Homosexuality: What’s the big deal?

[andeity]

Life is full of challenges. Homosexuality is something a person has to work to overcome and deal with like any other. Now it is wrong for people to hate or discriminate homosexuals, and I'll admit I am prejudiced to gay people, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't think it's wrong. The biological purpose of sex is to produce offspring. The purpose of sexual attractions is to lead to sex, so that a species can continue. But homosexual sex can't produce offspring. How could homosexual attractions be normal?

And don't tell me that homosexuality is inborn, and/or that homosexuals can't change. Because there is plenty of evidence that it comes from early influence, plenty of homosexuals who have changed through Christianity, and ex-gay organizations.

 

[Xev]

andiety:

But homosexual sex can't produce offspring. How could homosexual attractions be normal?

Kin selection.

Redoubtable:

Since our instincts are the base from which our morals are derived,

So rape and murder are ethical actions? COOL!

and our instincts are justified in cataloguing cannabilism as destructive, cannibalism is immoral.

See above. It's no worse than for a Jew to eat pork.

Homosexuality induces persons to "butt-fuck." That is most definitely pernicious in that it fosters an inordinate amount of disease. The gays are dying like flies because of this. That is inherently pernicious.

Any form of sexual intercourse can be harmful. Anal intercourse is more risky as the amount of tearing is greater. However, one deals with a continuum when evaluating the risks of sexual contact.

It's safer for a man to have protected sex with another man than it is for a man to have unprotected sex with his wife. So...

Also, practicing a form of sexual intercourse, or atleast bizarre copulation, one is meant to (The VERY ACT OF INTERCOURSE finds its purpose in this! That is why I use the often infuriating word "meant.") PRODUCE PROGENY! Without this result, the act of intercourse is a waste of time.

Oh good heavens, I can't see sex as EVER being a waste of time.
The sexual act has no inherent "meaning" at all. Natural selection has never and will never "intend" anything.

Perhaps pernicious is an unsuitable word. Forgive me. I now favor "flippant, irrational, and utterly useless."

*Smiles innocently*

Like your posts?

To be sure, an objective morality exists! The conscience is this objective morality. Given, it is rather mercurial and differs considerably from one person to the other, but it is still a form of morality available to all and applicable to any plight, circumstance, or fellow human.

The conscience is subjective, as you just admitted. So no, objective morality does not exist.

I will concede this point to you, Xev. Homosexuality is, indeed, a integral facet of exclusively mammalian behaviour, a part of nature.

Lovely.

Homosexuality may occur naturally, but as it does not benefit the species in which it exists, it is not a desirable trait, and, is in my opinion harmful.

But it does benefit the species.

Pedophilia is simply yet another sexual orientation. It's is also a perversion as it causes only misery and iniquity("iniquity" being something not ignoble or evil, but nery harmful).
I don't care how much people detest it, but pedophilia is just an "orientation." The same thing applies to sadomasochism.

That was not my point. My point is that one must (if one is logical) morally seperate actions that are harmful and those that are not harmful if one wants to debate their morality.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by Xev
So rape and murder are ethical actions? COOL!

I admit that the sexual urge is not too infrequently horrific in that it can compel naturally bellicose or opportunistic persons into subversive and criminal conduct.
However, it is only the base, animal instincts that drive these assailants and miscreants, for most are dissauaded from such vile infractions by a force within the mind that I can only classify as something nearly indistinguishable from instinct: intuition. I should have stated 'intuition ' instead of "instinct," a word that denotes ferality or aimless barbarity.

It's no worse than for a Jew to eat pork.

Oh, come now, comrade! Pay a little more mind to my previous post than this!
Look! Cannibalism is immoral because it engenders the spread of infectious disease. Human corpses can be playgrounds for bacteria, and even a punctilious and excessive scorching may not purge a human carcass of its infestation!
Why, do you inquire, is it not the same case with lesser animals? This is due to the fact that we are not suscptible to most of their ailments as they are not to most of ours.

Any form of sexual intercourse can be harmful. Anal intercourse is more risky as the amount of tearing is greater.

83% of those afflicted by AIDS since 1981 have been either homosexuals or intravenous drug users.
(I believe it's something like 65% are homosexual, I'm not certain of that though.)

Because of this, I will state most confidently that homosexual intercourse fosters disease and is, subsequently, more hazardous to those who partake in it than reproductive, heterosexual intercourse.

The sexual act has no inherent "meaning" at all. Natural selection has never and will never "intend" anything.

God damn it, Xev, pay a little more attention to the post! In parentheses, I gave regard to that predictable complaint.

The conscience is subjective, as you just admitted. So no, objective morality does not exist.

Well, that's an extremely disconcerting find. The meaning of "objective" must have escaped my, even if it isn't a particualry recondite or ambiguous word.
Perhaps . . . well, I can't conceive an acceptable solution or explanation to mitigate my growing fret. Hmmmm . . . I don't know . . . mayhap it's trolls of your kind, Xev, that have beleaguered me to this point.

Well, I must insist that the conscience is a sufficient guideline of morality for most, Xev, no matter its subjective and variable nature.

But it does benefit the species.

How so? I do recollect you succinctly alluding to its "limiting the population." Yet, it is contestible whether or not any such "limiting" process is propitious or advisable for the human race.

That was not my point. My point is that one must (if one is logical) morally seperate actions that are harmful and those that are not harmful if one wants to debate their morality.

I did not once assert that homosexuality, or any other sexual orientation, for that matter, was immoral. I merely indicated that homosexuality in practice was "deleterious" in that it serves no purpose to the betterment of humanity, as does normal reproductive copulation.

 

[spacemanspiff]

I merely indicated that homosexuality in practice was "deleterious" in that it serves no purpose to the betterment of humanity, as does normal reproductive copulation

Redoubtable,

so, anything or anyone that does not produce offspring is "deleterious"? again by this logic celibate priest are deleterious as they do not engage in normal reproductive copulation.

 

[andeity]

Humans want comfort, right? This is what the pro-gay community is based upon - comforting gays (and lesbians) and making them feel like there's nothing wrong with them. This is laziness. Because gays don't want to feel guilty and unhappy, they justify their orientation as normal so that they won't feel guilty. This is only one example of such guilt adjustment. You can justify almost any sin or unethical behavior you commit by lowering your standards so as to eliminate your sense of guilt about it.

If being gay is so normal, how come the whole issue of homosexuality is only now coming out of the closet? (pardon the pun.) If it was normal, wouldn't it always have been accepted? [This is certainly a controversial statement. I don't know if anyone has said it before, I thought I'd point it out]

 

[Xev]

Redoubtable:

I admit that the sexual urge is not too infrequently horrific in that it can compel naturally bellicose or opportunistic persons into subversive and criminal conduct.

What is wrong with subversion?

However, it is only the base, animal instincts that drive these assailants and miscreants, for most are dissauaded from such vile infractions by a force within the mind that I can only classify as something nearly indistinguishable from instinct: intuition. I should have stated 'intuition ' instead of "instinct," a word that denotes ferality or aimless barbarity.

Have you any evidence of this "force of intuition"? Why does it not work on those who commit the approx. 90,186 (DOJ) rapes in the US every year?

That aside, I'll accept your clarification.

Oh, come now, comrade! Pay a little more mind to my previous post than this!
Look! Cannibalism is immoral because it engenders the spread of infectious disease. Human corpses can be playgrounds for bacteria, and even a punctilious and excessive scorching may not purge a human carcass of its infestation!
Why, do you inquire, is it not the same case with lesser animals? This is due to the fact that we are not suscptible to most of their ailments as they are not to most of ours.

I'll stipulate to cannibalism as deletarious, then.

83% of those afflicted by AIDS since 1981 have been either homosexuals or intravenous drug users.
(I believe it's something like 65% are homosexual, I'm not certain of that though.)

Source?
But even so, look at the date. Awareness in the gay community has certainly changed since '81.

Because of this, I will state most confidently that homosexual intercourse fosters disease and is, subsequently, more hazardous to those who partake in it than reproductive, heterosexual intercourse.

What about lesbians? They're the safest of all of us, one would think.
So we could more accurately say that unprotected, unsafe sex is more hazardous to those who partake in it than protected, safe sex.

God damn it, Xev, pay a little more attention to the post! In parentheses, I gave regard to that predictable complaint.

Dude, chill.
You did not address this complaint at all:

Also, practicing a form of sexual intercourse, or atleast bizarre copulation, one is meant to (The VERY ACT OF INTERCOURSE finds its purpose in this! That is why I use the often infuriating word "meant.")PRODUCE PROGENY! Without this result, the act of intercourse is a waste of time.

I point out that the act of intercourse has no purpose or meaning. It evolved as a rather nifty way of combining DNA.

Hmm, I think I am splitting hairs a bit here, but so be it:

Female fertility is cyclic, as I'm sure you know. However, females are sexually receptive every day of every month. Why is this? And why is sex pleasurable? People do not strictly need to fuck for pleasure, instinct works well for many animals. Nor do females need to feel orgasm.

I submit that reproduction is not the sole aim of sex, even "according to nature".

Well, that's an extremely disconcerting find. The meaning of "objective" must have escaped my, even if it isn't a particualry recondite or ambiguous word.

Might I suggest a dictionary?

Perhaps . . . well, I can't conceive an acceptable solution or explanation to mitigate my growing fret. Hmmmm . . . I don't know . . . mayhap it's trolls of your kind, Xev, that have beleaguered me to this point.

I in no way fit the definition of a troll.
http://www.hack.gr/jargon/html/T/troll.html

If you are unable to defend your arguments, would it not be best to admit this, rather than clinging to an untenable position?

Well, I must insist that the conscience is a sufficient guideline of morality for most, Xev, no matter its subjective and variable nature.

It may be a sufficiant guideline or not, however, that does not make it objective. Indeed, you've admitted the conscience as subjective.

Thus, will you agree with me that a set of objective morals has not been shown to exist?

How so? I do recollect you succinctly alluding to its "limiting the population." Yet, it is contestible whether or not any such "limiting" process is propitious or advisable for the human race.[/qutoe]

Contestible? Possibly, but I think that the perils of overpopulation:

Deforestation
Pollution
Increased spread of disease as hygiene becomes poorer
Tightening labour markets, leading to social unrest

For a few...

Are rather difficult to contest. Certainly these are "bad things", yes?

Certainly it is not advisable for the human race to destroy the planet it depends on?

I did not once assert that homosexuality, or any other sexual orientation, for that matter, was immoral.

This is so, my apologies.

I merely indicated that homosexuality in practice was "deleterious" in that it serves no purpose to the betterment of humanity, as does normal reproductive copulation.

Is "deletarious" the right word, then? Is everything that does not serve the purpose of the "betterment of humanity" harmful?

In other words, anything that is not productive is harmful? I do not mean to "straw man" your argument, but it does look like this.

I have one additional comment - if you accept my argument that sex serves the purpose, not only of reproduction but of strengthening the pair bond - then non-reproductive sex is in no way deletarious or even neutral.

I'm suprised that you don't label sex in conjunction with contraceptive use as "deletarious". Or chastity, as Mystech noted.

andiety:

One word:

Greece.

 

[spacemanspiff]

"if it was normal, wouldn't it always have been accepted?

are you joking? you really want to say that if something is "normal" then it will be accepted? I'm not going to make a huge list of things that have been considered unacceptable in society that are perfectly fine. maybe you should think about how unaccepting society has been to certain peoples and whether or not you agree with society in eachcase. I assure you that society has made some bad calls in the past.

 

[andeity]

Zev - what do the homosexual policies in Greece (yes, I know about them) have to do with what I said?

 

[Mystech]

Omiting all of the information on the proper way to cook human flesh we are left with the folowing:

Originally posted by Redoubtable


Homosexuality induces persons to "butt-fuck." That is most definitely pernicious in that it fosters an inordinate amount of disease. The gays are dying like flies because of this. That is inherently pernicious.

Ok, first off Anal sex is neither inherent nor exclusive to homosexuality. There are many gay couples who simply do not engage in it, homosexuality is about the love of a person and another person of the same gender, if anal sex is your problem with homosexuals then you have a problem with how they express their affection, and NOT with homosexuality itself.

Also, many straight couples engage in anal sex, as well, go type anal into a search engine and I'm sure you'll find a thousand web sites dedicated to heterosexual anal sex, it's not a homosexual characteristic, you're making unfair generalizations.

Also why not just come right out and say that you don't have a problem with lesbians? Everything you say is clearly focused around gay men, and I think we've found a double standard here. poo poo on you.

Second, and this is an important one, no one in the history of man kind has EVER died from anal sex. The exchange of sexual fluids by a man and a man, a man and a woman, or a woman and a woman, ALL provide a way to transmit diseases. In this way ANY form of sexual interaction could be considered, by your reasoning, just as harmful as anal sex between two men. That is, unless you would have us believe in spontaneous generation of diseases when one man penetrates another's anal ring, in which case I'd promptly smack you upside the head and then gladly pay for you to go back to elementary school, and ensure that you pay attention during science class.

Originally posted by Redoubtable

Also, practicing a form of sexual intercourse, or atleast bizarre copulation, one is meant to (The VERY ACT OF INTERCOURSE finds its purpose in this! That is why I use the often infuriating word "meant.") PRODUCE PROGENY! Without this result, the act of intercourse is a waste of time.

If you believe humans to be nothing more than mindless drones who exist only for the purpose of continued existence, this may be correct.

However as humans we have sentience, we have emotions, we fall in love and we wish to share intimacy with our partners. Sex is referred to as the physical act of love for a reason, and no matter how many lame self serving theories you try to come up with, you aren't going to be able to nullify this fact.

Originally posted by Redoubtable

Perhaps pernicious is an unsuitable word. Forgive me. I now favor "flippant, irrational, and utterly useless."

I don't think that you are very qualified to judge or pass sentence on the love of two people, keep your opinions on this matter to yourself, as you have no business voicing them.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
To be sure, an objective morality exists! The conscience is this objective morality. Given, it is rather mercurial and differs considerably from one person to the other, but it is still a form of morality available to all and applicable to any plight, circumstance, or fellow human.

So, in your opinion objective morality exists, and yet it is mutable, and varies from person to person? This is a contradiction, sir, check your premises, you'll find that at least one of them must be wrong. If you lack the critical thinking skills to do that, well, go back to school, you're not quite ready to be released into the world just yet.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
I will concede this point to you, Xev. Homosexuality is, indeed, a integral facet of exclusively mammalian behaviour, a part of nature.

I'll have to take the road less traveled on this one, and continue to object to the "is it natural" argument. No one, not even the FDA has a full and clear definition of what "Natural" really does mean. I would argue that "Nature" is simply the sum of the self sustaining cycles which exist in the world, and the rise and fall of various slow changes within them.

Under this definition Homosexuality could be argued as being unnatural, however that is fairly meaningless in the argument, as unnatural does not necessarily mean it is bad.

Nature works on a "Just good enough" basis, whereas if a cycle is just good enough to keep itself around, then it stays, conversely if a trait is not quite bad enough to destroy it's cycle, it also stays. For a sentient creature, going against nature, is simply the decision to find a path which suits him better.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Homosexuality may occur naturally, but as it does not benefit the species in which it exists, it is not a desirable trait, and, is in my opinion harmful.

Sorry, Redoubtable, I don't believe in the idea of original sin. That is to say, no man is born in debt to any other, this is not an inherent quality in mankind, you don't come out of the womb owing anyone anything, obligation and debt are all things which come later. We aren't obligated to "Benefit the species" only ourselves.

That is just my objectivist (The Philosophy popularized by Ayn Rand) view on that particular subject; however, being a homosexual doesn't automatically make someone incapable of "Benefiting the species" As it were. If your detention of "Benefit" is limited to procreation, then I'd refer you to my comments about that earlier in this post, there is more to sentient life then creating more life.

Originally posted by Redoubtable
Pedophilia is simply yet another sexual orientation. It's is also a perversion as it causes only misery and iniquity("iniquity" being something not ignoble or evil, but very harmful).
I don't care how much people detest it, but pedophilia is just an "orientation." The same thing applies to sadomasochism.

I don't buy that at the same time something can be both a sexual orientation, and an act of perversion, the two seem to conflict with one another.

I also resent the comparison between pedophilia and homosexuality, again, if you can't tell the difference between a relationship involving two consenting adults, and statutory rape, then you have more problems than I thought.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by andeity
Humans want comfort, right? This is what the pro-gay community is based upon - comforting gays (and lesbians) and making them feel like there's nothing wrong with them. This is laziness. Because gays don't want to feel guilty and unhappy, they justify their orientation as normal so that they won't feel guilty. This is only one example of such guilt adjustment. You can justify almost any sin or unethical behavior you commit by lowering your standards so as to eliminate your sense of guilt about it.

If being gay is so normal, how come the whole issue of homosexuality is only now coming out of the closet? (pardon the pun.) If it was normal, wouldn't it always have been accepted? [This is certainly a controversial statement. I don't know if anyone has said it before, I thought I'd point it out]

What the hell are homosexuals supposed to feel guilty about, exactly? I don't quite get that.

And for your information every major civilization throught history eventualy came to accept homosexuality. Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, even native americans had acceptance of homosexuality, this is by no means a "New" issue.

 

[Redoubtable]

Originally posted by Xev
What is wrong with subversion?

sub·vert Pronunciation Key (sb-vûrt)
tr.v. sub·
vert·ed, sub·vert·ing, sub·verts
To destroy completely; ruin:
“schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community” (Alexander Hamilton).
To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
To overthrow completely:
“Economic assistance... must subvert the existing... feudal or tribal order” (Henry A. Kissinger).
See Synonyms at overthrow.


Does any of that criteria sound as though it might be associated with commendable or equitable behavior?

Have you any evidence of this "force of intuition"? Why does it not work on those who commit the approx. 90,186 (DOJ) rapes in the US every year?

I can, indeed, verify my postulation.
The population of the US in 1995 was approximately 262,753,000 persons. Only 90,186 rapes a year? That doesn't seem a considerable number in realation to the population of eight years ago. Some form of mental constraint or inhibition must keep these droves of potential rapists off one another. I would suggest that it is the "force of intuition" which allows them to deduce (without substantial reasons) that rape is not an acceptable practice.
Source

Source?
But even so, look at the date. Awareness in the gay community has certainly changed since '81.

"Statistics as early as 1996 show us that homosexuals and intravenous drug users accounted for 83 per cent of all AIDS cases reported in the U.S." -Source
I didn't remember all the numbers correctly, but its there.

What about lesbians? They're the safest of all of us, one would think.

Well, I suppose so. However, they still don't produce offspring.

So we could more accurately say that unprotected, unsafe sex is more hazardous to those who partake in it than protected, safe sex.

You're adding an inconsistent variable. There is no way we might determine whether or not any given couple, wheter heterosexual or homosexual, will employ sexual protection.

Dude, chill.
You did not address this complaint at all:
I point out that the act of intercourse has no purpose or meaning. It evolved as a rather nifty way of combining DNA.

There: it's purpose is exchanging DNA. It does this so efficiently, ergo, it's purpose, or design, is, obviously, to do so.

Female fertility is cyclic . . . However, females are sexually receptive every day of every month. Why is this? And why is sex pleasurable? People do not strictly need to fuck for pleasure, instinct works well for many animals. Nor do females need to feel orgasm.

I would suggest that the female cycles of fertility are due to some phyyical restriction or limition present in the female reproductive anatomy. I have no expertise in this field, I simply consider this explanation plausible.

I submit that reproduction is not the sole aim of sex, even "according to nature".

Then what other aims might it have? Recreation?

Might I suggest a dictionary?

Xev, have I ever attempted to be condescending towards you?
I admitted my mistake.

I in no way fit the definition of a troll.

Then what was this:

Originally posted by Xev

It's called baiting. *Winks*

If you are unable to defend your arguments, would it not be best to admit this, rather than clinging to an untenable position?

I admitted my mistake. Is this intended to be more "baiting?"

Thus, will you agree with me that a set of objective morals has not been shown to exist?

Yes, you are correct. The definition simply slipped my mind. I've capitulated several times now.

However, the conscience, despite it's subjectivity, being a sufficient guidline for human activity, can be used to determine morality.

Is "deletarious" the right word, then? Is everything that does not serve the purpose of the "betterment of humanity" harmful?

I believe so, though, perhaps, you, being more cynical than I, believe not.

In other words, anything that is not productive is harmful?

Yes, this is the notion I favor. Even so, is is not too unlikely that I am idealistic in this view.

I'm suprised that you don't label sex in conjunction with contraceptive use as "deletarious". Or chastity, as Mystech noted.

I do, though.

 

[Stryder]

I'm just going to try and make a point simple (it's one you can choose not to listen too if you want.)

I'm annoyed at the whole "Gay rights" campaigning crap, purely because WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE!.

I had to shout that, purely because I doubt anyone will listen.

Simply my point is do you see me crying out that my rights aren't being met, do you hear me cry that my hetrosexuality is keeping me from a job, do you hear me cry that I must have the rights to march with fellow hetrosexual couples.

Nope, although I do like a good rant.

My understanding is simple, Why should people be gay in public?
Gay is a SEXUAL act, and I don't think people would be too chuffed if I made moves on some female (with her permission) permission of course) but in front of somebodies kids.

Thats basically my opinion on it, other than that as long as any gay people out there don't hit on me, I'm fine (just keep your distance Mwhahaha!)

 

[andeity]

Originally posted by Mystech

And for your information every major civilization throught history eventualy came to accept homosexuality. Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, even native americans had acceptance of homosexuality, this is by no means a "New" issue.

Yeah...eventually...that not the same as accepting it from the beginning of society, is it?

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by Stryderunknown
I'm just going to try and make a point simple (it's one you can choose not to listen too if you want.)

I'm annoyed at the whole "Gay rights" campaigning crap, purely because WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE!.

I had to shout that, purely because I doubt anyone will listen.

Simply my point is do you see me crying out that my rights aren't being met, do you hear me cry that my hetrosexuality is keeping me from a job, do you hear me cry that I must have the rights to march with fellow hetrosexual couples.

Nope, although I do like a good rant.

My understanding is simple, Why should people be gay in public?
Gay is a SEXUAL act, and I don't think people would be too chuffed if I made moves on some female (with her permission) permission of course) but in front of somebodies kids.

Thats basically my opinion on it, other than that as long as any gay people out there don't hit on me, I'm fine (just keep your distance Mwhahaha!)

No one is asking for "More rights" than heterosexuals, we only want the SAME rights that you have. Most noteably the ability to get married for gods sake, what a villianous denial of freedom that is.

Also I resent your statement that "Gay is a sexual act" this is a rather ignorant statement. A celebate gay man is still a gay man. There is more to a realtionship than sex, no one is pushing for the right to go down on their partner in public, but if I'm caught holding hands with another guy in a public place you can be sure as hell I'm gonna' catch some flack for it. THAT is what I want done away with.

As for the rest of the stuff, refferences to jobs and all that, I think you're getting confused. No one is pushing for Homosexual affermative action, it's easy enough to hide your sexuality when applying for a job, it's rarely a topic that comes up in an interview.

 

[Mystech]

Originally posted by andeity
Yeah...eventually...that not the same as accepting it from the beginning of society, is it?

I fail to see your point. Also I lack the authority to answer if there was a point in any of these cultures when it wasn't accepted, anyway.

 

[andeity]

What the hell are homosexuals supposed to feel guilty about, exactly?

Their perversion.

 

[andeity]

Just so everyone knows, this forum is getting boring, since, predictably, it's just going in circles, and my views are simple, and I've said all I can say. I'm leaving.

 

[spacemanspiff]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm suprised that you don't label sex in conjunction with contraceptive use as "deletarious". Or chastity, as Mystech noted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I do, though.



Redoubtale,

you consider chastity deletarious? interesting....

DAMN Nuns! if only they would put out and make a real conrtibution to humanity by poping some babies out.

 

[Redoubtable]

Exactly.

 

[spacemanspiff]

a person's contributions to humanity is directly related to how many babies they pop out? HIlarious! that's an interesting theory you have there. I was under the impression that i could contribute to humanity by means asides from producing offspring. but aparently not.

some one should set those damn nuns straight then.
I nominate you redoubtable.

well i'm off to try to make something out of my life by impregnating as many women as i can.

wish me luck