Homosexuality and reason - Religion, God, and Theology

Animals killing other animals has nothing to do with human morality. If you believe we are at the top of the natural food chain, then we really have nothing to do with what happens way down below. I don't believe allowing nature to take its course is wrong-- as animals are not blessed with the gift of reason that humans have. Humans' intentional infliction of harm on animals is my problem.

The bolded emphasis is mine.

Now suppose you accept the premise that humans have the ability to reason out things and therefore have a responsibility to behave morally even when their natural instincts drive them to behave otherwise. Would that preclude the holder of such a postion from claiming that homosexuality is not immoral simply because for some humans(and apparently animals) it's an instictive drive?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:47 PM

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

In another thread IcemanDan said:

The bolded emphasis is mine.

Now suppose you accept the premise that humans have the ability to reason out things and therefore have a responsibility to behave morally even when their natural instincts drive them to behave otherwise. Would that preclude the holder of such a postion from claiming that homosexuality is not immoral simply because for some humans(and apparently animals) it's an instictive drive?

ya, it would seem to preclude that...so long as you believe its an instinctual thing, and not a choice.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:49 PM

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

So wait...you're saying that people who are naturally homosexuals should use their "reason" to become Hetero?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:51 PM

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcemanDan

So wait...you're saying that people who are naturally homosexuals should use their "reason" to become Hetero?

so far his only point is that you could not tell a gay person that they were immoral. which sounds good to me.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:53 PM

madnak

Cooler than Sammy Hagar

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 19,742

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Now suppose you accept the premise that humans have the ability to reason out things and therefore have a responsibility to behave morally even when their natural instincts drive them to behave otherwise. Would that preclude the holder of such a postion from claiming that homosexuality is not immoral simply because for some humans(and apparently animals) it's an instictive drive?

If someone tries to defend homosexuality using the naturalistic fallacy, they're wrong wrong wrong. If, on the other hand, someone says that homosexuality is immoral because it's "unnatural," and another person cites examples of homosexuality in nature to refute that point, that's entirely valid. And the latter is what I actually see happen.

The reason people believe that there's nothing immoral about homosexuality isn't that it occurs in nature, it's that there is no rational basis for considering homosexuality immoral in the first place.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:54 PM

TexArcher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 5,813

There is a wealth of evidence that homosexuality is a biological predisposition in some people, not a choice.

The fact that so many theists have such a hard time believing that their god made some people different than them is extremely telling, imo.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:55 PM

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

HAHA. No I think he's saying that you can't tell gay people they're not immoral. Like, just because it's natural, that doesn't mean its ok.

I don't know, the premise has a lot of negatives in it

Quote

02-13-2010 , 12:56 PM

Eddi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Again you've phrased your Q in such a way as to miss the obvious points, just like in the abortion thread.

Homosexuality is not moral because it's instinctive. It's moral because it does no harm and it doesn't prevent anyone from doing smth good. Preventing homosexuality on the other hand - IS immoral because you are explicitly harming that person.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:00 PM

Hopey

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 12,004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dying Actors

so far his only point is that you could not tell a gay person that they were immoral. which sounds good to me.

Except that in his first sentence he implies that homosexuality is immoral.

His second sentence is asking whether or not it is fair to call homosexuals "immoral" for not reasoning themselves out of their immoral acts. His first sentence seems to indicate the he believes that it is.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:01 PM

#10

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

Ok here we go.

1. Its ok for apes to be gay because they dont have reason
2. Its ok for mentally challenged people to be gay if they have reasoning deficiencies.
3. Its ok for everyone to be gay since where do you draw the line and everyone has some sort of imperfect reasoning-- except steven hawking.

So, everyone except steven hawking can be gay. Glad that's solved.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:02 PM

#11

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

Seriously though, the only thing we are REALLY debating is one line from Leviticus. You either believe that document is true, or you don't. Everything else follows from there.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:03 PM

#12

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by madnak

The reason people believe that there's nothing immoral about homosexuality isn't that it occurs in nature, it's that there is no rational basis for considering homosexuality immoral in the first place.

Go start a thread on some other forum using the best arguments you can make to claim homosexuality is immoral and I bet the "it's natural" retort comes up pretty quickly.

For you Madnak...and anyone else who takes your position....lets use a different "vice". If a kleptomaniac stole something of value, should they be imprisoned or given a pass because for them "it's natural" to steal? Or do we hold them accountable given that they have the ability to reason out that their action is wrong?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:05 PM

#13

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

Homosexuality doesn't harm any other person. Stealing does.

Not a great analogy.

Also, see my post above.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:05 PM

#14

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcemanDan

HAHA. No I think he's saying that you can't tell gay people they're not immoral. Like, just because it's natural, that doesn't mean its ok.

I don't know, the premise has a lot of negatives in it

no, it says you cant tell gay people that they are immoral.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:05 PM

#15

TexArcher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 5,813

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

For you Madnak...and anyone else who takes your position....lets use a different "vice". If a kleptomaniac stole something of value, should they be imprisoned or given a pass because for them "it's natural" to steal? Or do we hold them accountable given that they have the ability to reason out that their action is wrong?

Seriously? That's your analogy?

Homosexuality does not relieve anyone of their property, nor is it illegal.

Anything else?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:06 PM

#16

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

Is there anything wrong with a kleptomaniac stealing my gay porn?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:08 PM

#17

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexArcher

The predisposition argument is not a very good one imo. After all pedophilia is a predisposition as well, and we do not consider that to be moral.

Madnak's argument is the only legit one as far as I can see.

Quote:

The reason people believe that there's nothing immoral about homosexuality isn't that it occurs in nature, it's that there is no rational basis for considering homosexuality immoral in the first place.

Now I would have to add that there is no rational reason in subjective view of morality.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:09 PM

#18

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

actually it depends on the culture.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:11 PM

#19

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dying Actors

actually it depends on the culture.

Yeah, def. Go read some Plato, and you'll find that intelligent and well respected men in their society preferred to have sex with 15 year old boys, while sex with women was considered for reproductive purposes only.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:12 PM

#20

TexArcher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 5,813

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Hmmm, I'm not familiar with any research that shows pedophilia to be a biological predisposition.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:14 PM

#21

Eddi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Now I would have to add that there is no rational reason in subjective view of morality.

Craig/Kagan debate. This has to be stickied to every single thread that decides to discuss morality in RGT, and should be a necessary prerequisite before discussing anything on the subject in this forum imo.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:16 PM

#22

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Now I would have to add that there is no rational reason in subjective view of morality.

this adds nothing to the argument.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:40 PM

#23

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexArcher

Seriously? That's your analogy?

Homosexuality does not relieve anyone of their property, nor is it illegal.

Anything else?

I'm not argueing that homosexuality is immoral. I'm not sure I could make an argument that homosexuality is immoral that I would find compelling. My convictions concerning abortion are firm, but not so regarding homosexuality. I just think the "Homosexuality is natural and therefore moral" argument is a crock.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:46 PM

#24

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

well in fairness, i think the argument is a little more robust than that.

its not that homosexuality is natural, but also that it causes no harm to anyone.

given those two things, we can say that it is morally permissible.

now of course you may take issue with either of those premises, but people who think homosexuality is okay will probably agree with both of those.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:48 PM

#25

TexArcher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 5,813

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

I just think the "Homosexuality is natural and therefore moral" argument is a crock.

Well, I wouldn't argue that homosexuality is "moral", I would say it's simply not "immoral". It's a completely neutral thing.

And it's perfectly reasonable to say that homosexuality is natural to the homosexual.

The pedophilia or kleptomaniac analogies break down because there is clearly a victim. There is no victim when two adult homosexuals both consent to do their thing.

Quote

Page 1 of 47

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 1 of 47

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 11 21

Last