Homosexuality

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

DHer vs. PGer is okay. DHer vs. DHer should go in the DH version.

 

[Crimson King]

Being against blacks is being against a person. Being against homosexuality is being against an action.

So, "hate the sin, not the sinner."

 

[Dre89]

So, "hate the sin, not the sinner."

Pretty much, but I'm assuming you're saying that in a sarcastic or mocking way.

 

[spookyskeptic]

No, I've explained the difference between naturally good and just any impulse

You never explained how it's just "any impulse" and not naturally good. People getting along, living fulfilling lives, and finding that one person you know always has your back is an objective good. That later relationship type is enhanced and fostered through sexual contact, which often includes homosexual sexual activity. You also never explained by our species having only procreational sex was an objective good, and not a subjective good. I can see one making an argument for it being good, but it's not objective by any means.

Please, there's no need for needless insults like this. I never insulted you.

It wasn't an insult. I think you're, again, using a word of which you do not know the definition. An insult would be if I were to call you stupid; a coward; a Justin Bieber fan; or (hell, even) a closeted, self-hating homosexual who hides behind "philosophy" and doesn't want to admit that he's basing his bigotry on religion. It would even be an insult if I were to point out how impossibly atrocious and brain-melting your grammar, syntax, and inability to use a dictionary are. I am not a grammar Nazi, though. Those would be insults, or "flames" as they're called on the internet. "Flaming," however, would arguably be a poor choice of words given the topic at hand.

Finally, you did, in fact, insult me. You called me unnatural. You've accused me of corrupting my nature. That's not the insulting part, though. The insulting part is that you offer no explanation for why. You seem to think the questions and concerns of other posters is too beneath you to respond. That, sir, is insulting.

 

[Dre89]

You never explained how it's just "any impulse" and not naturally good. People getting along, living fulfilling lives, and finding that one person you know always has your back is an objective good. That later relationship type is enhanced and fostered through sexual contact, which often includes homosexual sexual activity. You also never explained by our species having only procreational sex was an objective good, and not a subjective good. I can see one making an argument for it being good, but it's not objective by any means.

I have explained it. I also re-explained it breifly in the DH version.

It wasn't an insult. I think you're, again, using a word of which you do not know the definition. An insult would be if I were to call you stupid; a coward; a Justin Bieber fan; or (hell, even) a closeted, self-hating homosexual who hides behind "philosophy" and doesn't want to admit that he's basing his bigotry on religion. It would even be an insult if I were to point out how impossibly atrocious and brain-melting your grammar, syntax, and inability to use a dictionary are. I am not a grammar Nazi, though. Those would be insults, or "flames" as they're called on the internet. "Flaming," however, would arguably be a poor choice of words given the topic at hand.[/QUOTE]

You have implied I'm ignorant though. I don't think you're ignorant for the position you hold.

Also, I'm not religious. I didn't make assumptions about you, so please don't make assumptions about me.

Finally, you did, in fact, insult me. You called me unnatural. You've accused me of corrupting my nature. That's not the insulting part, though. The insulting part is that you offer no explanation for why. You seem to think the questions and concerns of other posters is too beneath you to respond. That, sir, is insulting.

No explanation? Have you not read the debate?

If you're a homosexual, then I'm not saying you're unnatural, just that you've done unnatural things, everyone has done wrong things, I'm not saying homosexuals are any worse than other people.

 

[Sucumbio]

I feel compelled to ask one final question before this gets out of hand.

Dre. lets assume everything you've said is correct.

What are homosexuals supposed to do about it, in your eyes, so that you no longer look at them the way you do? In other words... how... can they "correct" themselves.

You've said its not a choice.

And so have I.

So seriously, what are they to do?

 

[Dre89]

The same that my theory asks of rapists, myself, priests and the like; not to act on their sexual desires.

What is being asked of them has been asked of others for two thousand years.


You're not a bad person for being gay, you haven't done anything wrong until you act upon those desires.

But I'm not here to preach, that's why I specifically say 'what my theory asks', not 'what I ask', because I don't want people to act on my views.

 

[spookyskeptic]

I never made those assumptions, surely a great philosopher and debater as yourself understands hypotheticals. Either way, so it's a theory now and not a flatly objective good, right?

 

[Dre89]

I never made those assumptions, surely a great philosopher and debater as yourself understands hypotheticals. Either way, so it's a theory now and not a flatly objective good, right?

You assumed I was religious, and I am not.

Of course I believe it's the objective good. I'm just not here to convert people.

 

[Teran]

The same that my theory asks of rapists, myself, priests and the like; not to act on their sexual desires.

If you were to ask a heterosexual man never to have sex with a woman, even in married life, basically none of them will survive (unless they're a testosterone deprived beta male). Before you get started on monks and priests, well priests we can all see take their frustrations out on altar boys, monks dugtunnels under monasteries to go bang nuns in their quarters, so really, telling a human not to have sex is a pretty asinine thing to do.

As for homosexuals, they didn't actively seek to break the general protocol of nature. A lot of young boys going on into teenage years toy with the idea of being a father, having a beautiful wife etc, but then when it comes to proper adolescence, they find themselves attracted to men beyond their control. Trust me maybe some actually enjoy the whole thing but most resent the whole thing ever happening, since it makes life that much more fo a hassle. Unfortunately since they have the sexual appetite of any other man, the idea of them having to resist that is absurd.

Also, here's my view on your "rules of nature".

**** nature. The only laws it has are laws of physics. **** life, and **** its sanctity, it has none. Life is just a complex set of chemical reactions that perpetuate themselves through sex, or other forms of reproduction. If I choose not to sleep with women and continue this façade of sanctity where our straight alpha males are going out ****** and killing women and children in war, while the immoral homosexuals (lol as if morality isn't arbritrary) are most likely sitting at home killing nobody BUT HE MIGHT BE SODOMISING YOUR SON.

Get over it, if your son is gay, it's your wife's fault and you should beat her for it if you're so mad. Not that I'm promoting domestic abuse

Spoiler

even though it makes for great comedy sketches

So wait where was I even going with this?

Oh yeah, your whole theory is nonsense, makes my eyes bleed, and makes me want to down a bottle of whisky out of despair for the human race.

 

[spookyskeptic]

You assumed I was religious, and I am not.

Again, I never made an assumption. It was a hypothetical, used to demonstrate to you what an insult actually is. I see, though, that you still have issues with the meaning of words. See below:

Of course I believe it's the objective good. I'm just not here to convert people.

If you believe it, it's subjective. If everyone knows it and it's proveable, it's objective.
See the difference?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

If you were to ask a heterosexual man never to have sex with a woman, even in married life, basically none of them will survive (unless they're a testosterone deprived beta male). Before you get started on monks and priests, well priests we can all see take their frustrations out on altar boys, monks dugtunnels under monasteries to go bang nuns in their quarters, so really, telling a human not to have sex is a pretty asinine thing to do.

As for homosexuals, they didn't actively seek to break the general protocol of nature. A lot of young boys going on into teenage years toy with the idea of being a father, having a beautiful wife etc, but then when it comes to proper adolescence, they find themselves attracted to men beyond their control. Trust me maybe some actually enjoy the whole thing but most resent the whole thing ever happening, since it makes life that much more fo a hassle. Unfortunately since they have the sexual appetite of any other man, the idea of them having to resist that is absurd.

Also, here's my view on your "rules of nature".

**** nature. The only laws it has are laws of physics. **** life, and **** its sanctity, it has none. Life is just a complex set of chemical reactions that perpetuate themselves through sex, or other forms of reproduction. If I choose not to sleep with women and continue this façade of sanctity where our straight alpha males are going out ****** and killing women and children in war, while the immoral homosexuals (lol as if morality isn't arbritrary) are most likely sitting at home killing nobody BUT HE MIGHT BE SODOMISING YOUR SON.

Get over it, if your son is gay, it's your wife's fault and you should beat her for it if you're so mad. Not that I'm promoting domestic abuse

Spoiler

even though it makes for great comedy sketches

So wait where was I even going with this?

Oh yeah, your whole theory is nonsense, makes my eyes bleed, and makes me want to down a bottle of whisky out of despair for the human race.

Hold up! I may disagree with Dre but that gives you no right to disrespect him! It is a rule in the proving grounds and in the Debate hall that we treat are fellow debaters with respect! As a mod you should know that! It sets a really bad example when the Mods are breaking the rules. You should try to make your point in a much more respectful way. Regardless if your statement is right or wrong you still are aproching this in a completely wrong fashion and in a against the rules way. Can we all not just get along and be friends?

 

[professor mgw]

You're not a bad person for being gay, you haven't done anything wrong until you act upon those desires.

That is a religous belief, usually to those who live there lives by the bible (Baptist, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Jews Etc.)

Although Unlike JW's, gays are sometimes condemned from the churches (which would be baptist and catholics), some churches do condemn, some don't, they act on an indiviual basis, not as a worldwide society which would mean that ALL churches would follow the same rules.

 

[GoldShadow]

Yeah, what Dragoon Fighter said. Just want to remind everybody to keep it civil here.

 

[Dre89]

That is a religous belief, usually to those who live there lives by the bible (Baptist, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Jews Etc.)

Although Unlike JW's, gays are sometimes condemned from the churches (which would be baptist and catholics), some churches do condemn, some don't, they act on an indiviual basis, not as a worldwide society which would mean that ALL churches would follow the same rules.

I'm actually not religious at all, so my belief doesn't have anything to do with religion.

 

[professor mgw]

Hold up! I may disagree with Dre but that gives you no right to disrespect him! It is a rule in the proving grounds and in the Debate hall that we treat are fellow debaters with respect! As a mod you should know that! It sets a really bad example when the Mods are breaking the rules. You should try to make your point in a much more respectful way. Regardless if your statement is right or wrong you still are aproching this in a completely wrong fashion and in a against the rules way. Can we all not just get along and be friends?

This attitude is the future to a better way of discussion. You are to be commended.

 

[professor mgw]

I'm actually not religious at all, so my belief doesn't have anything to do with religion.

Yes it does. That statement you said is applied to religons that apply bible teachings in there daily life, it is not just your belief, but it is a belief you share with others. I didn't say you were religous, and I'm not going to assume that your trying to back religon up. I'm saying you share a similar belief to a bible based viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality.

 

[Dre89]

If Dragoon hasn't been promoted to the DH yet, he should be, simply for his maturity.

Thanks for sticking up for me, especially when you disagree with me on the topic, it takes alot of character to do that.

Yes it does. That statement you said is applied to religons that apply bible teachings in there daily life, it is not just your belief, but it is a belief you share with others. I didn't say you were religous, and I'm not going to assume that your trying to back religon up. I'm saying you share a similar belief to a bible based viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality.

But the belief is derived in a different manner. Theists derive it from their theology (although their theology arguably derives it from natural law theory anyway), whereas I derive my argument through philosophy and natural observation.

Also, theists consider an alternate end of sex to be an act of love, a sacred unity, whereas I say nothing of the sort.

The belief isn't completely religious simply because certain religions follow it.

That's like saying believing in God is religious, when there are probably more non-religious God theories than religious ones.

 

[professor mgw]

If Dragoon hasn't been promoted to the DH yet, he should be, simply for his maturity.

Thanks for sticking up for me, especially when you disagree with me on the topic, it takes alot of character to do that.



But the belief is derived in a different manner. Theists derive it from their theology (although their theology arguably derives it from natural law theory anyway), whereas I derive my argument through philosophy and natural observation.

Also, theists consider an alternate end of sex to be an act of love, a sacred unity, whereas I say nothing of the sort.

The belief isn't completely religious simply because certain religions follow it.

That's like saying believing in God is religious, when there are probably more non-religious God theories than religious ones.

Nonetheless, my point was that you shared a belief that is common in religon. Therefore you cannot state that your belief has nothing to do with religon, you have an common ground with it.

 

[Dre89]

But that doesn't make the belief religious so to speak.

 

[Teran]

Hold up! I may disagree with Dre but that gives you no right to disrespect him! It is a rule in the proving grounds and in the Debate hall that we treat are fellow debaters with respect! As a mod you should know that! It sets a really bad example when the Mods are breaking the rules. You should try to make your point in a much more respectful way. Regardless if your statement is right or wrong you still are aproching this in a completely wrong fashion and in a against the rules way. Can we all not just get along and be friends?

How eloquent a point is made doesn't change the validity of the point. If you can honestly refute what I say, then maybe you are top level.

Btw I'm in the main debate hall so :3

Edit: I'm gay, so forgive me for being a little high strung on the subject.

 

[professor mgw]

But that doesn't make the belief religious so to speak.

Your correct, but neither van you say your belifer has nothing to do with religon, it has a tie with it is all.

 

[abhishekh]

Sorry, Dre.

What was your argument for saying that homosexuality (or gay sex, whatever) was wrong?

Wasn't it just because homosexuality (or gay sex) was unnatural?

Does this mean you're against gay marriage (an actual question)?