Homosexuality and reason - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

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.

also stealing is not natural ^_^

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:55 PM

#27

Deorum

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,271

No, morality (generally) has nothing to do with instinctive behavior. That is to say, people usually do not consider something to be moral/immoral based on whether it is natural/not natural. Regardless, I do not understand what reason has to do with any of this. If you are trying to claim that homosexuality is unreasonable, you are wrong.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:56 PM

#28

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexArcher

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.

You don't think the person on the recieving end of a sodomy act is being abused? Sodomy has been used by males throughout history to dominate other males.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 01:58 PM

#29

TexArcher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 5,813

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

You don't think the person on the recieving end of a sodomy act is being abused?

Not if it's consensual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Sodomy has been used by males throughout history to dominate other males.

Not nearly as frequently as your Bible, but I don't see you saying that the Bible is immoral simply because some people use it in harmful ways.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:04 PM

#30

Deorum

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

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

Nobody is making that argument. The "homosexuality is natural" statement is a response to the "homosexuality is not natural and therefore immoral" argument (that is not to say that if it were not natural then that would mean it were immoral).

Last edited by Deorum; 02-13-2010 at 02:09 PM.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:04 PM

#31

ILOVEPOKER929

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 30,280

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexArcher

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

Bonobos.

Quote:

They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual intercourse between mothers and their adult sons; some observers believe these pairings are taboo. When Bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and allowing for peaceful feeding

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:07 PM

#32

Deorum

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

You don't think the person on the recieving end of a sodomy act is being abused? Sodomy has been used by males throughout history to dominate other males.

Uh, okay, I was assuming we were talking about consentual homosexuality, not rape. Yes, of course rape is reasonably immoral.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:08 PM

#33

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929

Bonobos.

its a shame we didnt descend from that lineage.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:17 PM

#34

IcemanDan

journeyman

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 298

Doesn't doing a girl in the butt technically count as sodomy

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:20 PM

#35

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexArcher

Not if it's consensual.

I just can't imagine how somebody would enjoy being on the recieving end of such an act(sodomy). I think in OTT somebody described it as feeling a need to take a massive dump. Why would somebody put up with it other than to appease somebody(including a person they love).

I would say choking your partner is immoral too. I just can't fathom someone really enjoying that either.

Sex at least needs to have the potential to be pleasureable for both partners.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:24 PM

#36

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dying Actors

this adds nothing to the argument.

Yes it does. If I can show that there is an objective grounding for morality and that this grounding says homosexuality is immoral, then I have a rational reason to believe that homosexuality is immoral.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:27 PM

#37

Vael

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 6,377

If someone sets up his moral framework in terms of what's natural, ie natural=morally good, unnatural=morally bad, then showing that homosexuality is natural means that it cannot be morally wrong in that framework.

If you don't use "natural" in your moral framework, then it's absolutely irrelevant.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:30 PM

#38

TexArcher

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 5,813

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

I just can't imagine how somebody would enjoy being on the recieving end of such an act(sodomy).

I can't imagine enjoying it, either. That's because we're not gay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Sex at least needs to have the potential to be pleasureable for both partners.

Just because it doesn't sound like fun to you and me doesn't mean it doesn't sound like fun to someone else.

Yanni sold millions of records...

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:31 PM

#39

Deorum

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,271

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Let us take a wild ass leap and assume that this is true (ie. that if you cannot fathom something as pleasurable, nobody thinks it is). Why does appeasing your partner not count as pleasurable?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:40 PM

#40

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

Yes it does. If I can show that there is an objective grounding for morality and that this grounding says homosexuality is immoral, then I have a rational reason to believe that homosexuality is immoral.

ugh.

this is 100% correct. this also is not at all what you said. you only brought up an objective morality. of course if both of those premises are true, then you have a rational reason to believe homosexuality is immoral.

but you can believe in an objective morality, and still believe that that objective morality does not say homosexuality is wrong.

it still needs to be shown that its wrong...and so, no...it does not add anything to the argument. whether or not there is an objective morality is irrelevant to answering the question, since you can believe in an objective morality and fall on either side of the question.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:47 PM

#41

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deorum

Let us take a wild ass leap and assume that this is true (ie. that if you cannot fathom something as pleasurable, nobody thinks it is). Why does appeasing your partner not count as pleasurable?

Sodomy is something that seems to me to be inherently one sided and maybe therin lies the immorality. Maybe its not, but its one of those things that God would know for sure(and maybe somebody who truely likes his fudge packed).

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:48 PM

#42

Jibninjas

Stuck in a While loop

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 11,612

Quote:

but you can believe in an objective morality, and still believe that that objective morality does not say homosexuality is wrong.

This is true, but this is not what I am contending.

My original point was that if objective morality exists that there could be a rational reason to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Not that if objective morality exists that homosexuality would be immoral.

So it does add something to the argument, as Madnaks original statement was that there was no rational reason to believe homosexuality is immoral, to which I added that this was only true if objective morality did not exist.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:49 PM

#43

SABR42

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 23,076

Is stupidasso a giant level or is he really that ******ed?

I mean really, homosexuality is immoral because you personally don't find it appealing so you compare it to rape?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:50 PM

#44

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibninjas

oh i see.

maybe he just meant there is no rational reason to believe homosexuality is objectively wrong.

so far in this thread, ive yet to see any arguments presented. and i can honestly say, in my entire life, ive never even heard one...other than a bible quote. (which i dont find persuasive.)

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:50 PM

#45

Justin A

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 9,010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

What if they take turns?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:57 PM

#46

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin A

What if they take turns?

If sodomy is abuse and they take turns at it, then all they are doing is taking turns at abusing each other.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 02:58 PM

#47

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

If sodomy is abuse and they take turns at it, then all they are doing is taking turns at abusing each other.

its only abuse if its abusive, just like any form of sex.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 03:10 PM

#48

Stu Pidasso

banned

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 12,373

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dying Actors

its only abuse if its abusive, just like any form of sex.

abuse, the noun, is commonly defined as wrong or improper use.

Can you honestly say that the rectum was for lack of a better word, "designed" by nature to be used as a receptical for a penis?

Quote

02-13-2010 , 03:14 PM

#49

Dying Actors

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 3,966

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

abuse, the noun, is commonly defined as wrong or improper use.

Can you honestly say that the rectum was for lack of a better word, "designed" by nature to be used as a receptical for a penis?

who cares how it is commonly defined, thats not how we're using it here. because if you are, your whole argument then is entirely circular.

homsexual sex is wrong because its abusive (where abusive means wrong.) gimme a break.

edit: to answer your question, no, i dont think it was designed for that purpose. nor noses to have glasses sit upon them. we can use what we were given by nature in novel ways.

Quote

02-13-2010 , 03:16 PM

#50

Turn Prophet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,558

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

abuse, the noun, is commonly defined as wrong or improper use.

Can you honestly say that the rectum was for lack of a better word, "designed" by nature to be used as a receptical for a penis?

Neither is the mouth, but no one claims that a BJ is (inherently) abuse.

Quote

Page 2 of 47

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 47

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 22

Last