Madnak claimed that there is no rational reason to believe that homosexuality is immoral. You can consistently claim this if you believe that morality is objective. You can consistently claim this if you believe that morality is not objective. I think we agree about this, but I just want to clarify it since you deny it in your final sentence.

Madnak's claim (I think) was not that no rational reason for believing homosexuality is immoral could exist, but that it doesn't exist.

Its a little more complicated than that. I would argue that a human could use his reason to come to the conclusion that the human rectum was never "intended" by nature to be used as a receptical for a penis where as the vagina was. A human could reason out that such use of the rectum as a penile receptical amounted to improper use and therefore abuse.

Do I think I can come up with a compelling argument against homosexuality? Probably not. However if one exists, the humans ability to reason is going to be central to it.

So are homosexual hand jobs and oral sex ok in your book? Or are heterosexual hand jobs and oral sex NOT ok? I assume heterosexual anal sex is a no-no.

Some girls seem to like it.

well ive already answered this part. humans can use things in novel ways. that doesnt make it immoral.

well good. i guess that settles that.

Catholics might argue with you. I was taught that if you didn't blow your wad in the vagina, that was a sin(even if you are married).

thats kinda like proclaiming "anyone who doesnt give me $10 is sinning."

its in their own best interest to make this claim, as it will provide the most number of offspring to be future catholics.

And what if a girl uses a strap-on and has anal sex with you? Is that gay and/or immoral? What about a girl giving you oral/anal?

Where is the line? Is any contact with anything other than a vagina "immoral"? Is masturbation sinning? What about a teenager having an involuntary wet dream, is he going to hell?

theres enough of these kinds of questions floating around in this thread, and it probably doesnt help bombarding stu with these like he has every answer to every weird question you could come up with.

I've never tried to sodomize a woman so I don't know. The thought of it has never appealed to me. Do you think you can really bring a woman to orgasim by sodomizing her? I'm skeptical. I bet there is a lot of faking going on.

I think that might be a little bit gay. But if she just uses her finger you should be ok.

I said that about 25-30 posts back. My convictions about the immorality of homosexuality are not firm....not like my convictions against abortion. Usually when I argue abortion, my firmness against it increases. When I argue homosexuality, I usually end up questioning my convictions more.

This does not address the question. Why does satisfying your partner not count as pleasure? If it is pleasurable, then that is reason to do it.

I would think that many men would submit to the catcher position simply so that they do not anger the pitcher. If this was always the case would you say sodomy was immoral?

You shouldn't do it then.



Who said anything about orgasms. Do you get pleasure before you orgasm or only when you orgasm?

Idk.. gay people and women appear to get pleasure form anal sex or they wouldn't be having anal sex imo.

You have absolutely NO basis for this claim. It's utter nonsense and equates a loving homosexual relationship with a prison bitch-system.

kleptomania doesn't have any biological indicators as homosexuality does. Homosexuals have a brain that is half male and half female in gender-biased testing, and anotomical differences from hetero people. That is confirmable fact. However, if we go on the moral side, if one is Catholic, s/he is supporting not only homosexuality, but pedophilia, and the cover up of it.

I agree...my claim is baseless as I am simply not in a position to know.

However, Assume it is true that some males are attracted to other males.
Assume those males desires to sodomize the males they are attracted too.
Assume no male desires to be sodomized.

Would sodomy be immoral?

No, at best it would be amoral. Unless the person did not want to do it, but then we are back to rape. Not angering someone instills utility. Regardless, this is almost certainly not the case.

I don't know what causes homosexuality but if I had to guess I would say it was epigenetic.

DaveT if we use your reasoning and you admit to supporting public education, we can claim you support hot gradeschool teachers having sex with their students.

You made no arguement. All you did was insult catholics. Insults are the weapons of the weakminded which is where I will pigeon hole you for the moment.

Maybe instead of assuming we should be reasoning?

I've yet to hear anyone present a well-reasoned argument for why two consenting adults of the same sex that want to give each other an orgasm are "immoral".

Also, I don't understand why theists care at all what gay people do to each other. It's baffling. Why are you even worried about it if it's got nothing to do with you?

FWIW, I just want to add in that the sin of Sodom according to the bible that got them destroyed was not the extreme population of teh gheys, it was that they did not care for the poor, basically.

So even though people today use the term sodomite to refer to a gay person, it really should be used to refer to someone that does not care about the poor, as that would be more accurate.

just sayin.

I know the following is anewctotal and doesn't prove anything but: When I was in Miami, the first thing I found out was that there is a very large gay population. My straight friends and I had gay friends, and a huge fantasy was for them to have sex with a straight guy. Many of them were very clear that they only liked to catch. The reason anal is pleasureable for a guy and not an OOT girl is because we have prostates, which are very sensitive, and woman have no prostate.

Holy ****, please tell me Stu is a level?

I ask a question, and if you decline to answer that's fine, but I'm curious: How old are you, how much sex have you had, and in what variety?

I ask because there was a point in life when I was much younger when I actually had similar views. Then I grew up, had a variety of sexual experiences, talked with other people about theirs, and I realized something:

People are wildly different, and just because you can't imagine something being pleasurable, doesn't mean it doesn't do it for someone else.

I know many people, gay men as well as gay and straight women, that get sexual pleasure from anal sex. I know straight men that get sexual pleasure from having things inserted back there as well. Heck, some of the gay men I know claim that it's actually very difficult for them to achieve orgasm unless something is inserted.

I know more than one person who liked being choked during sex (they swore it made them orgasm faster and harder).

... and that's just the tiny tip of the huge iceberg. I'm willing to bet that (provided you are not a virgin, or perhaps even if you are) you like some things sexually that other people would find repulsive. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if we surveyed all of RGT, we'd all find some things in common, and some things that would make us go "wow, I'd never try that."


I'm just so baffled. Saying, "I can't imagine [activity] is pleasurable, so it must not be" is.... just wow. I can't imagine why people would want to strap sticks to their feet and jump down a snowy mountain, but just because I can't doesn't mean the silly bastards aren't going to be on TV for the Olympics pretty soon.


Cliffs: If you're young: don't worry, someday you'll get older, have more sex, and your views will likely change.

If you're old and still have this view: You're welcome to it, but most others don't share it. You may want to consider opening your mind a bit, it might lead to more satisfying sex for you and for your partner.

well thats good atleast.

i think you should view homosexuality, as it relates to the bible, the same way we now view slavery. as appropriate to the times, but now irrelevant.