Homosexuality (DH version)

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Considering the "homosexuality" thread in the PG is basically Debater vs. Dre, i've decided to re-post it here.

An anti-homosexuality bill was proposed by Uganda last year. They introduce the death penalty for those who have previous convictions, are HIV-positive, or ingane in some sex acts with people under 18. Conversations on human rights happened. Homesuality is illegal in Uganda, a landlocked country in East Africa.

The main porpuse of this thread is to discuss what would happen if homosexuality becomes illegal in other countries. Please read this article from BBC. In Brazil, prejudice against homexuals are everywhere. However, there are some manifest. The most popular one is the "Parada Gay"(in English: gay pride). The São Paulo gay pride of 2006 had 2,5 millions of people, which means this bill would not be well received here at all.

inb4Dre'swellhomomsexuality'snotnatural

 

[Dre89]

In my defense, the whole debate started when I said that if homsoexuality is deemed wrong, then perhaps it should be made illegal.

Then from there everyone started asking me if I was against homsoexuality, and then asked why, that's how it spiralled out of control. It's not as if I came in there attempting to convert anyone, I don't want people to be converted to any belief on my behalf, that's not what I debate for.

Let's try to make this debate more constructive and civil, rather than cosnsiting of personal attacks.

There's been a lot of spotlight on my argument, but I want to take this chance to point out what I consider flaws in the opposing argument (because you've pretty much all argued the same thing).

Firstly, saying 'you're taking away the right of gays' is circular. The homosexuality debate is whether in fact homosexuals are entitled to that right. Saying I'm depriving them of a right, in that context, is using the pre-conceived conclusion that they are entitled to that right (because you don't say that about about killers or rapists), as a premise. In this argument, you haven't actually shown why it is wrong to take away that right, you're just saying I am bad for doing so.

Secondly, in response, I say 'well what about killers?' and you guys say 'they're harming other against their own good, gays arne't doing that. That's fair enough. However, this is assuming the social contract argument. That is, that anything is morally permissable as long as you cause no harm to others.

I'm not saying gays cause harm to others. You guys think that proving that they do not do so is grounds for the permissability of homosexuality. This is where we conflict, because I don't subscribe to social contract theory.

Social contract theory actually originated with a fidiest protestant. This is why so many of you are disgusted by my argument, because social contract theory has been so normalised in modern society, that we just assume it's right, and anything else contrary has some narrow-minded evil political agenda.

This is the benefit of studying philosophy. It's that you learn the ideals of different periods, and what schools of thought influenced what periods.

Now for you're argument to hold, you need to provide a convincing argument in favour of the social contract, because you can't just argue it's right simply because we live in the time that it's prominent.

In fact, it's fallacious to argue that society progresses in morality, that we advance from previous eras, getting better every time. This is flawed because in adopting the morals we have now, we have atcually regressed back over two thousand years back to ancient Rome.

So that's where the real debate lies, social contract theory vs. natural law/virtue ethics.

By the way, some of you had unanswered questions from the PG thread. I'm trying to steer the debate onto a clearer path here, but if you still want those questions answered, just ask them here and I'll gladly answer them for you.

 

[SuperBowser]

The whole of my post.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11054344&postcount=515

The problem with your argument, Dre., is that you never really substantiated anything you claimed. Albeit, what you say is fancy, you effectively make some claims, then demand others to put forward an argument when you are prodded. Repeatedly. I still don't know what you mean when you say ''natural''; a couple of sentences will not suffice. Why is it not circular reasoning? Why is it not an appeal to nature? Why is it not a blatant fallacy?

These are pretty fundamental questions and if you don't answer them, you haven't really given us much more than an opinion.

I'll leave the social contract for someone else. I think others will put forward a much more effective case than I.

 

[blazedaces]

Dre, I mainly don't debate in the PG thread because two DH members debating is considered unacceptable, and defeats the purpose of the PG.

But I seriously don't want you to bring your appeal to nature argument in here. Do you know why most people don't respect it? It's not because it's an argument against homosexuality, it's because it's quite literally a documented logical fallacy.

As superbowser above me already pointed out, you argue along the lines of a word you coined, "natural". But, you never define natural... if you ever DID define natural your argument would fall apart as it would be shown to be full of holes and contradictions. But since you never define it, you just play word salad and argue in circles around every contradiction people point out to you.

I want a full fledged definition of natural, and until I read/see/hear one I'm not considering any argument of that form out of anybody. If there is no definition to such a term, your argument (Dre's, or anyone else's) should simply be labeled an appeal to argument fallacy, and we can move on to more reasonable arguments.

With that being said I'm not really interested in Social Contract theory. I'm assuming people in this thread will not be arguing that homosexuality should not exist at all... as that is the stance Uganda has taken. Believe me, massive genocide is not an easy moral stance to support, but if you really want to suggest that point of view, I'll be happy to argue against it.

I'm more willing to discuss the support for/against marriage between homosexuals, as I think it's a bit more realistic a consideration to take. I'd like to know what people think about the whole subject first though...

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

So that's where the real debate lies, social contract theory vs. natural law/virtue ethics.

Since I hold neither, I will refrain from commenting as bringing in more moral theories will only complicate the matter.

As superbowser above me already pointed out, you argue along the lines of a word you coined, "natural". But, you never define natural... if you ever DID define natural your argument would fall apart as it would be shown to be full of holes and contradictions. But since you never define it, you just play word salad and argue in circles around every contradiction people point out to you.

I did get him to agree to a definition of unnatural. Since I have already voiced my objections to it in the other thread, I'll let others give it a go.

1) The action corrupts a natural act, by being the means for an end other than the end it was biologically designed for.
2) The action was biologically designed for a specific end. You do the action in the same way as it was designed for (it would imitate the way the action would be performed to fulfill that end), even if it does not fulfill that end.
3) An action is wrong (or unnatural) if it fulfills the requirements for 1 and does not fulfill the requirements for 2. Otherwise, it is right (or natural).

 

[blazedaces]

Since I hold neither, I will refrain from commenting as bringing in more moral theories will only complicate the matter.
I did get him to agree to a definition of unnatural. Since I have already voiced my objections to it in the other thread, I'll let others give it a go.

1) The action corrupts a natural act, by being the means for an end other than the end it was biologically designed for.
2) The action was biologically designed for a specific end. You do the action in the same way as it was designed for (it would imitate the way the action would be performed to fulfill that end), even if it does not fulfill that end.
3) An action is wrong (or unnatural) if it fulfills the requirements for 1 and does not fulfill the requirements for 2. Otherwise, it is right (or natural).

More word salad and semantic jibber-jabber.

So we're replacing "natural" with "biologically designed". I'm sorry, but biologically designed is even more vague than "natural". Who's to claim any one singular purpose for any particular biology? Oh, I forgot, Dre happens to be an expert on all biological function and happens to have lunch with God so he's the best source for such questions (totally meant as a joke)...

This kind of hogwash can swing its ugly head in the PG all it wants, I'm not accepting it here.

Note this was not meant to be an insult neither towards rvkevin nor towards Dre.

Do you see how it's the same story over and over again? Because "biologically designed" is not strictly defined it's left up to Dre to manipulate. In this way, no matter how many times contradictions are shown Dre can change the definition after-the-fact.

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

If two people are having fun together doing something that's perfectly natural and not harming anyone else, then why stop them?

For all we know they could be playing a harmless game of tennis, or they could be homosexuals participating in homosexual behaviour.

 

[Deleted member]

Bob basically said what I wanted to say. And it has been said time and again in the PG.

If two consenting adults do something in their own private area (at home, hotel room, w/e), without harming others, it is okay.

I also disagree that going from the medieval time to the Roman time (as you claim our time to be) is a regression back, but that is another debate.

 

[Crimson King]

If homosexuality was made illegal, I am rioting until I die. The second we illegalize thoughts and emotions of anything that hurts no one then I am going crazy.

 

[Dre89]

If two people are having fun together doing something that's perfectly natural and not harming anyone else, then why stop them?

For all we know they could be playing a harmless game of tennis, or they could be homosexuals participating in homosexual behaviour.

See this is exactly where my criticism of your (as in everyone's argument) is coming from.

This is just social contract theory. You're showing how heavily you've been influenced by modern morality in that you think that if you can prove the act is accepted by social contract standards (which it is), then you somehwow win the debate, because you've just assumed social cotnract theory is correct.

The problem is, social contract theory has just come about in the last few hundred years. No one has shown why this theory tops all others as the true mode of regulating society. I'm not saying it's a bad argument, it just needs justification.

I see there have been a number of complaints of the apparent vagueness surrounding the definition of my word 'natural'.

When I say natural, I mean it in a more ancient Greek way. In modernity, natural would be interpretted as impulses, which move towards no end, as in they don't strive towards a certain good.

If I say something is natural, I mean it is a good we are structured to move towards. An uncontroversial example is food/nurtrition. Biologically, it is evident that food is a good for us, hence why we exerience sensations of hunger, because it is our body inclining us to nourish ourselves.

'Natural' doesn't just mean any impulse we have. For example, desiring to **** someone isn't natural, such a desire actually conflicts with our nature, making it unnatural.

Now you may say 'well how do you know that there are certain objective natural goods?', and I say because humans are rationally capable of desiring ends they clearly aren't designed to desire. Humans are beings. Humans can desire and atcuate non-being (eg. suicide, destroying all life). Now we know this is wrong because desiring non-being defeats the purpose of being a being in the first place, so the fact that we are beings suggests we're not supposed to desire non-being.

Now that probably sounded wacky, but bear with me. I've just shown that humans can desire something which they clearly aren't supposed to desire (non being). Now what that means is that humans can desire wrong things (eg. ****, murder, etc.). This explains how we can get impluses/desires for things such as **** and murder.

So basically, just because there's an impulse, it doesn't mean it is natural, as in it isn't a natural good for us. Hence why we experience the sensation of pain/suffering, it's to alert us of undesirable states of affairs.

Now the reason why I say sex outside of the procreation act is wrong is because we aren't biologically designed to do it. Sex is designed for procreation, therefore you should only sleep iwth someone you're willing to have kids with. The best way to parent kids is with two loving parents, hence why you should only wish to procreate with one partner. This is what leads me to the conclusion that only sex within marriage is good.

I think contraception is wrong, because if we were suppsoed to have casual sex, we would naturally be able to do it without requiring artificial agents. The fact that ejaculation is automatic and beyond conscious control suggests to me that sex isn't structured to be done without it.

Now you may ask 'if sex is only suppsoed to be done that way, why do people desire other men, or X, Y, or Z?'. As I've said before, being rational creatures, we are capable of desiring wrong things (shown in the non-being example). The reaosn why I determine such desires as wrong is because, as I've argued previously, we simpyl aren't naturally structured to do those things.

For those of you who intend not to criticise my argument, but to present you're own pro-homsoexual argument, you need to either present an argument which doesn't rely on social contract theory, or argue for the validity of social ocntract theory.

So far, everyone's arguments have just assumed social contract theory, which is understandable in modern society, but it's still a fallacy to not justify it beforehand.

Just remember guys, this is a debate hall. I understand a lot of yo uare angered by my position, because it conflicts with the foundation of modern society, but the only reason why so many of you are so desperate to crush my argument is not because you want good debate, but because you're angered by my position. That's not a good reason to enter a debate in debate hall, no one is here to preach their beliefs.

Perhaps you guys could elect one member to debate me, it would make things alot more civil, productive, and easier.

 

[Deleted member]

Dre, instead of just calling our viewing "social contract", why don't you actually refute the definition Bob (or I) put up?

 

[Dre89]

Dre, instead of just calling our viewing "social contract", why don't you actually refute the definition Bob (or I) put up?

But the problem is that everyone is just assuming social contract theory is correct. I could just assume Catholicism is correct, then say that the Church is against the practice of homosexuality.

You guys have set a double standard in that you demand I provide a rigorous and thourough justification of my argument, yet you're argument is just assumed, requiring no justification at all. That hardly sounds fair.


I disagree with the SC because in reality it makes survival pointless. It's basically saying preserving survivial and order are objective goods, but nothing else is. Whereas I believe there are objective goods beyond this, or 'flourishing' so to speak. Flourishing entails things such as the arts, virtues etc.

I think we are structured to desire survivial, so that we can flourish (be virtuous, embrace the arts, sports etc., things which are goods in thesmelves). Whereas what social ocntract theory is saying is that the whole point of survivial is just to...well survive.

Think of it like a car. Driving is the flourishing of the car. My theory says we should maintain the car, so that it can be driven. Social contract theory is pretty much saying that we preserve... just so it can survive. It's just circular and pointless.

Just curious Paprika, why didn't you try and take it upon yourself to prove the merit of social contract theory?

 

[blazedaces]

I see there have been a number of complaints of the apparent vagueness surrounding the definition of my word 'natural'.

bla bla bla

If I say something is natural, I mean it is a good we are structured to move towards.

bla bla bla

So how exactly do we determine what "we are structured to move towards"?

What makes you qualified to have the last say on this matter?

I'm tired of the endless examples that happen to fit with your argument and are obvious, there are plenty of examples that do not.

Is it natural to eat only junk food? On one hand it's what "we are structured to move towards" because we want to eat and keep fat to survive longer... but on the other hand it's NOT what "we are structured to move towards" because it leads to bad health and eventually to death... which as you already pointed out, is absolutely NOT natural. So which is it? (Don't bother actually answering this, I don't care what YOU deem the correct answer)

And apparently according to you being homosexual is about as bad as sex out of wedlock or having sex without contraception...

Did you even bother trying to prove that family units with a husband and wife parenting kids is "natural"? Why is this the case? Since when is there any evidence in biology for us being "structured to move towards" this system?

Forget it, I'm already feeding into your nonsense. This implies there is a "structure" we "move towards"... which is absolute garbage...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Gee what's with all the offensive remarks?

Whether there are objective goods we move towards or not is a huge debate, so saying it's garbage to argue that there are objective goods is just being narrow-minded, because it has been a very prominent movement in western civilisation.

So just curious, if we're not inclinded towards certain goods, why is it then we experience a sensation of hunger when we need food? why do we even need food if we're not inclined towards certain things?

In fact, why do we have inclinations and desires towards anything at all? If there's nothing to move towards, wouldn't there be no desires?

And it's not me determining what's right and wrong. I'm just observing the structure of the human and inferring from that. Every premise here is derived from observation, just abstract reasoning.

 

[Deleted member]

you completely ignore my request and start talking about this social contract again.

seriously, I don't even know what it is exactly (have an idea though), I'm only asking you to refute the simple definition I made in post #8.

 

[Dre89]

you completely ignore my request and start talking about this social contract again.

seriously, I don't even know what it is exactly (have an idea though), I'm only asking you to refute the simple definition I made in post #8.

I did address that. You're using the social contract argument. You're saying because they're not harming others it's ok.

I've shown in my previous post why I disagree that anything is acceptable if it's not harming others. It's in my criticism of social contract theory.

 

[Deleted member]

You only stated why you "believe" that there is more to life than survival (and order), but don't prove that.

 

[Dre89]

You only stated why you "believe" that there is more to life than survival (and order), but don't prove that.

I argued that we're structured to appreciate such higher goods.

For example, we have a concept of art. We can create and appreciate it. The fact we have such a capacity suggests we are supposed to employ these higher faculties.

That's obviously grossly simplified.

 

[Deleted member]

Fair enough.

however, the fact that we should "appreciate art" so to say, doesn't clash with the definition I posed.
I only stated that if 2 (or more) parties are involved that they should all consent to the actions.
By yourself you are free to paint or to appreciate art that has been made. I don't say that everybody should use this capacity, but they are certainly free to do so.

 

[Dre89]

I only stated that if 2 (or more) parties are involved that they should all consent to the actions.
.

But why?

What about cannibalism with consent? Is that acceptable? if not, what's the difference?

 

[Deleted member]

It is. I'm not sure if a single person in their right mind (I thought about how people that are mentally handicapped would fit in, but that is always a grey area) would ever let himself be eaten, but yes that would be okay.

 

[Dre89]

It has actually happened before. Interestingly, the guy who did it got charged with murder.

 

[Deleted member]

Well the "charged with murder" is just based on the system of law we happen to have, which imo isn't perfect.

 

[SuperBowser]

It's funny Dre. When I post something irrefutable, you simply move on to another poster. Allow me to finish our discussion for you.

But the reality is, that isn't human nature. Humans didn't originally exist that way. We began, evolution or not, in communities, where the first priority was the community, not yourself.

Let me ask you this, can a tribe of 100 people afford to have 30% of every generation be homosexual? The tribe wouldn't last very long.

This is what I try to get at with my moral system, what is natural. All my moral arguments are based on these original tribes. Everything I find immoral either wasn't around at those times (eg. contraception) meaning we aren't structured to do it (eg. casual sex) or would be of detriment to the community (eg. casual sex, homsoexuality etc.)

I hope people try to see what I'm trying to get at.

You originally implied because homosexuality is at odds with evolution, that homosexuality damages the survival of our species as a whole, homosexuality must be unnatural. I have shown this claim false; the truth is this is not a ''fact'' at all. When you lack the essential understanding into the biology of our species it is difficult to form any valid conclusion. Why does all of this matter? I think it's obvious and I think that's why you choose silence.


Of course, there are further holes in these paragraphs. They mean little compared to the above but I will go on. You implicitly state homosexuality is not a choice, that homosexuals do not wish to have sex with the opposite gender, that homosexuals will not have a child. This is why you believe them to threaten a tribe's survival. This is why you believe homosexuality to be unnatural.

Now even if we accept the dubious methods of deduction used to reach this point, we come to a simple dilemma. Why is this unnatural act necessarily harmful? You implicitly accepted these people are not interested in the opposite gender; regardless of what happens, they will not have children. Therefore, two options are available: (a) they cannot have sex with anybody or (b) they can have sex with who they choose. Whichever option is chosen, there will is no increase in children for the tribe. However, option (b) will improve the mental health of our tribe member. They will not feel ostracized and continue to contribute in other ways to the survival of their tribe. Even if homosexuals are ''unnatural'' it could be considered a natural good to allow them to continue having sex.

You claim this coveted position of objectivity, but I cannot see it.

 

[Crimson King]

It has actually happened before. Interestingly, the guy who did it got charged with murder.

Actually, he was charged with manslaughter then retried because his victim had mental problems and was deemed unable to consent: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes?wasRedirected=true

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

See this is exactly where my criticism of your (as in everyone's argument) is coming from.

This is just social contract theory. You're showing how heavily you've been influenced by modern morality in that you think that if you can prove the act is accepted by social contract standards (which it is), then you somehwow win the debate, because you've just assumed social cotnract theory is correct.

The problem is, social contract theory has just come about in the last few hundred years. No one has shown why this theory tops all others as the true mode of regulating society. I'm not saying it's a bad argument, it just needs justification.

I see there have been a number of complaints of the apparent vagueness surrounding the definition of my word 'natural'.

When I say natural, I mean it in a more ancient Greek way. In modernity, natural would be interpretted as impulses, which move towards no end, as in they don't strive towards a certain good.

If I say something is natural, I mean it is a good we are structured to move towards. An uncontroversial example is food/nurtrition. Biologically, it is evident that food is a good for us, hence why we exerience sensations of hunger, because it is our body inclining us to nourish ourselves.

'Natural' doesn't just mean any impulse we have. For example, desiring to **** someone isn't natural, such a desire actually conflicts with our nature, making it unnatural.

Now you may say 'well how do you know that there are certain objective natural goods?', and I say because humans are rationally capable of desiring ends they clearly aren't designed to desire. Humans are beings. Humans can desire and atcuate non-being (eg. suicide, destroying all life). Now we know this is wrong because desiring non-being defeats the purpose of being a being in the first place, so the fact that we are beings suggests we're not supposed to desire non-being.

Now that probably sounded wacky, but bear with me. I've just shown that humans can desire something which they clearly aren't supposed to desire (non being). Now what that means is that humans can desire wrong things (eg. ****, murder, etc.). This explains how we can get impluses/desires for things such as **** and murder.

So basically, just because there's an impulse, it doesn't mean it is natural, as in it isn't a natural good for us. Hence why we experience the sensation of pain/suffering, it's to alert us of undesirable states of affairs.

Now the reason why I say sex outside of the procreation act is wrong is because we aren't biologically designed to do it. Sex is designed for procreation, therefore you should only sleep iwth someone you're willing to have kids with. The best way to parent kids is with two loving parents, hence why you should only wish to procreate with one partner. This is what leads me to the conclusion that only sex within marriage is good.

I think contraception is wrong, because if we were suppsoed to have casual sex, we would naturally be able to do it without requiring artificial agents. The fact that ejaculation is automatic and beyond conscious control suggests to me that sex isn't structured to be done without it.

Now you may ask 'if sex is only suppsoed to be done that way, why do people desire other men, or X, Y, or Z?'. As I've said before, being rational creatures, we are capable of desiring wrong things (shown in the non-being example). The reaosn why I determine such desires as wrong is because, as I've argued previously, we simpyl aren't naturally structured to do those things.

For those of you who intend not to criticise my argument, but to present you're own pro-homsoexual argument, you need to either present an argument which doesn't rely on social contract theory, or argue for the validity of social ocntract theory.

So far, everyone's arguments have just assumed social contract theory, which is understandable in modern society, but it's still a fallacy to not justify it beforehand.

Just remember guys, this is a debate hall. I understand a lot of yo uare angered by my position, because it conflicts with the foundation of modern society, but the only reason why so many of you are so desperate to crush my argument is not because you want good debate, but because you're angered by my position. That's not a good reason to enter a debate in debate hall, no one is here to preach their beliefs.

Perhaps you guys could elect one member to debate me, it would make things alot more civil, productive, and easier.

Hold up for a second there. I mean it was perfectly natural, as in occurring in nature ie. animals do it too. And you've argued before that animals can't corrupt their natures. So, consequently, homosexuality is natural.

I'm viewing this from a consequentialist point of view. If the net result is more happiness for everyone involved, why stop them? The social contract I believe in this instance is not exactly relevant.

Sex has other purposes than producing kids. If it was only to produce children, females wouldn't have a menopause and humans wouldn't have to copulate numerous times to result in pregnancy. Assuming that our creator is perfect, he wouldn't make this happen if sex were designed for the sole purpose of procreation.

Animals do it to strengthen bonds between each other and reproduce. So why can't humans do it to strengthen bonds between each other?

 

[Dre89]

It's funny Dre. When I post something irrefutable, you simply move on to another poster. Allow me to finish our discussion for you.

As you can see, I have a lot of arguments to deal with, so due to time constraints I can’t address all of the.

You originally implied because homosexuality is at odds with evolution, that homosexuality damages the survival of our species as a whole, homosexuality must be unnatural. I have shown this claim false; the truth is this is not a ''fact'' at all. When you lack the essential understanding into the biology of our species it is difficult to form any valid conclusion. Why does all of this matter? I think it's obvious and I think that's why you choose silence.

So what are the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality? Aren’t they just normal people, who won’t procreate? Considering that sexuality is the only difference between them and heterosexuals, their homosexuality specifically must be of some evolutionary benefit. What is this benefit?

I’m critical of the idea of multiple human natures, which is what you’re advocating when you’re saying homosexuality is naturally good. I thought human nature differed only through gender. In the animal kingdom, isn’t it only gender that determines what role you have? Don’t all males strive for the same thing? Don’t all females strive for the same thing?

Of course, there are further holes in these paragraphs. They mean little compared to the above but I will go on. You implicitly state homosexuality is not a choice, that homosexuals do not wish to have sex with the opposite gender, that homosexuals will not have a child. This is why you believe them to threaten a tribe's survival. This is why you believe homosexuality to be unnatural.

I think it’s unnatural to sexually desire the same sex, because as I’ve argued before, sex is structured for procreation. However, I don’t think a gay has done any wrong until they actively practice that sexuality. So I’m not saying you’re a bad person simply for being attracted to men, I’m just saying you’ve done a wrong action if you have sex with one.

Peter Abelard puts it well. He says sin is consenting to the bad will. Having the abd will isn’t sinful, it’s consenting to it. In this case, the desire for other men is the bad will, but you haven’t sinned until you’ve acted on that desire.

Now even if we accept the dubious methods of deduction used to reach this point, we come to a simple dilemma. Why is this unnatural act necessarily harmful? You implicitly accepted these people are not interested in the opposite gender; regardless of what happens, they will not have children. Therefore, two options are available: (a) they cannot have sex with anybody or (b) they can have sex with who they choose. Whichever option is chosen, there will is no increase in children for the tribe. However, option (b) will improve the mental health of our tribe member. They will not feel ostracized and continue to contribute in other ways to the survival of their tribe. Even if homosexuals are ''unnatural'' it could be considered a natural good to allow them to continue having sex.

This is a good argument, but it still rests upon unjustified social contract theory. It also depends what you mean by ‘harmful’.

I only see homosexuality as harmful as in it corrupts the gay’s nature, as in it is an evil done to one’s self, like all bad actions are. The other way I see homosexuality as harmful (and this is assuming it’s unnatural) is that public endorsement of homosexuality would let to it being normalized (which is happening today, look at how many of you are disgusted by my position), which will lead more youths to be gay (remember this is assuming homosexuality is bad), for we know sexuality is psychologically influenced.

If you’re going to ask why they shouldn’t practice it in privacy, well I can’t stop them. It’s a matter of virtue, it’s about upholding morality and virtue for their own sakes. If a gay believes homosexuality is unnatural, but continues to practice it in privacy, then I think that already speaks volumes about their character.

Of course, most gays consider there to be nothing wrong with homosexuality, so practicing it doesn’t tell us the same thing about them as it does about the gay who actually does believe it’s incorrect.

You claim this coveted position of objectivity, but I cannot see it.

The objectivity is in simply what we are naturally structured to move towards. Food is objectively good etc.

A good argument on your behalf nonetheless.

Actually, he was charged with manslaughter then retried because his victim had mental problems and was deemed unable to consent: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes?wasRedirected=true

So do you still advocate cannibalism with mature consent?

Hold up for a second there. I mean it was perfectly natural, as in occurring in nature ie. animals do it too. And you've argued before that animals can't corrupt their natures. So, consequently, homosexuality is natural.

This is a pretty good argument, but I was speaking to my lecturer about this and I found out it doesn’t really shake things up too much. He said that the animal is just failing in its use of sex. An animal probably doesn’t desire to have kids, just to have sex, but the sex is still designed for procreation as well.

Now I still maintain homosexuality is wrong because animal homosexuality or not, we still aren’t structured to do it, as the sex act is designed for procreation.

I'm viewing this from a consequentialist point of view. If the net result is more happiness for everyone involved, why stop them? The social contract I believe in this instance is not exactly relevant.

This becomes a consequentialism vs. virtue ethics debate. So I’m not saying you’re argument is necessarily wrong, but I think it would digress too much to debate which moral theory is correct. A good argument nonetheless.

Sex has other purposes than producing kids. If it was only to produce children, females wouldn't have a menopause and humans wouldn't have to copulate numerous times to result in pregnancy. Assuming that our creator is perfect, he would make this happen if sex were designed for the sole purpose of procreation.

If it had purposes other than procreation, we wouldn’t automatically ejaculate every time, we would be able to control it. We would also be able to continue experiencing pleasure after the ejaculation, but we don’t because the pleasure was just to entice you into the ejaculation. We also wouldn’t feel pain if we had prolonged periods of sexual stimulation without ejaculation. The fact we feel the pain suggests ejaculation is the goal, and the ejaculation serves the sole purpose of procreation.

Animals do it to strengthen bonds between each other and reproduce. So why can't humans do it to strengthen bonds between each other?

That would require bisexuality, not homosexuality. A bisexual could procreate and strengthen bonds. A gay could strengthen bonds, but not procreate. Perhaps bisexuality could be universalized, because bisexuals still procreate, but homosexuality could not be universalized, because of the lack of procreation. However I’d still argue that bisexuality is wrong because it’s applying the sex act outside of its natural purpose.


I’d just like to give credit to Superbowser and Bob Jane for their good arguments, and their maturity in going about it. I understand it’s a delicate topic, so I commend you guys for handling yourselves well.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

So what are the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality? Aren’t they just normal people, who won’t procreate? Considering that sexuality is the only difference between them and heterosexuals, their homosexuality specifically must be of some evolutionary benefit. What is this benefit?

That's a good question and it needs a good answer. I think I might have one. Okay, gene selection is the idea that genes evolve to pass themselves on. The more successful genes will probably benefit the organisms who carry them so they can pass them on, but it isn't always quite so simple.

You're blood relatives share with you lots of DNA. Your brother 1/2, your parents 1/2, your grandparents 1/4 and your first cousins 1/16 (I think, it could be 1/4 or 1/8, I'm not entirely sure). This means that basically your genes may benefit themselves, by making you help your relatives, who will hopefully, with your help pass on small snippets of your genes. It's an effective strategy, it's the reason why a worker ant bothers helping her queen. Fair enough?

I'm proposing that homosexual members of a family group will have plenty of time on their hands; they don't have to look after their kids. So what they can do is spend that free time improving the survival of their close relatives so that their genes can be passed on indirectly.

This is conceivable if homosexuality had a recessive genetic component. This is probably utter bullocks though; I've got no evidence to support this view.

I’m critical of the idea of multiple human natures, which is what you’re advocating when you’re saying homosexuality is naturally good. I thought human nature differed only through gender. In the animal kingdom, isn’t it only gender that determines what role you have? Don’t all males strive for the same thing? Don’t all females strive for the same thing?

It's interesting that the rule applies for most animals, but not all. Bees, Ants and Termites have significant differences within their sexes ie. there are several different types of female and male.

I only see homosexuality as harmful as in it corrupts the gay’s nature, as in it is an evil done to one’s self, like all bad actions are. The other way I see homosexuality as harmful (and this is assuming it’s unnatural) is that public endorsement of homosexuality would let to it being normalized (which is happening today, look at how many of you are disgusted by my position), which will lead more youths to be gay (remember this is assuming homosexuality is bad), for we know sexuality is psychologically influenced.

Normalised homosexuality? Are you saying that we could conceivably be in a position where there'd be less heterosexuals than homosexuals? I doubt that'd happen, considering that homosexuality is relatively rare, even in liberal parts of the world.

This is a pretty good argument, but I was speaking to my lecturer about this and I found out it doesn’t really shake things up too much. He said that the animal is just failing in its use of sex. An animal probably doesn’t desire to have kids, just to have sex, but the sex is still designed for procreation as well.

Now I still maintain homosexuality is wrong because animal homosexuality or not, we still aren’t structured to do it, as the sex act is designed for procreation.

Okay. But it raises the question, if animals can go against their nature, (in this case be homosexual) what separates them from us? I thought you argued that we are the only animals on earth that have the power to be other than our nature, and that's what puts us above them.

This becomes a consequentialism vs. virtue ethics debate. So I’m not saying you’re argument is necessarily wrong, but I think it would digress too much to debate which moral theory is correct. A good argument nonetheless.

I don't think I'd win that debate, I'm not too good with philosophy.

If it had purposes other than procreation, we wouldn’t automatically ejaculate every time, we would be able to control it. We would also be able to continue experiencing pleasure after the ejaculation, but we don’t because the pleasure was just to entice you into the ejaculation. We also wouldn’t feel pain if we had prolonged periods of sexual stimulation without ejaculation. The fact we feel the pain suggests ejaculation is the goal, and the ejaculation serves the sole purpose of procreation.

Yeah, but pregnancy doesn't always result. I'm pretty sure that the female genitalia are a hostile place for sperm. If sex was there for the sole purpose of procreation, then why is it so hard for a pregnancy to occur? And why aren't the female genitalia hospitable for sperm?

That would require bisexuality, not homosexuality. A bisexual could procreate and strengthen bonds. A gay could strengthen bonds, but not procreate. Perhaps bisexuality could be universalized, because bisexuals still procreate, but homosexuality could not be universalized, because of the lack of procreation. However I’d still argue that bisexuality is wrong because it’s applying the sex act outside of its natural purpose.

If strengthening bonds is a natural use for sex, then what's the issue with homosexuals doing that?

I’d just like to give credit to Superbowser and Bob Jane for their good arguments, and their maturity in going about it. I understand it’s a delicate topic, so I commend you guys for handling yourselves well.

Thank you.

 

[Teran]

So what are the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality? Aren’t they just normal people, who won’t procreate? Considering that sexuality is the only difference between them and heterosexuals, their homosexuality specifically must be of some evolutionary benefit. What is this benefit?

Overpopulation control, cessation of possible bad genetic traits, a bridge member in gender based social interactions (you'll find this happens since gay guys hang out with girls a lot, and straight guys use the gay guy as a communication bridge since girls are from Venus).

Besides, why would they have to be of some benefit? People with Down's Syndrome are sterile, and cost a lot of time and money to take care of. Homosexuals still have viable sperm and ovaries so they can procreate but people with Down's Sydrome cannot. They are 100% genetic and evolutionary garbage yet because we're supposedly a humane and decent society, we look after them with love and care and try to give them the same respect we believe any other human being should deserve. So if we can do this for what is basically, a leech on society in terms of resources (inb4massive ****storm, then what the hell is the deal with discriminating against perfectly able individuals who just like their genitalia to be rubbed off in a slightly different way?

Oh wait I know what the deal is, it's called bull****!

No need for broken quotes and walls of text, there really isn't much to be said about this subject.

 

[SuperBowser]

The problem with your argument, Dre., is that you never really substantiated anything you claimed. Albeit, what you say is fancy, you effectively make some claims, then demand others to put forward an argument when you are prodded. Repeatedly. I still don't know what you mean when you say ''natural''; a couple of sentences will not suffice. Why is it not circular reasoning? Why is it not an appeal to nature? Why is it not a blatant fallacy?

These are pretty fundamental questions and if you don't answer them, you haven't really given us much more than an opinion.

So what are the evolutionary benefits of homosexuality? Aren’t they just normal people, who won’t procreate? Considering that sexuality is the only difference between them and heterosexuals, their homosexuality specifically must be of some evolutionary benefit. What is this benefit?

I’m critical of the idea of multiple human natures, which is what you’re advocating when you’re saying homosexuality is naturally good. I thought human nature differed only through gender. In the animal kingdom, isn’t it only gender that determines what role you have? Don’t all males strive for the same thing? Don’t all females strive for the same thing?

Teran answers this well. My previous post quotes you stating homosexuality to be unnatural because threatens the survival of ancient tribes. This is incorrect; there is absolutely no reason to believe this. It is disingenuous to focus on a single aspect the fashion you do. For your benefit:

---
I'm pretty sure this was refuted earlier. This example simply shows a poor understanding of biology. Can a tribe of 100 people afford 30 people with sickle cell disease? With asthma? With depression? With bipolar disease? With any polygenic or recessive condition? Clearly, we could because humans have survived quite fine with all these genetic variations.* There is no need to single out homosexuality because its prevalence was never high enough to warrant such situations.

You assume that being gay threatens survival. It's most likely that it plays little to no significant negative role in human survival or that it confers an advantage. Perhaps the genes that give a propensity for homosexuality provide gains in other areas: fertility, resistance against disease, personality traits, intelligence (I think gay people are smarter!). Remember, what we are talking about is polygenic. Therefore, all these traits can be passed to all offspring. While one child may be gay, their siblings will still possess these survival advantages; overall survival of the species will be improved.

And, of course, humans are social creatures. A gay person can contribute lots to his society and its survival even if they never have a child.

*I hope nobody reading will be offended by my comparison. I don't believe homosexuality is a disease at all.
---

I think it’s unnatural to sexually desire the same sex, because as I’ve argued before, sex is structured for procreation. However, I don’t think a gay has done any wrong until they actively practice that sexuality. So I’m not saying you’re a bad person simply for being attracted to men, I’m just saying you’ve done a wrong action if you have sex with one.

Peter Abelard puts it well. He says sin is consenting to the bad will. Having the abd will isn’t sinful, it’s consenting to it. In this case, the desire for other men is the bad will, but you haven’t sinned until you’ve acted on that desire.

The objectivity is in simply what we are naturally structured to move towards. Food is objectively good etc.

Please provide a satisfactory definition of ''natural'' and ''naturally structured to move towards''. It is not self-explanatory with a simple ''etc.''. You have had multiple requests. Regardless, the stance above is exactly what I take issue with:

This is a good argument, but it still rests upon unjustified social contract theory. It also depends what you mean by ‘harmful’.

I only see homosexuality as harmful as in it corrupts the gay’s nature, as in it is an evil done to one’s self, like all bad actions are. The other way I see homosexuality as harmful (and this is assuming it’s unnatural) is that public endorsement of homosexuality would let to it being normalized (which is happening today, look at how many of you are disgusted by my position), which will lead more youths to be gay (remember this is assuming homosexuality is bad), for we know sexuality is psychologically influenced.

Word games. You have addressed nothing I wrote.

This rests upon your definition of harmful. You flatly assert corrupting one's nature is harmful, as if it pains you to hold such a stance, as if you possess no choice, as if simply being a ''bad action'' necessitates banning. It does not follow that sex deemed unnatural necessitates banning. This is possibly ''objective'' but it is not logical.

Previously you stated your beliefs rest upon (a) what we are structured to do and (b) the best for the tribal community. While (a) requires clarification from yourself (addressed above), (b) is up for debate. Even if we accept the dubious methods of deduction used to conclude homosexuality is unnatural, it does not follow that allowing sex is harmful to the community. I see you rationalising; we are not in the realm of objectivity when you worry condoning homosexuality will somehow increase prevalence (this is also rubbish, you should not continue down this line).

In terms of benefit to the community, it is much simpler to make a case for allowing same-sex intercourse than to ban it. Please remember, we have agreed homosexuality is not a choice; they will therefore not sleep with the opposite gender and will not have children. The situation is analogous that of an infertile couple when we speak of benefit to the community. You simply cannot claim objectivity on application of (b) here.

 

[blazedaces]

Gee what's with all the offensive remarks?

Whether there are objective goods we move towards or not is a huge debate, so saying it's garbage to argue that there are objective goods is just being narrow-minded, because it has been a very prominent movement in western civilisation.

You're confusing my words. I was specifically referring to evolution. Objective goods exist in quite another sense, but when we speak about our biology, or evolution, there is no structure anything/creature "moves towards".

So just curious, if we're not inclinded towards certain goods, why is it then we experience a sensation of hunger when we need food? why do we even need food if we're not inclined towards certain things?

We experience hunger when we need food for one reason and one reason ONLY... because our ancestors did and genetically passed that trait onto us. If you want to make up other reasons you need to PROVE them...

In fact, why do we have inclinations and desires towards anything at all? If there's nothing to move towards, wouldn't there be no desires?

You're confusing terms on purpose, there is a logical fallacy for this, the fallacy of misplaced concretion. We desire food, so we therefore want to move towards "having food"... but that has NOTHING to do with "natural" inclinations towards general "structures". Don't confuse the two, these subjects don't have anything to do with one another.

And it's not me determining what's right and wrong. I'm just observing the structure of the human and inferring from that. Every premise here is derived from observation, just abstract reasoning.

You mean every premise is derived from your individual opinion and lacks concrete evidence or non-anecdotal evidence?

None of my posts or comments were meant to be insults, as I already mentioned. Please do not take them as such. Your argument I'm sorry to say is still an appeal to nature (a logical fallacy) and as such is not a valid argument against homosexuality.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

This is where we conflict, because I don't subscribe to social contract theory.

After a deep breath, and some close reading of this topic from beginning to end, I actually do see what you mean.

So this begs a question. Society in Uganda has resulted in the decision for gays to be outlaws. It is not subscribing to SC. It goes further, perhaps... outright claiming that gays hurt society at large, like any other criminal.

Does this make Uganda's government "backwards" compared to say, the US? Or the UK?

I believe it does. I believe that "not harming anyone" is indeed grounds for approval. My belief in this stems from the realization that the world's population, indeed the US's population in particular, is large enough; that the personal choices of a minority will not negatively impact the greater good of society, so long as they are not negatively impacting the group, or its individual members.

Let's take something else that fits this mold: Skydiving.

We are not born with wings. We were never naturally designed to fly, let alone be ejected into the upper stratosphere to then plummet toward earth only to be saved by a giant sheet strapped to our backs. Skydivers are indeed a "clique" if you will - a unique group of people. True, there's your taste testers... experimenters, humans that just want the thrill of doing something different. But then you have your die hard fans of the activity - "sport" (lol) - George Bush, Sr. for instance who STILL sky dives annually. They are harming no one. True an accident may occur, the chute may fail, what have you. But in general, they're simply doing something that makes them happy, and that doesn't effect society at large in a bad way. In many ways, it's improving society. It costs a lot to go skydiving. +1 Economy. Pilots, trainers, staff of all kinds, etc.

Homosexuals are like skydivers. They may not be procreating (staying their ***** on the ground) they may have an increased risk as a group (AIDS, better wear a chute, Teran ) but they are not actually harming anyone. In many ways they're improving society. They work and pay taxes. They exist like everyone else. The only fundamental difference, is that they don't procreate. But they still have kids, too. Adoptive parents are in great demand in the US.

So in either case, we have a group who's not actually harming anyone. And so society typically deems it "ok." But only recently with gays. This idea of personal freedom from tyranny -so long as you're like me- has been rescinded more and more as we evolve. Because let's face it, happy people are productive people, and in the end, THAT's what any good government wants... productive people.

You'll still have citizens who are highly prejudiced. No Gays on my watch! But from a purely administrative perspective, gay, straight, bi, transgendered, black, white, red, purple, man, woman, it doesn't matter. So long as you go to work and pay taxes, and don't break the law, you're good to go.

 

[Dre89]

Sucumbio you have some very interesting points, but I think there's just one problem- it started out as if you were going to justify SC, but in the end you just ended up saying how homosexuality is acceptable in SC, rather than actually justifying SC.

Would you agree with this criticism? A good post nonetheless.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, when we left off in the PG thread you said you were reconsidering your position. So, what came of it?

 

[Dre89]

You'll be unhappy to know I haven't changed my mind, here's why-

The thing that made me reconsider was the evidence of animal homsoexuality in the wild.

However, I spoke to my lecturer about it, an he said it doesn't really change anything (this is the first time I'd spoken to him about homosexuality, so it wasn't him that converted me to this view in the first place).

He said that basically, animal homosexuality is just a failed attempt at procreation. The sex act may be designed for procreation, but the animal just cares about gratification, not necessarily producing offspring. So the animal homosexuality isn't a natural end of animals, it's just that animal failing in its attempt to achieve that end.

An equivalent could be a leopard seal who fails to mate with any females. It has failed in achieving a natural end of its nature.

Also, animal homosexuality doesn't change the natural structure of the act, and remember it was the natural structure of the act which lead me to believe that it was merely for procreation in the first place.

 

[blazedaces]

You'll be unhappy to know I haven't changed my mind, here's why-

The thing that made me reconsider was the evidence of animal homsoexuality in the wild.

However, I spoke to my lecturer about it, an he said it doesn't really change anything (this is the first time I'd spoken to him about homosexuality, so it wasn't him that converted me to this view in the first place).

He said that basically, animal homosexuality is just a failed attempt at procreation. The sex act may be designed for procreation, but the animal just cares about gratification, not necessarily producing offspring. So the animal homosexuality isn't a natural end of animals, it's just that animal failing in its attempt to achieve that end.

An equivalent could be a leopard seal who fails to mate with any females. It has failed in achieving a natural end of its nature.

Also, animal homosexuality doesn't change the natural structure of the act, and remember it was the natural structure of the act which lead me to believe that it was merely for procreation in the first place.

See how your definition of natural has changed over time? You used to say that animals could never do anything unnatural... but now that examples have been shown contradicting your point of view, you change your definitions.

Now everyone can be unnatural, animals AND humans...

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

No animals don't corrupt their natures, that was never on the table.

The argument has always been that only humans can corrupt their own nature, because only humans have reason, and Ive shown that. For example, only humans can will non being.

Animal homosexuality is merely the sexual instinct wrongly used. It is no different to when the predation instinct surpasses that of hunger, and the lion kills more than it needs to.

 

[blazedaces]

No animals don't corrupt their natures, that was never on the table.

The argument has always been that only humans can corrupt their own nature, because only humans have reason, and Ive shown that. For example, only humans can will non being.

Animal homosexuality is merely the sexual instinct wrongly used. It is no different to when the predation instinct surpasses that of hunger, and the lion kills more than it needs to.

What is non-being?

So animals can be unnatural... but only in a natural way? Dude, this is a huge hole in your argument. Animals can't corrupt their nature... but if they follow their instinct it's still possible to commit acts that you deem "unnatural", like homosexuality. Do you not see an obvious contradiction there?

You chose this to respond to? What about the other questions by me and superbowser to provide a better definition for natural?

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

the animal just cares about gratification, not necessarily producing offspring.

EXACTLY. It's perfectly natural for animals (including humans) to just want sexual gratification, not necessarily procreation. Humans naturally try to do things that make them feel good, and casual sex is one of them.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbio you have some very interesting points, but I think there's just one problem- it started out as if you were going to justify SC, but in the end you just ended up saying how homosexuality is acceptable in SC, rather than actually justifying SC.

Would you agree with this criticism? A good post nonetheless.

Well, okay. If you accept that homosexuality is acceptable through social contract, then we can move on and I can justify social contract in general. Thing is, I'm not entirely sure what the alternative is? To me it seems obvious that the government and its people have to trust one another, or there would be anarchy. I have no real rights beyond that which has been granted me by the government. I accept this because in return, I have, running water, electricity, roads, schools, safe food, a home, etc etc. I have no authority, or right to decide. I give up this right, because in return I entrust my well being to those that do have authority over aspects of my welfare that I am better off not handling on my own. I agree to allow the US government to rule over me in terms of law. I abide, in other words, by laws of the land as set forth by the US Constitution and its subsequent writings (state laws, etc.) And in return, the US government agrees to protect me from harm originating from outside the US (foreign invaders) and from domestic threats (terrorists, riots, etc). They also agree to help me in times of need (welfare to a lesser extent, think more like relief during natural disasters, and the like.)

This should be a clear picture of what the social contract actually is in terms of real-world example, and why I'd choose it. The justification for living under this contract is frankly self-evident. As a people, we thrive together to achieve a common good. Though this common good used to mainly be the expansion of territory, now it's the expansion of our gross national product. With the administrative oversight of a governing body, the governed masses are able to enjoy the fruits of our collective output. Without this agreement, there would be no guarantee that we'd be safe from foreign invaders, that we'd survive a serious natural disaster, that we'd competently trade with other nations, that we'd "keep up" with foreign affairs, that we'd compete on a global level for anything.

Another less obvious justification is the fact that everyone else does it to. In order to play ball, you have to learn the game. We -could- just be a lawless anarchist society, with no State to govern us. But we'd be at everyone else's mercy. An organized military could easily just walk in and dominate us, turning us into slave labor or worse. No... to quote John Locke:

This power, whilst employed for the benefit of the community, and suitably to the trust and ends of the government, is undoubted prerogative, and never is questioned: for the people are very seldom or never scrupulous or nice in the point; they are far from examining prerogative, whilst it is in any tolerable degree employed for the use it was meant, that is, for the good of the people, and not manifestly against it: but if there comes to be a question between the executive power and the people, about a thing claimed as a prerogative; the tendency of the exercise of such prerogative to the good or hurt of the people, will easily decide that question. -John Locke, The Second Treatise of Civil Government