Welcome to Gaia! ::

Homosexuality good or bad

gay/lesbian-"good" 0.41558441558442 41.6% [ 32 ]
gay/lesbian- "bad" 0.0 0.051948051948052 5.2% [ 4 ]
straight- "good" 0.11688311688312 11.7% [ 9 ]
straight- "bad" 0.038961038961039 3.9% [ 3 ]
bi-"good" 0.064935064935065 6.5% [ 5 ]
bi- "bad"???? 0 0.0% [ 0 ]
none of the above 0.31168831168831 31.2% [ 24 ]
Total Votes:[ 77 ]
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Jewpanesey
Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.


You can show it isn't wrong? And note I don't think attraction in and of itself is wrong, I just highly doubt that anyone could prove anything completely not wrong.

And you can show they had a phobia of gays?


Also can you show that we even have any rights for the government to deny?
GuardianSoulX

Doesn't everyone believe in science and nature? Well, I'm well convinced that everyone does; otherwise, you wouldn't need medical insurance. wink Homosexuality defies nature in the sense that nature confirms the purpose of sexual organs.
How can it defy nature when it is probably one of the most abundant things in nature? Oh National Geographic How I love You.

Quote:

Now, I know......I know. I've just been stating the obvious. I have a question: why would diseases be given to homosexual men that frequently have "intercourse" with one another? If one is arguing that homosexuality is their nature, how do you explain this phenomenon? Things are difficult to explain at that rate. So basically nature would be commanded to cause death to the natural? Why haven't the homosexuals developed an immunity to further establish their claim to their acts being natural?

if your talking about aids its hardly a homosexual disease and besides we got it from monkeys so maybe you should be attacking bestiality perhaps

Quote:
Homosexuality has become more so an issue of health. Statistics show a larger amount of diseases in the homosexual male when compared to the heterosexual male. Nature embraces the inhabitants of the earth that are alligned with what it was commanded to do.

Ok for starters even if said fact is true it is more likely because the heterosexual male tends to use a condom

also you just basically argued that its wrong because they cant have kids thing...plus aids but that really has nothing to do with ethics
Hey, I'm not trying to make up stuff here. I'm presenting what I have knowledge of. I already mentioned Richard Rodriguez. You should read his essay "Late Victorians." It's included within his book, Days of Obligation: An Argument with My Mexican Father. I already stated that he is a homosexual. He seems to be well aware of the AIDS epidemic. He had friends or more so other homosexuals that he knew of that died because of AIDS. Yeah, but his essay is pretty good and thought provoking. So he definitely supports my points and he is gay.

Read this: http://www.home60515.com/4.html
GuardianSoulX
Hey, I'm not trying to make up stuff here. I'm presenting what I have knowledge of. I already mentioned Richard Rodriguez. You should read his essay "Late Victorians." It's included within his book, Days of Obligation: An Argument with My Mexican Father. I already stated that he is a homosexual. He seems to be well aware of the AIDS epidemic. He had friends or more so other homosexuals that he knew of that died because of AIDS. Yeah, but his essay is pretty good and thought provoking. So he definitely supports my points and he is gay.

Read this: http://www.home60515.com/4.html


remember because of anti-gay sentiment in society homosexuals aren't taught that "safe sex" applies to them as well after all you supposedly can't get another guy pregnant. This being so, while a condom is not full proof protection against stds, it is something
Jewpanesey's avatar

Quotable Conversationalist

Herald of Lies
Jewpanesey
Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.


You can show it isn't wrong? And note I don't think attraction in and of itself is wrong, I just highly doubt that anyone could prove anything completely not wrong.

And you can show they had a phobia of gays?


Also can you show that we even have any rights for the government to deny?

I can show it's wrong. I wrote an essay on it:

Quote:
In most states, homosexuality is defined as existing only between a woman and a man, and male homosexual conduct (i.e. sodomy) is outlawed in many states. Many people defend these laws as necessary to protect society and the sanctity of marriage, and to keep people from performing “unnatural” acts, while others oppose these laws as unconstitutional because they create laws that put restrictions on the private sector. Using Kantian theory, I will analyze the major reasons people oppose homosexuality, and provide evidence as to why homosexual conduct is not “wrong”, and also natural, and why marriage should be a union between two loving individuals regardless of sex.

There are numerous arguments against homosexuality, but when you analyze them closely, they can be placed in one of two categories: The Religious Argument and The Unnatural Argument.

The Religious Argument: This argument is most simply stated as “homosexuality is wrong, because the Bible says so; therefore homosexuality violates the law of God.” People using this argument typically cite Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination,”; however, do people “who cite what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic and dietary laws of Leviticus?” (Mohr 457). People have also been known to use “the story of Lot at Sodom to condemn homosexuality”; however, “do they also cite the story of Lot in the Cave to praise incestuous rape?” (Mohr 457). Clearly any attempt to cite the Old Testament in support of anti-homosexual views is hypocritical unless the arguer supports the entire context. Another strong piece of evidence against this argument (for Christians, at least) is that Jesus never once mentions homosexuality, so people claiming that Jesus was against homosexuality and would be against gay marriages as well would be hard-pressed to provide support for their claim.

In the article “Homosexual Conduct Is Wrong”, one of John Finnis’ reasons for opposing homosexuality is based on his belief that sex should only occur between a woman and man that are married to each other, and then only to procreate (451). This belief is presumptively a religious one, and a Catholic one at that, and because most of America is not Catholic, this argument appears rather absurd, because it would also mean that married men and women could not use contraceptives of any kind. Also, if a person is known to be sterile or barren, they are not permitted to marry ever, because any sexual intercourse could not conceivably result in children and is therefore wrong. Not to mention he assumes that his audience believes extra-marital sex is wrong, which is also a religious idea, and therefore not applicable to all people.

In the religious argument, the arguer makes all their claims on an assumption that all people acknowledge the same religious authority as them. In contrast, many people do not accept the Torah or the Bible as sacred or meaningful texts, and they therefore cannot be held to the standards established in these texts. It would be like having an in-depth debate about astro-physics in English with someone who speaks only Thai, for in order to have a debate in the first place, both parties must be speaking the same language, and not all people even acknowledge the validity of the Bible or Torah, and therefore do not speak that “language”. As far as the United States is concerned, the religious argument has no strength because according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, laws cannot be created on religious bases.

The “Unnatural” Argument: Another argument that many people use against homosexuality is the “unnatural argument”, which can be stated as “homosexual conduct is unnatural because it does not produce children, therefore it is wrong.” This argument is faulty on two levels: 1) it makes the assumption that all people believe sex’s purpose is to procreate, which I have already argued against as a factor of the religious argument, and 2) it makes the assumption that body parts (in this case the genitals) have only one function (in this case reproduction) (Mohr 458 ).

The second assumption of the unnatural argument is easily disputed. Think of the mouth. It would be absurd to say that the mouth is only to be used for eating, when it can also be acceptably used for “talking, licking stamps, blowing bubbles, or having sex” (Mohr 458 ). The same can be said for any body part, including the genitals. “The possible use of the genitals to produce children does not, without more, condemn the use of the genitals for other purposes, say, achieving ecstasy and intimacy” (Mohr 458 ). Furthermore, what human is to say what the exclusive purpose of any part of the body is? The people that make such claims do so with the supposed order of a Creator; however, to call upon such an authority is to return to the religious argument, which, again, violates the inability of one to hold “others accountable to one’s own religious beliefs” (Mohr 458 ). Therefore, if achieving ecstasy and intimacy are natural functions of the genitals, homosexuality cannot be labeled “unnatural”, for it fulfills one of the natural functions of the genitals.

Now that I have given plenty of reason not to accept the argument against homosexuality, no doubt can reasonably be left to say homosexuality is in any way inferior to heterosexuality, for both are means of attraction that can lead to similar ends of either temporary or long-term coupling. In regard to long-term coupling, there is the institution of marriage which many heterosexual couples happily take advantage of, and also abuse. Unfortunately, you can count on one hand the amount of states in which homosexual marriages is permitted. If both sexual orientations are acceptable means of obtaining a partner, then the exclusivity of marriage is surely an injustice, for many people are being deprived of the status of being married for previously-proved, misguided notions, and Kantian theory calls for a system in which the minimum amount of people are kept from benefiting. I propose that this minimum consist only of people who are not of legal marrying age, so that all consenting adults who seek a marriage may obtain one, thus satisfying Kant’s idea, for if one were to be placed behind a “veil of ignorance”, they would agree that the desire to marry should be the only requirement to marry (assuming the couple consists of consenting adults).

What excuse can there be, therefore, to withhold the pleasure of marriage, or even the pain of marriage, from homosexual couples? One cannot say beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is wrong, and if that is enough for a jury to be kept from convicting someone in court, then why should we keep homosexuals from marriage (and divorce for that matter, for you really cannot have one without the other) if the people who do not like or “agree” with homosexuality have no right to impose that belief on others, and no secular basis to oppose it? If we are to truly be a nation of equality, we must live up to our self-proclaimed mission of equality, and allow all consenting adult couples to marry.


The sources I quote are from James P. Sterba's Morality in Practice.
Jewpanesey's avatar

Quotable Conversationalist

Herald of Lies
Jewpanesey
Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.


You can show it isn't wrong? And note I don't think attraction in and of itself is wrong, I just highly doubt that anyone could prove anything completely not wrong.

And you can show they had a phobia of gays?


Also can you show that we even have any rights for the government to deny?

And as for our rights, you need only read the Bill of Rights and various Amendments to the Constitution.
Jewpanesey

In most states, homosexuality is defined as existing only between a woman and a man, and male homosexual conduct (i.e. sodomy) is outlawed in many states. Many people defend these laws as necessary to protect society and the sanctity of marriage, and to keep people from performing “unnatural” acts, while others oppose these laws as unconstitutional because they create laws that put restrictions on the private sector. Using Kantian theory, I will analyze the major reasons people oppose homosexuality, and provide evidence as to why homosexual conduct is not “wrong”, and also natural, and why marriage should be a union between two loving individuals regardless of sex.

There are numerous arguments against homosexuality, but when you analyze them closely, they can be placed in one of two categories: The Religious Argument and The Unnatural Argument.

The Religious Argument: This argument is most simply stated as “homosexuality is wrong, because the Bible says so; therefore homosexuality violates the law of God.” People using this argument typically cite Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination,”; however, do people “who cite what they take to be condemnations of homosexuality in Leviticus maintain in their lives all the hygienic and dietary laws of Leviticus?” (Mohr 457). People have also been known to use “the story of Lot at Sodom to condemn homosexuality”; however, “do they also cite the story of Lot in the Cave to praise incestuous rape?” (Mohr 457). Clearly any attempt to cite the Old Testament in support of anti-homosexual views is hypocritical unless the arguer supports the entire context. Another strong piece of evidence against this argument (for Christians, at least) is that Jesus never once mentions homosexuality, so people claiming that Jesus was against homosexuality and would be against gay marriages as well would be hard-pressed to provide support for their claim.


Where does it approve of what Lot's daughters did? Saying something occured does not mean support of what occured. As for the part on Jesus that only conters certain arguments, it does not make one in and of itself for in support.

Quote:

In the article “Homosexual Conduct Is Wrong”, one of John Finnis’ reasons for opposing homosexuality is based on his belief that sex should only occur between a woman and man that are married to each other, and then only to procreate (451). This belief is presumptively a religious one, and a Catholic one at that, and because most of America is not Catholic, this argument appears rather absurd, because it would also mean that married men and women could not use contraceptives of any kind. Also, if a person is known to be sterile or barren, they are not permitted to marry ever, because any sexual intercourse could not conceivably result in children and is therefore wrong. Not to mention he assumes that his audience believes extra-marital sex is wrong, which is also a religious idea, and therefore not applicable to all people.


That it is not applicable to all people does not make it not wrong. As for the sterile and barren part, you note you speak of a Catholic belief, yet fail to see what they say on the matter.

Quote:

In the religious argument, the arguer makes all their claims on an assumption that all people acknowledge the same religious authority as them. In contrast, many people do not accept the Torah or the Bible as sacred or meaningful texts, and they therefore cannot be held to the standards established in these texts. It would be like having an in-depth debate about astro-physics in English with someone who speaks only Thai, for in order to have a debate in the first place, both parties must be speaking the same language, and not all people even acknowledge the validity of the Bible or Torah, and therefore do not speak that “language”. As far as the United States is concerned, the religious argument has no strength because according to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, laws cannot be created on religious bases.


This part of your argument is irrelevant to the idea of whether it is right or wrong.



Quote:

Now that I have given plenty of reason not to accept the argument against homosexuality, no doubt can reasonably be left to say homosexuality is in any way inferior to heterosexuality, for both are means of attraction that can lead to similar ends of either temporary or long-term coupling.


Argument from ignorance in deconstructing an argument and saying that makes the converse true and extreme strawman to assume you covered all arguments.
Jewpanesey
Herald of Lies
Jewpanesey
Homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place. Just because some dudes that wrote some books some thousand years ago were homophobic doesn't give anyone the right to deny someone their rights as a human.


You can show it isn't wrong? And note I don't think attraction in and of itself is wrong, I just highly doubt that anyone could prove anything completely not wrong.

And you can show they had a phobia of gays?


Also can you show that we even have any rights for the government to deny?

And as for our rights, you need only read the Bill of Rights and various Amendments to the Constitution.


You said rights as a human, not rights as a citizen.
Reniefuwa's avatar

Dapper Dabbler

2,400 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • First step to fame 200
  • Ultimate Player 200
Wrong? Probably not. Persecuted? I can almost guarantee it. Religion was not required for Europeans to be prejudiced and hateful toward Africans, and later African Americans, just for an example.
Nope, it's not wrong now and it wouldn't be wrong then. Mixing church and state is bad and that's what homophobes are trying to do.
Herald of Lies
Gho the Girl
Eria_Tarento
Super 80s
Gho the Girl
That only is in regards to christianity.
Yes, but Abrahamic religions are specifically mentioned, so I thought I might as well. It's the only one I have any knowledge on anyway.

I asked if it could be considered wrong OUTSIDE of them
It can be. Not in any rational way, but it can be.


Proof there is no rational way it can be?
I can't prove a negative. How about you provide a rational one?
Quote:
Oh and please define what exactly you mean by rational and an example of what you would say is a rational belief concerning right and wrong and why it is.
Why? As long as you follow logic and rationality in your argument I'd consider it rational.
Quote:
People have varying views on it and I'd hate to have to deconstruct our accepted premises farther than I have to.
I'll accept anything logical and rational as opposed to emotional or religious. Also, I'd prefer ethical arguments over moral ones, but as long as you stick to logic, I'll be fine.
Gho the Girl
Herald of Lies
Gho the Girl
Eria_Tarento
Super 80s
Yes, but Abrahamic religions are specifically mentioned, so I thought I might as well. It's the only one I have any knowledge on anyway.

I asked if it could be considered wrong OUTSIDE of them
It can be. Not in any rational way, but it can be.


Proof there is no rational way it can be?
I can't prove a negative. How about you provide a rational one?


Please don't argue from ignorance at me. And you can prove a negative. I can prove that gravity on Earth does NOT equal 100 m/s^2. I can, if we were in the same room, prove that I am not 9 feet tall.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh and please define what exactly you mean by rational and an example of what you would say is a rational belief concerning right and wrong and why it is.
Why? As long as you follow logic and rationality in your argument I'd consider it rational.


That's a rather recursive way to state it. And it doesn't tell me what I want to know. Some people tell me things like that one's desire for life is a good basis on which to construct a set of morals. I find it irrational to just grab it. Others, apparently, do not. What I think is rational is likely very different from what you consider rationl.

Quote:

Quote:
People have varying views on it and I'd hate to have to deconstruct our accepted premises farther than I have to.
I'll accept anything logical and rational as opposed to emotional or religious. Also, I'd prefer ethical arguments over moral ones, but as long as you stick to logic, I'll be fine.


*sigh* My problem is what premises are accepted. I personally find it rational to accept none unless they're backed by fact or undeniable logic and as such I do NOT consider any ethics or morals rational except within a certain from of reference.
Herald of Lies
Gho the Girl
Herald of Lies
Gho the Girl
Eria_Tarento

I asked if it could be considered wrong OUTSIDE of them
It can be. Not in any rational way, but it can be.


Proof there is no rational way it can be?
I can't prove a negative. How about you provide a rational one?


Please don't argue from ignorance at me. And you can prove a negative. I can prove that gravity on Earth does NOT equal 100 m/s^2. I can, if we were in the same room, prove that I am not 9 feet tall.
But we're arguing absolutes/existance of something.

Meaning, I'd have to first find every single possible argument against homosexuality and post it, then show how each one isn't rational, and that wouldn't prove that there isn't anyway. The only way you can falsify my claim that there aren't any rational arguments against homosexuality, is to provide one that its rational.
Quote:


Quote:

Quote:
Oh and please define what exactly you mean by rational and an example of what you would say is a rational belief concerning right and wrong and why it is.
Why? As long as you follow logic and rationality in your argument I'd consider it rational.


That's a rather recursive way to state it. And it doesn't tell me what I want to know. Some people tell me things like that one's desire for life is a good basis on which to construct a set of morals. I find it irrational to just grab it. Others, apparently, do not. What I think is rational is likely very different from what you consider rationl.
Maybe I should find the definition of "rational" and we'll use that.
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
People have varying views on it and I'd hate to have to deconstruct our accepted premises farther than I have to.
I'll accept anything logical and rational as opposed to emotional or religious. Also, I'd prefer ethical arguments over moral ones, but as long as you stick to logic, I'll be fine.


*sigh* My problem is what premises are accepted. I personally find it rational to accept none unless they're backed by fact or undeniable logic and as such I do NOT consider any ethics or morals rational except within a certain from of reference.
As I said, anything logical would suffice. You don't have to use ethics/morals if you don't want. Can you provide one?

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games