»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 fatpie42: Stinkz, you are just showing how limited your knowledge of Nietzsche is. My views expressed here have NOTHING to do with Nietzsche Your views expressed here are based on your ideas about morality. Your views on morality are quite indicitive of a follower of Nietzsche philosophy. Therefore, your views expressed here have to do with Nietzsche. The point I was making is that your Nietzsche-like morality coincides with the laws of society, which are mainly based on non-agression. A person who believes "tolerance" is the only virtue fits in well in such a society. fatpie42: Do you KNOW any homosexuals? Yes or No? It is a SIMPLE question. Why do you shun away from just answering me? (or would that be too irrational?) Do you even read through my posts? stinkz: And, to answer your question, even though it shouldn't have any bearing on the argument, yes. I do know a few gays, as well as a few effiminate men who are not gay. fatpie42: If you can reference the Hindu text that condemns homosexuality I would be impressed. Can you do that? No, actually, I cannot off-hand. However, to add two more religions to the list, both Bahai and Zoroastrain texts also condemn homosexual behaviours. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 "The present government has laid down severe penalties for unnatural fornication and the subjects fear these penalties, but who then are the immoral ones who practice unnatural immorality? We are not told how to recognize them, but in the section on oral sex, the author of the Kamasutra has drawn a portrait of their activities and has also introduced us to their identity, saying, 'Usually, this act is performed by shandas' [a term used for people of the third sex]." "These evil practices are spreading among young men today like an infectious disease. If these tendencies were removed from their hearts by good education, they could become healthy, disease-free, good-charactered heroes, who would adorn the country by their lives." (Pandit Madhavacarya's commentaries on the ninth chapter of the "Kamasutra") From  It is unclear exactly what Hinduism teaches about homosexuality. Different sources claim to use the same scriptures to back up their opinion yet their opinions are completely different. Some say that homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Hindu scriptures and that one might accumulate karma through homosexual acts. Others claim that beginning with the Kama Sutra a third sex is defined, homosexuals and other odd-genders. Still some believe it is entirely forbidden in Hinduism. None of the sacred Hindu text, such as the Vedas, contain a straightforward condemnation of homosexuality; however, the Vedas do mention humans as being classified into three different categories: male (pums-prakriti), female (stri-prakriti) and a third sex (tritiya prakriti). Tritiya prakriti or “third sex” is the group most homosexuals identify themselves with. In the Sutras, which are supplemental writings to the Vedas, third sex citizens are described as a natural mixing of male and female to the point that one can no longer distinguish between the two. The Sutras seem to support the contention that homosexuality was somewhat acceptable in ancient times. Homosexuals argue today that third-gender citizens were neither persecuted nor denied basic rights. They were allowed to keep their own societies or town quarters, live together within marriage and engage in all means of livelihood. Gay men could either blend into society as ordinary males or they could dress and behave as females, living as transvestites. In early times of the Vedic culture it was considered inappropriate to offend even the lowest class of society. With this in mind homosexuals and other members of society with a different sexual orientation where castrated, and called “hijras” (eunuchs). This practice was considered essential so that the individual would be ensured of a better life when he is reborn and also to give these people with a different sexual orientation a place in society. The third sex is also further classified in the neutral group called napusaka (those that do not engage in procreation), with five separate categories: (1) children, (2) elderly, (3) neutrals, (4) celibate, and (5) third sex. Those that are included in these 5 groups were not only protected but considered to bring luck. Members of the third sex were also not seen as second class citizens nor were they denied basic rights, but rather they were allowed to blend into society or stand out by dressing as women. [2] Lesbians (Svairini) The Sanskrit word Svairini refers to a liberal woman who has refused to take a husband and also earns her own living alone or in marriage with another woman. These women engage in all sorts of livelihoods ranging from trade to maidservants. A lesbian woman that does not produce a child is known as a nastriya or not female. Gay Men (Napumsaka) The word napumsaka refers to any non-reproductive member of society but in the Kama Sutra it is used to describe someone that appears to be a man but actually belongs to the third sex. Likewise, there are others who will argue that homosexuality is wrong in Hinduism and not having scriptural law that specifically prohibits sexual behavior among people of the third sex, the viewpoint on sex and marriage is therefore used to make their argument. The Sastras, supplemental writings which provide instructions for human relationships and ethics, are the reference most often used to defend these views. According to the Sastras, marriage is said to fulfill 3 functions: Prajaa (progeny for perpetuation of one's family), Dharma (the pair of husband and wife, or the couple, has the prime responsibility of performing acts of charity, piety, ritual, patronage of religious acts, supporting monks and ascetics and so on. In rituals, the husband and wife have well defined, distinct actions to be performed) and Rati (pleasure of companionship, friendship, physical, of children and so forth). In light of these facts, Hinduism would not approve of homosexuality because it cannot lead to progeny, because the basis of homosexual relationships is often physical pleasure whereas the meaning of a Hindu marriage is much deeper, and because homosexual unions debase the institution of marriage. Homosexual acts are equivalent to pre-marital sex, and pre-marital sex is strongly disapproved of in Hindu religion. Many people against the acceptance of homosexuality by the Hindu faith refer to a particular story in the Srimad Bhagavatam (Canto 3, Ch.20 Text 23, 24 & 26) "Lord Brahma then gave birth to the demons from his buttocks, and they were very fond of sex. Because they were too lustful, they approached him for copulation. The worshipful Brahma first laughed at their stupidity, but finding the shameless asuras close upon him, he grew indignant and ran in great haste out of fear."[3] The claim is that this story shows that homosexuality makes the human being like a demon, lustful and shameless. Also it is asserted that like Brahma the only duty for a pious father is to abandon such offspring. Critics counter that the acts attempted by the demons were demonic for reasons other than homosexuality and thus the story is inconclusive. These include the fact that Brahma was unwilling making the act rape as well as Brahma being the demons' father which makes the act incestuous. Because Hindu scriptures are not specific on homosexuality different interpretations exists such that people can justify their beliefs and acts. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: fatpie42: Stinkz, you are just showing how limited your knowledge of Nietzsche is. My views expressed here have NOTHING to do with Nietzsche Your views expressed here are based on your ideas about morality. Your views on morality are quite indicitive of a follower of Nietzsche philosophy. Therefore, your views expressed here have to do with Nietzsche. The point I was making is that your Nietzsche-like morality coincides with the laws of society, which are mainly based on non-agression. A person who believes "tolerance" is the only virtue fits in well in such a society. You obviously haven't read any Nietzsche. I don't see how it matters how many religions think homosexuality is wrong. Many religions have been known to believe that they could produce rain by doing a special dance, but we don't take this to mean that it is true. You need to give a sensible rational reason. The fact that ancient texts claim homosexuality was wrong in the past does not make it true either. Many ancient texts are written as if the world was flat, but this does not encourage us to give up our view of the world as a globe. Surely the reason for considering homosexuality wrong in the Israeli tribe would be that it would prevent procreation and thus prevent the Israelites from becoming a great and mighty tribe? Maybe we could even see it as a glorification of God's pride that he couldn't bear to see his promise to Abraham (that his decendants would be more numerous than the grains of sand) unfulfilled. Even if it was an important law for the Israelites, why should it still be important for us now? Circumcision is believed, sensibly enough, to improve fertility (because the foreskin is out of the way). We do not consider remaining uncircumcised to be wrong anymore do we? I am trying to find a rational religious reason for considering homosexuality immoral in modern times and I can see none. However, finding one for the time of the command is much easier. Can you see a rational reason why the command should relate to modern day, Stinkz? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I don't see how it matters how many religions think homosexuality is wrong. Many religions have been known to believe that they could produce rain by doing a special dance, but we don't take this to mean that it is true. You need to give a sensible rational reason.
The fact that ancient texts claim homosexuality was wrong in the past does not make it true either. Many ancient texts are written as if the world was flat, but this does not encourage us to give up our view of the world as a globe. The point you are trying to make may or not be valid, but the reasons you use to support it are not, and your point remains unmade. Religions are not meant to provide scientific explanations for natural phenomena, and their failure to do so has no bearing on their moral systems. Scientific explanations change constantly, whether they are 'rational' attempts by men in lab coats or 'invalid' fairy tales by pastors. None of this has anything to do with the moral systems of religions, which should be unchanging in principle. And the rationality behind models of atmospheric phenomena and the morality of human actions are made from different paradigms, and you can't compare the two. Obviously because they are fundamentally different things. I hope you understand that moral laws cannot have explanations similar to those used to explain why it rains and why the earth goes around the sun. fatpie42: The fact that ancient texts claim homosexuality was wrong in the past does not make it true either. Many ancient texts are written as if the world was flat, but this does not encourage us to give up our view of the world as a globe. You are using an irrelevant point to claim that ancient writings about morality are invalid. Secondly, explanations of natural phenomena change continuously, whether they be in religious texts or scientific journals. Of course your argument against the validity of moral standards set by religion fails because of the first problem, but on a side note, do you think scientific texts are invalid too regarding scientific models because scientists have been wrong in the past? The relativistic model fails on the quantum level, should we disregard scientific papers published by Jews? You have been asking for 'rational reasons' for the immorality of homosexuality, but what are the reasons for it to be moral? Is everything moral by default? Stinkz has said that ancient texts condemn it, which also means that humanity in the past condemned it. So whats your reason to prove that it has become moral now? Obviously there is an unspoken reason here, but it would help if you could state. fatpie42: I am trying to find a rational religious reason for considering homosexuality immoral in modern times and I can see none. And what exactly is this rationality? What would you consider a rational reason to make something immoral? If the standards of morality are different, how would any reason be sufficient for you? Perhaps the debate is meaningless and what needs to be decided is whether you agree with Stinkz on what morality is. fatpie42: Many religions have been known to believe that they could produce rain by doing a special dance, but we don't take this to mean that it is true. You need to give a sensible rational reason. There is a basic difference between primitive nature-worship and the abrahamic religions, and you shouldn't compare the two. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Many religions have been known to believe that they could produce rain by doing a special dance, but we don't take this to mean that it is true. You need to give a sensible rational reason. Many religions tried to produce rain by dancing? I tend to disagree. fatpie42: The fact that ancient texts claim homosexuality was wrong in the past does not make it true either. But the fact that religions usually don't state that homosexuality is OK is astonishing nevertheless. Do you know of any such religion? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: You have been asking for 'rational reasons' for the immorality of homosexuality, but what are the reasons for it to be moral? Is everything moral by default? No, everything is neither moral nor immoral by default. Only the agreement of the group makes it moral (= OK = seen as supportive for survival) or immoral (= bad = counter-survival) posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: Actually, even if someone did hold these views, it hardly makes them dangerous. It spreads hate. Pretty much in the same way hate against Jews was spread and look what happened. 
posted by Echelon |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Many religions tried to produce rain by dancing? I tend to disagree.  Enough examples for you? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: Enough examples for you? No, not enough. The examples are magic. Magic doesn't necessarily include moral codes. The list is somewhat impressive, but it's basically some dances and some tribes. It's like using fireworks at New Year (to cast out evil ghosts). In other words: It merely some magical tradition that wouldn't qualify as religion. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Obviously I have to spell these things out in black and white for anyone to get the point. There were two things I criticised in Stinkz posts. 1) He says that most religions say that homosexuality is wrong. 2) He says that ancient writings say that homosexuality is wrong. Stinkz is suggesting that the common rants against homosexuality provide much evidence that it is objectively immoral. ------------------------------------------ As knn has pointed out: Anyone who does not think that homosexuality is immoral will not necessarily write "homosexuality is right". It is recognised that Leonardo Da Vinci was gay and many of the great thinkers in Greece practiced homosexuality. Yet none of these made a point of writing "homosexuality is right", because for them it wasn't an issue. I like to eat hot dogs. For me this isn't a sign of great morality or a sign of immorality - yet for a vegetarian or a muslim it is an immoral act. As a result it is not surprising that we are only left with the writings saying: "homosexuality is wrong" and none saying "homosexuality is right". ------------------------------------------ Going back to the two main points. (1) is no help to Stinkz because in order to claim that it was reasonable he would have to claim that all religions were based on a common truth ie. become a pluralist. As it is I know Stinkz doesn't see any truth in any other religions so his sudden interest in them here is purely on the point of homosexuality and nothing else. As I pointed out Stinkz would not say that religions are right in their other beliefs such as 'rain dancing' and even after Ralph's argument it does not seem any more obvious why we should divorve religious 'moral' beliefs from religious doctrinal and ritual beliefs. Unless Stinkz drops this point he must realise that he is being hypocritical. --------------------------------------- On the second point (ancient texts) there is no reason to agree with old texts any more than new ones. Once again Ralph's view is simply trying to say that 'morality is different from science'. Well that's all very well, but that does not mean that ethical views in the past are any more valid than ethical views in the present. Normally we see opinions as evolving, adapting and changing. Not as fixed and unchanging. Here is the Nietzschean view. Nietzsche does not tell us what our morality must be, because morality NEEDS to change in order not to be stagnant. Stinkz thinks the idea of a stagnant morality is irrational. Probably because it is too truthful a description of his own. He feels quite happy to adapt his political views to the world around him, but somehow his ethical views cannot work this way. They must be fixed by an ancient scriptural text. Why? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: fatpie42: Enough examples for you? No, the examples are magic. Magic doesn't necessarily include moral codes. I never disputed that they were examples of magic. They are religious ritual. Your statement was: "Many religions tried to produce rain by dancing? I tend to disagree." And I have quite thoroughly proved this statement wrong. So you can accept a religions ethical views and ignore the religions doctrinal views? How does that work? Without the doctrine of the religion, you need a different reason to believe in the religions ethics. How irrational would it be to say: "stealing is wrong because the tree God says so" and then to say: "I don't believe in tree Gods" posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I like to eat hot dogs. For me this isn't a sign of great morality or a sign of immorality - yet for a vegetarian or a muslim it is an immoral act. So? Whether meat is OK to eat is INDEED mentioned in religions. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: fatpie42: I like to eat hot dogs. For me this isn't a sign of great morality or a sign of immorality - yet for a vegetarian or a muslim it is an immoral act. So? Whether meat is OK to eat is INDEED mentioned in religions. Irrelevant. How many times have you seen the statement: "It is moral to eat hot dogs"? Or even "It is moral to eat sausages/pork/pig meat"? No one ever writes this because if they eat it they don't think it even worthy of a moral judgment. It is not greatly moral and it not immoral for them. It is just a thing which someone might do neither possessing nor lacking moral value. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: And I have quite thoroughly proved this statement wrong. OK, I don't want to go into length here. But we are talking about moral codes and you stated that religions might err and pointed out that many religions tried to make rain. Thus you linked to a webpage that lists some dancing traditions. This is no proof at all. I could lists NOWADAYS folklore dancing traditions for good luck and a happy new year. Dancing traditions are no proof that dancing was part of their religion. In other words: If some tribe danced for whatever reason doesn't prove its religion wrong. MOREOVER: EVEN IF they had some stupid religious practice doesn't mean that their moral code is wrong. They are 2 separate parts. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: How many times have you seen the statement:
"It is moral to eat hot dogs"? Often. In the old testament it _IS_ an issue what you can eat and what not. The same applies to Asian religions. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 4 December 2008, 01:06 php B.B. |