Homosexuality

[TheMike]

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.

 

[BSP]

I'll start with my country since I know it the most. Here in the US, same sex marriage is banned in all states besides these, but there is a heated debate over the concept that is going on. We currently have a case, perry v. schwarzenegger, that will probably decide the fate for the rest of our country, similar to Brown v. Board of Education.

That being said, homosexuals have made a little progress, being counted on the census for this year. Because of this, it seems that the US is moving forward and looking past this issue of whether or not homosexuals have rights. I don't think it will become illegal here, because of the above mentioned slight, but sure progress. In addition to that, our own Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I say that if homosexuality becomes illegal in the U.S.A., we are cleary being hypocritical of everything we stand for: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We can't keep our Declaration the way it is if we ostracize homosexuals, and take away their rights to pursue their own happiness.

Finally, taking a look at section 1 of our 14th amendment to our Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As far as I'm concerned, homosexuals are still citizens, and therefore are subject to equal protection and their unalienable rights. I find it hard to think that the U.S. will move toward making homosexuality illegal, but if we do, we will have to change some our major documents defining our country.

 

[Greenstreet]

Does the bill propose reasoning?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Mariobrouser is right that it's a gross violation of human rights. I think the UN would become more and more heavily involved if the issue spread. It would probably end up being like the civil rights and women's rights movements all over again, although this one could potentially have some religious implications since homosexuality is often a bad thing in religions.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Sorry for this double post; the site had a loading issue, and I accidentally ended up clicking the "post quick reply" button twice.

 

[Deleted member]

This goes so against human rights that it's sad.
There honestly isn't much of a debate since I doubt there is a single person in the PG that is willing to defend the POV of Uganda.

to the "what if" question: mass riots and everything that comes with it.

@mariobrouser: the fact that it is stated like that in the DoI makes it nigh impossible for Homosexuality to become illegal. Same goes for my country, where article 1 of the constitution basically says:

You shall not discriminate other people based on their gender, religion, race or beliefs

I'm probably missing one but you get the point.

 

[TheMike]

As far as I know, being married is a right of an human being. That said, I think homosexuals should be able to get married. In my opinion, this prohibition is a religion issue. The Vatican doesn't accept the fact that two people of the same gender can have a relationship.

 

[Deleted member]

As far as I know, being married is a right of an human being. That said, I think homosexuals should be able to get married. In my opinion, this prohibition is a religion issue. The Vatican doesn't accept the fact that two people of the same gender can have a relationship.

I'm sure they can accept the idea of two people of the same gender having a relationship, it's just blasphemy in their eyes and I think according to the bible too.

 

[Grandeza]

Yeah like you guys said, it's just a human rights violation. There's nothing "wrong" or "immoral" about homosexuality and it's not like they could choose one way or the other. It's pretty awful how much they're discriminated against in dome places.

 

[Greenstreet]

Is there an AIDS concern fueling this?

 

[Sieguest]

Yeah, I have to agree that this is a huge violation of human rights. And in the U.S. in a sense, the violation of someone's first amendment, by imposing one's religion upon another.
I'm not sure how AIDS can be much of a concern, seeing as how that can be spread through heterosexual partners just the same as homosexual partners.

 

[Dre89]

Hypothetically, if homosexuality is wrong, then they shouldn't allow marriage because it would accept and encourage a wrong act. The question is whether it's right or wrong.

 

[SuperBowser]

I'm not sure how AIDS can be much of a concern, seeing as how that can be spread through heterosexual partners just the same as homosexual partners.

Men who have sex with men are more likely to have HIV, that's just the truth of it.

But the root of the problem here is the prejudices that held against homosexuality. As long as this exists, people will use anything they see to justify their hatred. That is why HIV comes up in such an abhorrent fashion. We'd never hear people speak the same way about diseases prevalent in other sub-populations. I think most western countries are moving ''forward'' in this regard. Awareness and acceptance are only going to increase and I don't think there's any forseeable danger of ''regression''.

Uganda is a pretty unfortunate case, but there's been many hate crimes there, this is nothing new. To be honest, I think the legality of homosexuality is a fairly minor issue compared to the turmoil going on in that country right now.

Hypothetically, if homosexuality is wrong, then they shouldn't allow marriage because it would accept and encourage a wrong act. The question is whether it's right or wrong.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Dre89]

You want me to argue whether it's right or wrong?

I think that's slightly detracting from the point of this thread.

 

[SuperBowser]

You're the one who brought it up. In fact that was the only point of your post.

 

[Dre89]

What I said was that if homosexuality is wrong it shouldn't be allowed to be practiced.

People don't have good pro-gay arguments anyway, they just attack the arguer instead of the argument, saying that anti-gays hate the gays themselves rather than dislike homosexuality.

They just try to negatively portray the anti-gays because that's the only answer they have. Just because we're anti-gay doesn't mean we hate gay people, I've been friends with gays, we just disagree with homosexuality.

There's no point me arguing against it because no one else here has studied moral philosophy, so they're all still stuck at 'morality is just social rules'.

 

[SuperBowser]

There's no point me arguing against it because no one else here has studied moral philosophy, so they're all still stuck at 'morality is just social rules'.

So basically I'm too dumb to be graced your wisdom. Okay.

The only person I see throwing personal attacks here is you. I have made no accusation about you, but you have already told me that I'm going to resort to ad hominems.


I quoted your whole post and asked you to elaborate; I don't see how this can be construed as me going off topic. As Jam asked you in the porn thread, why enter a topic to post a single line if you aren't willing to debate it. That's not really the point of a debate room.

 

[Dre89]

No it's not that I think you're too dumb to have an opinion.

It's that everyone here's premise relativism is unjustified and mostly a result of the failure of our society to accurately depict what morality is supposed to be.

It'd be like me arguing against science, simply because I was brought up religious, that's a flawed premise for prioritising religion over science, assuming the two weren't compatible.

This thread isn't about the morality of homosexuality, it's how we should act about it. I said if it's wrong it shouldn't be allowed, and if it is morally permissable then obviously it should be tolerated.

 

[Deleted member]

They just try to negatively portray the anti-gays because that's the only answer they have. Just because we're anti-gay doesn't mean we hate gay people, I've been friends with gays, we just disagree with homosexuality.

That raises the question "why?". Why would you disagree with someone being gay?
or, taking it a step further, why would you disagree with someone's PoV?

 

[Dre89]

My anti-gay argument stems from the fact that I believe any sexual act outside of non-protected sex in marriage is wrong, because it is a corruption of the sexual act.

Take casual sex for example. It's evident that the process of sex is that sexual stimulation entices you in to the act, resulting in procreation. In casual sex, you are using an artifical agent so that you can alter the process and corrupt the goal , for you remove procreation, making the gratification the end.

This is why I believe you should only sleep with someone you're married to, because sex is designed for procreation, you should only be sleeping with someone thaat you're willing to have kids with, and common sense suggests you shouldn't desire parenting kids unless you intend to be with the mother or father.

I don't see homosexual attraction to be any different to being attracted to kids, erotic fantasy, sadistic pervesions etc., for they all corrupt the natural purpose of sex.

If homosexuality is allowed, I don't see why someone should be looked down on for watching child porn, because as all the modern people say 'as long as you're not harming someone it's ok'.

 

[Deleted member]

kind of off-topic, but I honestly don't get your point of marriage.
my parents aren't married and they have raised me fine, would that still make them bad people in your eyes since they had sex without getting married?


that last thing is a horrible analogy since the child is obviously harmed in the act.

 

[Dre89]

kind of off-topic, but I honestly don't get your point of marriage.

This is why I didn't want to get into it, the premises tie in with other arguments that require explanation.

my parents aren't married and they have raised
me fine, would that still make them bad people in your eyes since they had sex without getting married?

I don't consider people bad if they don't follow natural law moral theory....

Because I'm not religious, when I say marriage I just mean that you will commit the rest of your life to them, so you don't necessarily need to the official ceremony.

that last thing is a horrible analogy since the child is obviously harmed in the act.

No he isn't, I didn't say the child is assaulted, just that by your logic a person is fine to watch child pornography. Even if the material isn't porn itself, a person could just watch kids shows for sexual gratification, is that fine by you?

 

[Deleted member]

then say that instead of marriage.

No I'm not fine with that.

now why exactly is it against "our nature" for homosexuals to have sex?

 

[Sieguest]

My anti-gay argument stems from the fact that I believe any sexual act outside of non-protected sex in marriage is wrong, because it is a corruption of the sexual act.

Take casual sex for example. It's evident that the process of sex is that sexual stimulation entices you in to the act, resulting in procreation. In casual sex, you are using an artifical agent so that you can alter the process and corrupt the goal , for you remove procreation, making the gratification the end.

This is why I believe you should only sleep with someone you're married to, because sex is designed for procreation, you should only be sleeping with someone thaat you're willing to have kids with, and common sense suggests you shouldn't desire parenting kids unless you intend to be with the mother or father.

I don't see homosexual attraction to be any different to being attracted to kids, erotic fantasy, sadistic pervesions etc., for they all corrupt the natural purpose of sex.

We've all ready gone on this merry-go-round so I won't make this a repeat of the abortion thread.

If homosexuality is allowed, I don't see why someone should be looked down on for watching child porn, because as all the modern people say 'as long as you're not harming someone it's ok'.

I will say that's a horrible assumption. Although "modern" people as you word it tend to look on morality more as a subjective thing, doesn't mean we all agree, in fact it's agreeing to disagree. I'll use myself as an example. I don't condone homosexuality because I follow the teachings of the bible, but if someone doesn't follow the bible, then I respect their stance and their right to do as they please with their body, regardless of how wrong or right I view it.

The "modern" people as you put it agree to respect the right of another human to do what he/she wishes so long as he/she don't infringe on others' rights to do as they wish. That's strictly it. The topic of abortion has mixed feeling from the vast majority of people, even the "modern" people. Some say it is wrong, some say it is not wrong in the slightest.

 

[Dre89]

I'm obviously grossly simplifying this, it's a corruption of the natural process and goal of sex.

It's not discrimination against gays only, it's forbidding all sex outside of the natral purpose of the act.

 

[Deleted member]

You are aware that both dolphins an monkeys have been recorded to have sex for pleasure, and that there are a lot of records of animals having sex with the same gender.

 

[Dre89]

The "modern" people as you put it agree to respect the right of another human to do what he/she wishes so long as he/she don't infringe on others' rights to do as they wish.

This is where the self-defeat is. Modern people assume that this is the only good that must be objectively upheld, and that anything is ok as long as it doesn't conflict with this principle.

You talk about a respect of other people's opinions, yet you won't respect that opinion of a killer, who doesn't see that principle as an objective good.

If social order is in fact an objective good, then that means other objective good are likely to exist, 'other' meaning outside of that principle.

Also, the social order relegates humans to purely means to the end of preserving humanity, but the preservation itself is pointless if flourishing is not considered a good, or to exist.

If the only good is to preserve social order, then what's the point of being living beings? What's the point of living if there is no flourishing, that is, achieving objective goods which only living beings can achieve, which are what the purpose of being living beings is.

In other words, perserving social is a good, but why is that a good? So that we can flourish.

 

[Sieguest]

You are aware that both dolphins an monkeys have been recorded to have sex for pleasure, and that there are a lot of records of animals having sex with the same gender.

I didn't know that, but do you have a source this claim? It just seems pretty outrageous and a bit hard for me to believe.

This is where the self-defeat is. Modern people assume that this is the only good that must be objectively upheld, and that anything is ok as long as it doesn't conflict with this principle.

You talk about a respect of other people's opinions, yet you won't respect that opinion of a killer, who doesn't see that principle as an objective good.

If social order is in fact an objective good, then that means other objective good are likely to exist, 'other' meaning outside of that principle.

Also, the social order relegates humans to purely means to the end of preserving humanity, but the preservation itself is pointless if flourishing is not considered a good, or to exist.

If the only good is to preserve social order, then what's the point of being living beings? What's the point of living if there is no flourishing, that is, achieving objective goods which only living beings can achieve, which are what the purpose of being living beings is.

In other words, perserving social is a good, but why is that a good? So that we can flourish.

I don't remember saying that I disrespect the opinion of a killer who thinks killing as an objective, I just said that I do not condone it.

There was a reason I used quotations marks whenever I used the word "modern" earlier. You've grossly stereotyped the "modern person", in fact by your criteria of "modern", there are very few people in the world who are "modern" all of those people who strictly follow their religion or belief system without respect of others' thoughts, the radicals of those "truly devout" to whatever they follow. Yet they have experienced the same environment as many others.

Also, it is not observed as a good in the sense I think you're taking it, if it was thought of like that, then it goes against the fact that they respect those who believe otherwise. It is more so an agreement, just as those who follow natural law to agree to, in your own words, "give up their own logic to a universal entity (being nature)."

 

[SuperBowser]

Isn't it natural for humans to want to have sex?

(I don't know where the study is, but Vi Veri's claim has definitely been documented and published in the past)

 

[Deleted member]

I didn't know that, but do you have a source this claim? It just seems pretty outrageous and a bit hard for me to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-human_animal_sexual_behaviour

apparently there are a lot more species than just humans, dolphins and monkeys.

EDIT: in short I honestly don't see anything in the act of sex that isn't for procreation that is "unnatural".

 

[Dre89]

You are aware that both dolphins an monkeys have been recorded to have sex for pleasure, and that there are a lot of records of animals having sex with the same gender.

Dolphins and monkeys have sex casually because they have the natural capacity to do so. They are an exception to the rule, similar to how a Platypus is an exception to the rule in that it is a monotreme-a mammal that lays eggs.

Also, certain monkeys use sexual gestures as methods of courting, not necessarily as means to gratify sexual impulses.

Wit hregards to homosexuality in animals, that is only evidenced when a partner of the opposite gender cannot be obtained, but the animal desires sexual gratification none the less, just like an aroused dog will hump virtually anything it can. Creatures such as male cockroaches sometimes nearly end up having sex with other males simply as a result of not realising they are of the same gender.



If it were natural for humans to have casual sex, we would be able to prevent ejaculation naturally, but we can't. In fact, everything points towards the goal being to procreate, for sexual gratification is only achieved once the ejcaulation has occured.

Sexual stimulation isn't designed to occur without resulting in the ejaculation either. "Blue balls" as it is informally know, is where a male receives pain in the sack due to prolonged stimulation without this ejaculation, suggesting that the goal is to ejaculate, and subsqeuently procreate.

 

[Dre89]

Isn't it natural for humans to want to have sex?

(I don't know where the study is, but Vi Veri's claim has definitely been documented and published in the past)

Yes it is, but it is also natural that the goal is to procreate.

In such a technological society, we are so distanced from nature, but you have to imagine the first humans (as in fully evolved humans), they wouldn't just be sleeping with anyone because they would know it results in offspring.

 

[Deleted member]

Wait, so Dolphins and monkeys are the exception, but for humans it is "wrong"?

EDIT: and given that humans evolved from apes you can't even say that the "first humans" (basically apes) wouldn't have casual sex.

 

[Sieguest]

Dolphins and monkeys have sex casually because they have the natural capacity to do so. They are an exception to the rule, similar to how a Platypus is an exception to the rule in that it is a monotreme-a mammal that lays eggs.

So how is there an exception to something that is supposed to be objective? Which states it's either right or wrong in all cases.

Also, in case you may have missed it, I responded to another post of yours in an edit of my previous post.

 

[Dre89]

I don't believe humans evolved from apes.

Here is a paragraph from a recent essay I did, it basically argues that humans are superior to animals. It also shows why humans can do 'wrongs' or unnatural things, whereas animals can't (unless manipulated by humans).

"Before we continue, this assumption must be briefly defended. The existence of levels of perfections is evidenced by the existence of various levels of superiority. These various levels of superiority are evidenced by the fact that there three are general types of beings: those which are purely means to an end, those which are created as means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, and that which is purely an end in itself. Beings which lack the capacity to commit moral goods and evils are purely means to ends; their goal is to contribute to an ecosystem or a natural cycle, and their individual goals or purposes cannot be altered by them themselves, only those who govern them. Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose, so they are a means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, for their moral capacities allow them to alter their desires and what they contribute towards - a capacity they would not posses if they were not intended to flourish as ends in themselves. Despite this capacity, humans cannot alter what true human flourishing is, only their ideal of it, so in a second way they are also means to an end. Finally, God, being self-necessary in nature, is purely an end in Himself. What is evidenced here is that certain beings relate to other beings in varying manners, suggesting there are degrees of superiority and perfection; for if all beings were equal all beings would be ends in themselves, requiring them all to have the same fundamental nature, which is not the case."

 

[Dre89]

So how is there an exception to something that is supposed to be objective? Which states it's either right or wrong in all cases.

Goods are objective in that they are the only way to perfect that certain being's nature.

That doesn't mean every being must have the same goods, that would make all creatures exactly the same.

What is natural varies from being to being, it isn't natural for lions to live in water, and it isn't natural for sharks to live on land.

 

[Sieguest]

I don't believe humans evolved from apes.

Here is a paragraph from a recent essay I did, it basically argues that humans are superior to animals. It also shows why humans can do 'wrongs' or unnatural things, whereas animals can't (unless manipulated by humans).

"Before we continue, this assumption must be briefly defended. The existence of levels of perfections is evidenced by the existence of various levels of superiority. These various levels of superiority are evidenced by the fact that there three are general types of beings: those which are purely means to an end, those which are created as means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, and that which is purely an end in itself. Beings which lack the capacity to commit moral goods and evils are purely means to ends; their goal is to contribute to an ecosystem or a natural cycle, and their individual goals or purposes cannot be altered by them themselves, only those who govern them. Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose, so they are a means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, for their moral capacities allow them to alter their desires and what they contribute towards - a capacity they would not posses if they were not intended to flourish as ends in themselves. Despite this capacity, humans cannot alter what true human flourishing is, only their ideal of it, so in a second way they are also means to an end. Finally, God, being self-necessary in nature, is purely an end in Himself. What is evidenced here is that certain beings relate to other beings in varying manners, suggesting there are degrees of superiority and perfection; for if all beings were equal all beings would be ends in themselves, requiring them all to have the same fundamental nature, which is not the case."

This doesn't resolve the fact that something you put forward as objective, clashes with the fact that there are evident contradictions to it.

In reference to the post you made below: You said earlier, that the natural goal of sex is to procreate. You did not specify any being which it belonged but only put it forward as a goal of nature.

Now animals engaging in homosexual behavior and not procreating is a direct violation of the law you put forward. Unless you mean now to say that natural law varies from creature to creature, in that sense, it can't really be considered a law. As we are not even the same creature amongst ourselves, evidenced by the fact that no two mature humans look even roughly the same, unless they're identical twins, whereas two mature leopards will look roughly the same.

The above assumes same gender and the absence of birth defects.

 

[Dre89]

I think you're missing my point.

Objective goods doesn't mean they're supposed to be pursued by all creatures.

I don't understand where you feel the contradiction is, please elaborate.

 

[Dre89]

This doesn't resolve the fact that something you put forward as objective, clashes with the fact that there are evident contradictions to it.

In reference to the post you made below: You said earlier, that the natural goal of sex is to procreate. You did not specify any being which it belonged but only put it forward as a goal of nature.

Now animals engaging in homosexual behavior and not procreating is a direct violation of the law you put forward. Unless you mean now to say that natural law varies from creature to creature, in that sense, it can't really be considered a law. As we are not even the same creature amongst ourselves, evidenced by the fact that no two mature humans look even roughly the same, unless they're identical twins, whereas two mature leopards will look roughly the same.

The above assumes same gender and the absence of birth defects.

Fundamentally, we are still all humans, meaning the nature of our being is the same.

This means that the critieria of human flourishing is the same.

 

[Sieguest]

I think you're missing my point.

Objective goods doesn't mean they're supposed to be pursued by all creatures.

I don't understand where you feel the contradiction is, please elaborate.

Something that is morally objective means that something is right or wrong in all cases, regardless of outside influences.

Your natural law asserts that the natural goal of sex is to procreate, and that because it is natural, it is good. Your natural law also asserts that these goods are objective.

The presence of an exception to this directly contradicts that natural goal and the idea of its objectivity.

Edit: I just noticed how hard it is to pick out the link I provided in the words "morally objective". I've inserted a link to a source in those words.

In reference to the below post, I can agree with the top line, not so much the bottom line as the nature of that statement is what we're talking about.