrong when it comes to morals. We can talk about the social contract, but the social contract is an idea made up by man to ensure natural order. If we were to wipe man's idea of the social contract, it would not exist.


Ever read Descartes? Yea, touch, feel, see, smell and hear don't prove a thing. They are flimsy and unreliable and they very. In fact for Descartes the things found by the senses are some of the least reliable bits of data possible, which of course includes anything we learn from others as we had to "hear" or "see" or whatever them.

For instance, I myself am partially colorblind. I see things differently than those who are not color blind. Thus our seeing could be called subjective just as much as anything else.

In any case, this is not what I say, it is what those in the fields of ethical philosophy and moral theology, and linguistics even, say about the term. The only thing you can effectively argue for when you say right and wrong are subjective is the non-existence of morals, not that morals are subjective. You could thus argue that the idea of "morals" was a silly concept which happened to pop up around the world which thought right and wrong were objective realities that applied universally.
Of course, that would just be convenient now wouldn't it?

Either way it would seem I am 'morally right', as it were, for thinking that morals are universal. For if I am accurate with my claim and they exist, I thus am right and in the right for thinking so. If my claim is less accurate, than all is subjective, and on that note I am right again from my own standpoint or as 'a result of my environment and upbringing', and no one can say otherwise in any way that could matter to myself or have much meaning.

So thank you for conceding. Any claims to the contrary have no meaning. We seem to be done here.

_________________
Back again. I do stuff. Do you?


Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:53 am
Profile E-mail YIM
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
So... answer nothing and just say "PEOPLE SMARTER THAN YOU THINK OTHERWISE, LOL!!!!"

Expert testimony is nice and all, but experts say a lot of things. The debate is between us, not two OTHER experts.

Plus, philosophers say many things. Nihilism was built from philosophy. Misanthropy was built from philosophy. Both Optimism and Pessimism were built from philosophy. And the most famous aspect of Philosophy is the Atheist belief. So saying "philosophers say otherwise" is pointless, because no, they don't.

And you are wrong to say that Morals are Objective in this present Universe, because, as I said, it can not be proven. Morals vary from person to person. A sociopath has a different set of morals (in that, w/e's good for him is the right thing). A person in the South finds it morally right to kill an animal that's crippled. Yet, people in the Cities tend to find that wrong. It's based on upbringing. It didn't JUST HAPPEN, it happened through what human beings found acceptable. Animals themselves have their own set of morals. If morals were objective, one would have to be wrong while the other is right. Morals are merely ideas, which make them subjective. No one is right or wrong in their moral beliefs.

Now, on senses. If you are colorblind, that means your rod and cones are fucked up and do not see certain colors. That does not mean that the light waves that create that color DO NOT EXIST. It just means that you were born with a handicap that inhibits your ability to see them. What I mean by senses, mainly, is that through our senses we are able to dissect something in order to see it's physical build up. You are color blind and I am not. If we study light waves and see how light waves work, we will both see that my view on color is more accurate than yours. You can't say that blind man can't believe that objects are in front of him just because his vision is different. He knows they're there based on either touch or hearing or w/e other sense exists. If all senses have been eliminated, than that just means his ability to experience the physical world is inhibited. It does not change that he is surrounded by the physical world.

_________________
Image


Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:50 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 27
Level 27
User avatar

Cash on hand:
363,786.35

Bank:
4,444,444.44
Posts: 4903
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:12 pm
Location: The Inner Sanctum.
Group: Їи$aиїту
Country: United States (us)
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
CarsitoPyg wrote:
Plus, philosophers say many things. Nihilism was built from philosophy. Misanthropy was built from philosophy. Both Optimism and Pessimism were built from philosophy. And the most famous aspect of Philosophy is the Atheist belief. So saying "philosophers say otherwise" is pointless, because no, they don't.


I remember once when I was bored I flipped on the radio and listened to... Guess this Two Historians argue about how whether the "Holocaust" happened or not. And the scary thing was... their arguments were so convincing that for awhile I questioned my very knowledge of what happened to the Jewish people. Even sadder still... I can't remember what I believed before then. Morality doesn't physically exist such as say the keys on the keyboard or the sickly sweet smell of my roommates perfume. But anything can exist, even though others know otherwise. I used to often have hallucinations up until a few years ago. I still have them sometimes in the middle of the night.(When I wake up) I once woke up screaming and for five minutes ran around my house seeing spiders crawling all over me. It was as real as the shirt on my back. and it still happens to me every once in a while... how I broke my arm a year or so ago. Fell down the stairs. And gay people are fine with me. I also hate PDA from everyone.


Sat Sep 12, 2009 5:58 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 3
Level 3
User avatar

Cash on hand:
1,429.04
Posts: 424
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:21 pm
Location: Perry, NY.
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
Morality is in the long run irrelevant, it's purely human notion and idea and has no place in nature it's self. if nature thought it wrong then homosexuality wouldn't even exist. There is no god, there is no right or wrong, moral or immoral, all human conceived bullshit to give another reason for violence and zealotry. As for the catholics/christians/ whatever, before they say homosexuality is wrong maybe they should pull their pricks from the alter boys.

_________________
Image

We can't EVER go back to Arizona


Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:28 pm
Profile E-mail YIM
Mother Fucker
Mother Fucker
User avatar

Cash on hand:
793.00
Posts: 1531
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:18 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
@N0th1n No that's your christian Viewpoint on it I could very easily reference the classic Centurian and his "pias" case in which The man who Jesus claims to have the most faith he has seen is a raving gay queer.

I could of course reference the better case of David and Jonathan where is says that are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love"

But whatever, Morality of Homosexuality I honestly couldn't care

_________________
Image


Wed May 05, 2010 4:39 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 11
Level 11
User avatar

Cash on hand:
2,504.00
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:35 pm
Location: USA!
Group: Oldies
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
I was rereading this whole thing because I forgot that I had actually contributed to this topic, and I read over Noth1n's point on gay sex being bad for the ones who engage in it.

sure, if done unsafely bad things can result... but usually that is not the case and we shouldn't live in fear over things that happen every once in a while. Car Accidents happen every minute... is it immoral to drive?

But I should reiterate, I don't give a fuck what another does to himself as long as he's not physically effecting me. I've got enough shit on my plate, I don't need to be judging people based on their lifestyles just because my church tells me they're naughty. O wait, I don't have a church, making it irrelevant completely.

And I also saw how Noth1n tried to use science to back his points. Irony.

_________________
Image


Thu May 06, 2010 4:55 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
0.00
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 4:47 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
First off, Hail Satan.

Secondly, who gives a fuck what is moral or immoral. It's an entirely subjective thing and the concept itself is rooted entirely in the environment you were raised in. Some things are accepted some places, some things aren't.

I've got a decent standpoint here in that I used to not only go to church, but was highly active in the youth group and actively participated in evangelism.

However, now that I've got a few more years under my belt out in the real world... have pulled my head out of my ass... etc... I see it from the outside and it's a crock of shit.

Religion in itself (organized religion mind you, not spirituality in general) is probably the longest-running mass mind control scheme ever concocted by a government. Think about it. Have you ever even looked into the history of how the Bible was put together? The Catholic Canon and such? These books were pulled together from texts often lost for hundreds of years. Mind you, they were plucked and pruned to sort the Catholic's needs at the time as well. This is also why some books were excluded, and eventually other beliefs were forced out or demonized, despite some originally also being Christian-based beliefs as well.

Also, marriage wasn't even made a sacrament for quite a while (I think after 1000AD), and before that.. the Catholic church even performed gay marriages itself. I also like how people quote the bible as if it's the literal word of god.

What the hell do you think? He wrote the whole thing, decided he was done and chucked it at the pope or something?


Sat Jun 12, 2010 5:28 am
Profile E-mail WWW
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
0.00
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:44 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
i not gay but i dont think there one thing rong with it i mean shit i visting my dad he live in a 1 bed room aprtment and i sleep on the couch for eneybody who wood think diffrent but the guy in appartment next too uuse are gay but u wood know it thay dont look it asoned it or eneything i know it becuz the appartment is one bedroom so thay have too sleep in the same bed plus the wall ny the couch is where there bed room is soi i can hear them ummmm haveing fun some time and i had too ask them too keep it down once or twice so so i dont think its rong but i dont think your boran with it eather it a choice

and on this point i say this y dont ppl make it sond as only guys can be gay i mean i coude see y gay like too wach bie's and have 3 somes been there done that buy some girls are gay lezbo is the word most ppl use for it but its the same thing so there

ps if eneybody but the guy who made this topic dosent like this u can bite my ass :twisted


Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 4
Level 4
User avatar

Cash on hand:
0.00
Posts: 493
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:56 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
Which part do dickgirls and traps fit into?

_________________
Image


Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 0
Level 0
User avatar

Cash on hand:
0.00
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:57 pm
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Morality of Homosexuality
God created man for woman, vice-versa. But despite of this fact and truth, many are misguided because of the evilness of today's world. God wants us to do and act in a righteous way. He wants us to lead a clean life so that we will inherit His kingdom as the right day will come.

_________________
online


Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:22 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO