»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 stinkz: According to traditional morality, homosexuality IS wrong. Does that include the traditional buddhist moral system? Anyway, I would like to suggest (since it is glaringly obvious) that you don't actually KNOW any homosexuals personally, Stinkz. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 stinkz: What about the greatest conqueror of all time, Alexander the Great? The movies say he is, it must be true! So does history and a study of those times. Now he may not have been "homosexual" but it's pretty well accepted that he engaged in homosexual activities. Same with the Spartan army. There was all kinds of young man/boy love in the greek/roman times. stinkz: Why? That doesn't make sense. I have never claimed that there couldn't possibly be a homosexual who was biologically bent towards it. I'm merely stating that biology is not what accounts for it's popularity. It's hard to get a handle on exactly what you believe in here. Are you saying that homosexuality can be genetic, yet you are morally obligated to not act on those biological urges? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 volunteshiva: Does that include the traditional buddhist moral system? It includes all systems. When I talk about "traditional morality," I do not mean merely the Old Testament, but all ancient moral writings. volunteshiva: Are you saying that homosexuality can be genetic, yet you are morally obligated to not act on those biological urges? I'm saying several things. 1) Biology doesn't matter. A person's "biology" has never been an excuse for immoral behavior. 2) Homosexuality is a choice, like all other sexualities. There may be a biological bent towards being sexually permiscuous, but that idea's not being pushed, because it is not what people are looking to make an excuse for... yet. 3) Biological factors have nothing to do with it's rising popularity. 4) An increase in sexual promiscuity, especially among younger people, leads to an increase in homosexuality, indicating that it is immoral. Those are a few of my points, in case you missed them. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't think Buddhists have any teachings against homosexuality to be honest Stinkz. But that wasn't my main point. You still haven't told me whether you know any gays personally. I have a close friend who is gay. He wasn't abused by his parents, but he was shunned by them when he came out. He was fairly shy up to the point where he recognised his sexuality. He was not so sexually promiscuous that he got bored of heterosexual sex. He actually only had one girlfriend and it felt wrong because he did not really feel attracted to her. Then he began to realise why. No one wants to accept that they are gay, sometimes they just have to admit it to themselves. (A bit like my atheism - I'd rather be Christian and believe that I'm going to heaven, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. I was trying to kid myself into thinking I believed in Christianity when, in reality, it is simply not what I am.) You haven't known anyone who was gay. You haven't seen them go through the bullying and the mockery for accepting who they are. You haven't seen the misery someone goes through when their parents shun them for being themselves. You don't understand gays and yet you presume the right to judge them. Your arguments make it glaringly obvious that you have no first-hand understanding of the subject-matter at hand here. You make me sick, Stinkz. P.S. Alexander The Great often had homsexual sex. It is a documented FACT. It is also a fact that many of the men in the story of the Trojan war made love with one another, but this was left out of the "Troy" movie because they thought it would offend narrow-minded plebs like yourself. Oliver Stone decided to put in the homosexuality 'despite' public opinion, not 'because' of it. Still, from all accounts the movie is appalling anyway. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nice story. I can find you a liberal who will come up with all kinds of amazing emotional rhetoric for any subject. It's all very touching, but it does not appeal to my Reason. I wish we could take your post and substitute all the words relating to "homosexuality" with words relating to "pedophilia." Suddenly, little Johnny's plight doesn't seem so appealing. (And, I'm sure if we substituted the word "Christian," YOU would find it appalling.) But anyways, onto the point. If I am born with any kind of immoral sexual desire, through an understanding of morality, I should realize that I must supress, and ultimately get rid of that desire. Is it sad that, because of morality, some people have to supress their natural desires? Sure. But there is no other way to overcome it. No one is going to overcome pedophilia by "getting in touch with themself" or "discovering who they really are." They must submit themselves to morality, the universal code of human conduct. All human beings must sacrifice their fleshy desires for morality, at some point. And, contrary to your belief, it rarely decreases their happiness. For example, through parental punishment, children can grow up to be decently moral people. During the discipline process, did the children enjoy morality? No. They may have even hated it. However, having been disciplined, and reared morally, they most likely (unless they have completely rejected it) embrace morality, and even love it. To the small-minded child, morality may seem to have no benefits (his sibling is allowed to keep the toy instead of him). However, that doesn't mean that there are none. You may ask, are homosexuals condemned to a life of celibacy? I would say no. If it is possible, though moral upbringing, that a child who would "naturally" grow to love cruelty and hatred, instead come to love love, then why is it impossible to believe that a homosexual could learn to love women? Why is it possible for druggies, alcoholics, and pedophiles to make a full recovery, but for homosexuals, it's impossible? fatpie42: You make me sick, Stinkz You want to know what makes me sick? When people make excuses for their actions because they claim it's "who they are." That is so utterly ridiculous. You make yourself who you are, every day, by choosing to act the way you do. All too often I have seen friends fighting, because one of them says that the other "just can't accept that that's the way I am!" when, "the way I am" means something like "sarcastically rude and obnoxious." Get over yourself, and change your ways. fatpie42: I'd rather be Christian and believe that I'm going to heaven, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Oh, please. Don't give me that garbage. You have OBVIOUSLY shown that, all rational arguments aside, you would RATHER believe atheism, because you hate the idea of having to control your actions. 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. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: 1) Biology doesn't matter. A person's "biology" has never been an excuse for immoral behavior. Of course it has. You can prove that Person #1 killed someone because of madness because of a congenital brain damage then this is an excuse. A valid excuse accepted by many courts. If you merely think that madness is an "mere excuse" then death penalty should be done on mad and on children, too. That's why I added this point at IMO → Is death penalty OK? posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||||||
|
stinkz: Nice story. I can find you a liberal who will come up with all kinds of amazing emotional rhetoric for any subject. It's all very touching, but it does not appeal to my Reason. As if conservative gays wouldn't argue the same way. stinkz: I wish we could take your post and substitute all the words relating to "homosexuality" with words relating to "pedophilia." Suddenly, little Johnny's plight doesn't seem so appealing. Why pedophilia? Pedophilia includes something like "raping of children". When we talk about homosexuality we talk usually about adult people loving adult people. stinkz: That is so utterly ridiculous. You make yourself who you are, every day, by choosing to act the way you do. So you are heterosexual by everyday's will, stinkz? stinkz: Oh, please. Don't give me that garbage. You have OBVIOUSLY shown that, all rational arguments aside, you would RATHER believe atheism, because you hate the idea of having to control your actions. The opposite is true. There are no greater refusers of responsibility than Christians/Muslims/... I know of no other single group that pushes all responsibility towards god in such an extent.
posted by knn |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|||
 I must applaud stinkz. I thought with fatpie's 'personal experience' and appeal to compassion the 'morality' position would collapse. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: A valid excuse accepted by many courts. You know that argument is dead on arrival KNN, shame on you. Court morality pales before 'traditional morality'. knn: Why pedophilia? Pedophilia includes something like "raping of children". Exactly. And Stinkz has shown that the same devices fatpie has used to support homosexuality can be used for something even you find immoral. They work for A, but they also work for B. But you agree that B should not work, therefore you have to agree that A shouldn't work either. Therefore 'lets accept the homosexual and his different nature' would also imply 'lets accept the pedophile'. Since you disagree with the second, you must also disagree with the first. Therefore homosexuality is immoral, as of now. What's the next 'reason' to support 'modern morality'? posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah why don't we send the poor to camps too, Stinkz. Maybe that will cure them of poverty. What BS arguments are these? I don't think you can CURE paedophiles either i'm afraid. They're messed up and that's how they'll always be. You might be able to get them to be celibate or perhaps in some cases they like adults 'as well' as children and so they may be able to suppress the one side of their sexuality. Anyway, this is besides the point. My POINT was that Stinkz doesn't KNOW any homosexuals so he has no idea what they are like. I don't see how Stinkz has any right to judge them. His arguments certainly aren't true of MY friend. If arguing from experience is irrational in Stinkz view then shall we start talking about the platonic heaven and multiple universes? I'd rather stick to real life myself. Arguing from experience IS rational and, on this subject, Stinkz doesn't have any. What you fail to take note of here Stinkz is that I USED to be Christian. I only decided to be atheist very recently (less than 6 months ago). I tried to be Christian. I tried to let God into my life. It obviously wasn't meant to be, was it Stinkz? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I don't think you can CURE paedophiles either i'm afraid. They're messed up and that's how they'll always be. Let me also throw in that pedophiles and Christians have a lot in common: May I remind everyone of the culture of cutting off the testicles to have "wonderful" voices in church choirs? Or burning one's own penis in monasteries? Perverts. Remains of this perverted behaviour can be found as "circumcision" (in Judaism) and clitorectomy (cutting off the clitoris as a Muslim practice). Thus yet again we find that Christianity ATTRACTS perverts. Just think about the recent cases of pedophile priests. Yes I know, this is counter-intuitive (because the bible mentions it to be wrong), but that's the way how it is. THink also about the homosexual culture of priests as mentioned at IMO → The Christian cult: Under gay influence? All the talk about "we are sinners, we have to suppress such urges" (as performed by stinkz) are a mere signs that Christians are talking about THEIR OWN "inner world" and the fear they could "become like that any moment". In other words: Anti-sex talk ("gays are sinners", "we mustn't have sex until we marry") could be said to be typical of perverts (suppressed perverts). The other reasons (for being against some kinds of sex) are mentioned by me at IMO → Why does TV allow showing violence but censor nudity/sex?#24252 posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: stinkz: I wish we could take your post and substitute all the words relating to "homosexuality" with words relating to "pedophilia." Suddenly, little Johnny's plight doesn't seem so appealing. Why pedophilia? Pedophilia includes something like "raping of children". When we talk about homosexuality we talk usually about adult people loving adult people. Please let me add, that despite of by comment stinkz has introduced some basically correct idea: To change the word "gay" by "pedophile". I like his proposal. After all most pedophiles are gay, so it's not that deviating from the truth (despite of my rejection). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: so he has no idea what they are like. I don't see how Stinkz has any right to judge them. If it were merely me judging something that I didn't particularly like, then you would have a point. However, it is not my judgement. I was not around thousands of years ago, when these things were written. fatpie42: They're messed up You have no problem "judging" this group. fatpie42: What you fail to take note of here Stinkz is that I USED to be Christian. I only decided to be atheist very recently (less than 6 months ago). What you mean to say is, you have recently decided to close your mind towards Christianity altogether. I remember how you used to be, before you chose Atheism. You hardly proved a Christian point of view. However, you were at least open to rational argument. If this "choice" has done anything, it has only made you stubborn and bitter. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: My POINT was that Stinkz doesn't KNOW any homosexuals so he has no idea what they are like. I don't think you have to know. Otherwise we couldn't judge murderes and pedophiles just because we don't know them... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: knn: Thus the corrupt nature of man consists NOT of using his brains (= "reject the counsel of there parents") but to hold on to goatmilkers' wisdoms (= accept the knowledge of parents). Your post is indicitive of a very common, illogical, developmentalist belief ebraced by today's society. There is this vague idea of "change" which is always, in the minds of the believers, for the better. I didn't say anything about "change for the better". I just stated that parents may know less than children in a fast-changing society. Moreover "god's" commandment ""Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you" may have a different meaning as I point out at IMO → How god freed some slaves.The meaning of the 10 Commandments 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 6 October 2008, 17:34 php B.B. |