Are gay/lesbian immoral ?

[Xev]

First, I don't believe in being right and wrong. I believe in being such that one is above right and wrong. That is, I live my ethics by a state, not by a system.

That said, bestiality is wrong. Nonconsensual sex is wrong because it harms the person and freedom of the Other.

Can you deny, okinrus, that your lifestyle is unnatural?
If it is ingrained in humans to seek out new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking and being, why is seeking a new way of fucking contrary to human nature?

 

[otheadp]

bestiality...

wrong according to who?
there always has to be a reference point

 

[Xev]

Me.

 

[okinrus]

Me.

Well I didn't mean that as a personal question. For example, many woman say that they feel abortion is wrong but they still allow others to have the choice.

That said, bestiality is wrong. Nonconsensual sex is wrong because it harms the person and freedom of the Other.

Ok, I'm going to interpret the Other to be an animal. How do you know that this is nonconsensual sex? If the animal gets gratification from it, how do you know that they will not give consent? Your moral system is still hypocritical because we kill millions of animals for food. Could someone have sex with those animals because we are going to kill them anyways? Also I'm in no way comparing homosexuality with beastiality. I suspect only that there are similar reasons to why both are considered wrong.

Can you deny, okinrus, that your lifestyle is unnatural?
If it is ingrained in humans to seek out new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking and being, why is seeking a new way of fucking contrary to human nature?

My lifestyle is based upon avoiding what harms myself, others and my relationship with God.

 

[Xev]

okinrus:

Well I didn't mean that as a personal question. For example, many woman say that they feel abortion is wrong but they still allow others to have the choice.

It is a personal question. You asked who defines morality for me - the answer is me.
Your example of the woman who feels that abortion is wrong but will allow others to have the choice is flawed. If one believes that a fetus is a living human being, then one cannot "allow others to have the choice" unless one believes that murder should be condoned. If one simply wouldn't have an abortion, it's not a moral choice - it's simply a choice.

Ok, I'm going to interpret the Other to be an animal. How do you know that this is nonconsensual sex? If the animal gets gratification from it, how do you know that they will not give consent?

Same argument would apply to paedophilia. I'll err on the side of caution.

Your moral system is still hypocritical because we kill millions of animals for food.

Do you not know how to read? I said I have no moral system.
As for the objection, good thinking. There's no real difference between fucking a sheep and eating a sheep. I should have asked you to specify animal.

My lifestyle is based upon avoiding what harms myself, others and my relationship with God.

That doesn't answer my question. Is it natural?
You use a computer. That's not natural.
Mystech fucks other men. That's not natural.
Y'all have to abandon the "natural" argument unless you want to sound really, really silly as you are making it in an unnatural medium (the internet).

 

[okinrus]

Do you not know how to read? I said I have no moral system.

Everyone has a moral system even if it's only the pursuit of pleasure. Also every moral system concerns itself with states. For example, killing others is normally wrong but not in self defence.

Same argument would apply to paedophilia. I'll err on the side of caution.

Why do we have to be cautious here, but not with homosexuality? Your trying to avoid my questions...

That doesn't answer my question. Is it natural?
You use a computer. That's not natural.
Mystech fucks other men. That's not natural.
Y'all have to abandon the "natural" argument unless you want to sound really, really silly as you are making it in an unnatural medium (the internet).

Our sexuality is determined from our enviroment. How does a male rabbit who has never seen himself know what he looks like? Or to put it more specifically, how does he know that he is a rabbit? Our sexuality comes mainly from the environment.

Also could there be a degree of unnatural? Could homosexuality be considered a 6 on the unnatural, while beastiality would be a 10? Or maybe having cars is natural? Maybe the set of natural behaviors is very large? What we actually use the computer for is natural. We use the computer to communicate and calculate.

 

[Xev]

okinrus:

Everyone has a moral system even if it's only the pursuit of pleasure.

If you call an absence of a system a system of absence, fine. In which case, the fact that I don't own a Porsche simply means that I own a nonexistant Porsche.

Also every moral system concerns itself with states. For example, killing others is normally wrong but not in self defence.

Oh just read Nietzsche, he says this crap way better than I could.

Why do we have to be cautious here, but not with homosexuality? Your trying to avoid my questions...

No, I'm trying not to scream at your obtuseness.

Look okinrus, if you can't tell the difference between fucking an adult and fucking a child you have problems. BIG problems.
For one, children aren't physically ready for sex with adults. For two, a child's conception of sex is rather too primitive for consent to be truely possible. For three, it's rather well documented that victims of child sexual abuse are harmed mentally by such abuse.

Got it so far? This is why I err on the side of caution - I don't relish the idea of harming a child.

Now, bestiality. I'd be inclined to find it suspect in most cases. But it's not as cut and dry - is it morally "wrong" to jack off a Jack Russell? I doubt it.

Our sexuality is determined from our enviroment. How does a male rabbit who has never seen himself know what he looks like? Or to put it more specifically, how does he know that he is a rabbit? Our sexuality comes mainly from the environment.

Our sexuality, I agree, but not our libido. What our libido attatches itself to is not necessarily soley influenced by enviornment.

But this is skipping the question.

Also could there be a degree of unnatural? Could homosexuality be considered a 6 on the unnatural, while beastiality would be a 10? Or maybe having cars is natural? Maybe the set of natural behaviors is very large? What we actually use the computer for is natural. We use the computer to communicate and calculate.

I don't see hunter-gatherers performing abstract maths or communicating with each other across oceans.
Besides, homosexuality is simply the pursuit of mutual pleasure with a member of one's own gender. How is this any less natural than wrapping your mind around non-Euclidian geometry?

So, is your use of the computer natural or not?
It's a simple yes/no question.

 

[okinrus]

If you call an absence of a system a system of absence, fine. In which case, the fact that I don't own a Porsche simply means that I own a nonexistant Porsche.

Your moral system is a random system spilling out nonsense? If you say that homosexuality is not wrong, then you have made a judgment based on your morals. Are you really suggesting that you make judgements without rational thinking? You believe in contradiction. As soon as you say that having no moral system is not wrong, then you have a moral system.

No, I'm trying not to scream at your obtuseness.

Logic is obtuse. Your morals based upon what society does is no more obtuse than saying "God said so".

Oh just read Nietzsche, he says this crap way better than I could.

Oh so your moral system is based upon Nietzsche. Ok, I will try to bash my head against the nearest copy I can find.

Look okinrus, if you can't tell the difference between fucking an adult and fucking a child you have problems. BIG problems.
For one, children aren't physically ready for sex with adults. For two, a child's conception of sex is rather too primitive for consent to be truely possible. For three, it's rather well documented that victims of child sexual abuse are harmed mentally by such abuse.

And so how does a pedofile relate to beastiaity? For all we know someone who as sex with animals instead of young children. And in case you did not notice, there are more homosexual pedofiles than heterosexual pedofiles. So why not err on the side of caution with homosexuals.

I don't see hunter-gatherers performing abstract maths or communicating with each other across oceans.

Human communications such as speaking is much more complicated than the logical make up of the computer. There is no computer that can make an exact recording of the human voice. There is no parser that can parse english in real time and understand it. Hunters were one of the first mathematicians. Notches on stone representing perhaps the number of kills began our system of mathematics.

Besides, homosexuality is simply the pursuit of mutual pleasure with a member of one's own gender. How is this any less natural than wrapping your mind around non-Euclidian geometry?

Our earth is non-Euclidian, space is non-Euclidian.

So, is your use of the computer natural or not?
It's a simple yes/no question.

The computer can function naturally with the human species. Of course you can use your computer to function unnaturally just as you can use almost any natural object. Anyways since most humans use the computer to function naturally, it is natural.

 

[Xev]

okinrus:
Ethics is boring. I prefer phenomenology, so I'm going to skip over explaining a bunch of shit I don't care about and shouldn't have started discussing. My apologies.
To cut to the chase - I do not believe homosexuality to be good or bad, as I do not believe anything to be good or bad.

And so how does a pedofile relate to beastiaity?

They don't. Somehow we started discussing the two.

And in case you did not notice, there are more homosexual pedofiles than heterosexual pedofiles. So why not err on the side of caution with homosexuals.

Paedophilia is generally believed to be indicative of mental disturbance more than a sexual preference. I don't know if this is true or not, just so you know.

I gave you several reasons why homosexuality and paedophilia are not equivalent. If you can't argue against them, just drop the fucking comparison already.

Our earth is non-Euclidian, space is non-Euclidian.

Umm, well not really. And I don't see how this "fact" answers my question?

I'll restate:
How is seeking the pleasure of playing with maths any different than seeking the pleasure of playing hide the sausage with a member of your own sex?

Anyways since most humans use the computer to function naturally, it is natural.

Naturally = in accordance with nature.
Again, how is my laptop in accordance with nature?
In that I use it as a tool, correct?

 

[okinrus]

I do not believe homosexuality to be good or bad, as I do not believe anything to be good or bad.

Well that's a dismal attitute Isn't your existance good? Maybe it's better that you treat good or bad more like a human emotion instead of saying it does not exist.

I'm not saying that paedophilia or homosexuality are equivalent. However statistics show a correlation. Note very well that not all homosexuals are pedofiles. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

How is seeking the pleasure of playing with maths any different than seeking the pleasure of playing hide the sausage with a member of your own sex?

Playing with math gives you long term satisfaction. A mathematical proof uses creativity and imagination. "hide the sausage" only gives momentary pleasure. It's much more likely to become an addiction than mathematics.

 

[Munchmausen]

pedophiles

Okinrus, I don't know what studies you're referring to, but most pedophiles are heterosexual.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by okinrus
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

This is a completely ridiculous source to site. This article boldly chooses to take the extra crazy path and try to not-so-subtly imply that there is some sort of homosexual conspiracy driving at getting closer to children (for the purpose of molesting them).

Originally posted by okinrus
Playing with math gives you long term satisfaction. A mathematical proof uses creativity and imagination. "hide the sausage" only gives momentary pleasure. It's much more likely to become an addiction than mathematics.

All you've done here is make an argument against all sexual activity (though I suppose the wording excludes lesbians). Unless your premise is that homosexuals are interested only in sex with other men, and that sex with members of the opposite sex is not the only social goal for heterosexuals, then this argument can work both ways.

Your premises are horribly flawed either way, as "playing hide the sausage" is far from the only social activity which a homosexual will engage in with a member of the same sex. Believe it or not they actually like to form long lasting relationships and pair-bonds, and essentially any of the standard range of interpersonal relationships which could well result in "giving long term satisfaction". That certainly makes the reasoning behind their pushing for marriage a whole lot more clear, doesn't it?

Xev, you're not making a whole hell of a lot of sense in this thread any more. Your arguments are convoluted and sort of collapse right in on themselves, and that's when they have enough structure to actually be related to one another. My advice to you would be to just take some time away from this thread, maybe observe a Jr. High speech and debate team, and then come back fresh and ready to form an argument. I realize that technically you are arguing on the same side as me, but honestly some times it is hard to tell. Your childish quips and one liners may be appreciated elsewhere on the forums, but to be honest I shudder every time I see a new post from you.

 

[okinrus]

You have the citations that the article listed. It's clearly percentage wise, but I would not be suprised even if there are more homosexual pedofiles than heterosexual pedofiles. Lately you've probably heard about the scandal in the Catholic church. Well most of those cases are homosexual. Of course heterosexuals commit sexual deviant acts, but usually these are manifested in the rape of an adult female.

 

[okinrus]

All you've done here is make an argument against all sexual activity (though I suppose the wording excludes lesbians). Unless your premise is that homosexuals are interested only in sex with other men, and that sex with members of the opposite sex is not the only social goal for heterosexuals, then this argument can work both ways.

Heterosexuals have the same problems. This is why sexual acts should be only in marriage for the fullfillment of children. Fornication and homosexual acts are both wrong.

This article boldly chooses to take the extra crazy path and try to not-so-subtly imply that there is some sort of homosexual conspiracy driving at getting closer to children (for the purpose of molesting them).
rong.

Ok it's a bit crazy, but the article states valid research as far as I can tell.

 

[Mystech]

Re: pedophiles

Originally posted by Munchmausen
Okinrus, I don't know what studies you're referring to, but most pedophiles are heterosexual.

The idea that a higher percentage of homosexual men than heterosexual men are pedophiles is just a myth.

In 1985, a federal judge concluded that Cameron had engaged in "fraud" and "misrepresentation" when he testified in a gay-related case in Texas. (Baker v. Wade, 106 Federal Rules Decisions 526 [N.D. Texas, 1985]) Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron"

http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Cameron.html

Feel free to call me a hypocrite for referencing this source, which itself has a clear bias, but it was the best one that I could find and post in a timely manner. I went to the APA's site first, but it's completely useless. At least it relies heavily on direct quotes from the legal case.

On another, and certainly just as important note: Heterosexuals are much more likely to start wars than are homosexuals. They also commit more murders, and are involved in more pregnancies out of wedlock then homosexuals.

That's my way of saying that this is a straw man argument. The issue we are dealing with here is weather or not homosexuals are immoral, not weather pedophiles or rapists are immoral. Saying that a homosexuals could also be pedophiles and as such are immoral is completely ridiculous, it runs right along the same lines as saying because a heterosexual can be a murderer, they are also immoral. Both pedophilia and murder are immoral, but we aren't talking about pedophiles or murderers, adding them into the mix is nothing but a diversionary tactic.

 

[Xev]

okinrus:

Well that's a dismal attitute Isn't your existance good?

Not really.

Maybe it's better that you treat good or bad more like a human emotion instead of saying it does not exist.

I was thinking in a moral sense. I mean sure, this chardonney is good. This book is good. This band is good.

I'm not saying that paedophilia or homosexuality are equivalent. However statistics show a correlation.

Irrelevent. Most genocidal maniacs are heterosexuals, if you want to play that game.

Playing with math gives you long term satisfaction.

Really? My interests, academically, are exclusively non maths. I haven't got the sort of brain that is truely good at math.

A mathematical proof uses creativity and imagination.

So does a good fuck, to be blunt.

"hide the sausage" only gives momentary pleasure.

Exploring another person's desires, learning how to pleasure their body, above all experiencing another human fully in the flesh, sharing the holocaust of words that is orgasm - this only gives momentary pleasure?

I'd say that you're the one with a dismal attitude. Sure, human relationships aren't as important as our culture makes them out to be, but they can be intensely rewarding.

Mystech:
I'm not "debating". I'm playing. If I actually cared about any of this shit, I'd be putting an effort into my arguments.
Sheesh, that should be bloody obvious. Don't tell me you take this shit seriously? :bugeye:

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Xev
Mystech:
I'm not "debating". I'm playing. If I actually cared about any of this shit, I'd be putting an effort into my arguments.
Sheesh, that should be bloody obvious. Don't tell me you take this shit seriously? :bugeye:

Being that this is an intensely personal issue for me, and that I actually have to deal with people, and arguments like these in real live now and again, not to mention the fact that it is people with ideas like these who stand between me and the fulfillment of the rights which I feel should be mine, yes I do take this very seriously.

 

[okinrus]

Exploring another person's desires, learning how to pleasure their body, above all experiencing another human fully in the flesh, sharing the holocaust of words that is orgasm - this only gives momentary pleasure?

Don't these type of relationships end quickly as well? Premarital sexual relationships have a high rate of breaking apart. In any case, you die and that's it.

 

[okinrus]

Being that this is an intensely personal issue for me, and that I actually have to deal with people, and arguments like these in real live now and again, not to mention the fact that it is people with ideas like these who stand between me and the fulfillment of the rights which I feel should be mine, yes I do take this very seriously.

Don't worry. Xev has made me come to the conclusion that the world is so fucked up that's it is beyond repair. Better to let the children play and let God punish you all.

 

[Xev]

Mystech:
So you think you'll change his mind? Bah, bull, you're bored just like me.

Time, as Paine says, makes more converts than reason.

Anyways, your opinion of my posts is a matter of monumental unconcern. Shoo along now.

Don't these type of relationships end quickly as well?

Doesn't address my question.
You honestly think that knowing another person is only a momentary thing?
*Shrugs*
Men are, I suppose, less emotionally involved in sex.

Premarital sexual relationships have a high rate of breaking apart.

Your point is?

In any case, you die and that's it.

Now you're REALLY being confusing.

Xev has made me come to the conclusion that the world is so fucked up that's it is beyond repair. Better to let the children play and let God punish you all.

Ouch! Fucked up it is, but I've not come to that conclusion.