• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Alright, alright, let's back up here.

Children aren't consenting adults. Age is a huge ****ing deal. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals can both be pedophiles. Not all heterosexuals and homosexuals are pedophiles. There's a large difference between being attracted to a certain age than a certain gender. Love between two consenting adults is perfectly healthy, love between a man and a kid is not.

I agree with you that a pedophile who never harms a child is in fact, not a bad person, but holy ****, how thick do you have to be to not see the difference between lusting after a child, and lusting after an adult?

This has absolutely nothing to do with natural order and gender, and everything to do with age, consent, and common sense-- a trait you seem to have a hard time grasping.
But if you're going to accept homosexuality as permissable, why is it wrong for a person to lust over children if they would never harm them?

The argument for homosexuality is that it doesn't harm anyone against their will, it's not about what they're attracted to. The person in the above sentence isn't harming anyone .The same goes for a good-hearted person who dreams of ****** women. He wouldn't do it in real life so why is it wrong?

Both of these scenarios are examples of people attempting to attain sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of any other person.

So how is this different from homsoexuality?
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
But if you're going to accept homosexuality as permissable, why is it wrong for a person to lust over children if they would never harm them?

The argument for homosexuality is that it doesn't harm anyone against their will, it's not about what they're attracted to. The person in the above sentence isn't harming anyone .The same goes for a good-hearted person who dreams of ****** women. He wouldn't do it in real life so why is it wrong?
It isn't wrong to just dream or think of perverted things as long as you don't act on them. Who said it's wrong? Almost everyone thinks of horrible things at some point. It's something that can't be helped.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
It isn't wrong to just dream or think of perverted things as long as you don't act on them. Who said it's wrong? Almost everyone thinks of horrible things at some point. It's something that can't be helped.
If you don't think anything else is wrong with it, then your argument is consistent.

The reason why I brought it up is because I think the majority of society would be against the dreams.
 

Mic_128

Wake up...
Administrator
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
46,175
Location
Steam
But if you're going to accept homosexuality as permissable, why is it wrong for a person to lust over children if they would never harm them?
Did you even read Xsyven's post? He said he agreed with you, that Pedophiles are fine as long as they don't do anything that affects a child.

Try addressing the rest of his points.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
And I said that his argument is therefore consistent.

As I said before, the argument concerns those whose who don't accept them.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
The reason why I brought it up is because I think the majority of society would be against the dreams.
Why? Do you have any evidence that this is true?

Also I don't get what point you're trying to make. If you acknowledge having fantasies about sex with children isn't wrong, and you're saying it's not different from homosexuality....... aren't you really saying homosexuality isn't wrong?

Transitive Property

if a=b and a=c, b=c

perverted fantasies = homosexuality
perverted fantasies = not wrong
therefore, homosexuality = not wrong


(Sorry if I missed something; it's 5 in the morning and I have yet to get any shut-eye.)
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
No I think they're both wrong for the same reasons.

I'm just saying alot of people who acecpt homosexuality probably wouldn't accept the other perversions, and I think that is inconsistent.
 

SuperBowser

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
1,331
Location
jolly old england. hohoho.
You're supposed to respond to people you are in a debate with. Not an imaginary person who may or may not exist. Clearly the law does not support your hypothesis and clearly it is not relevant to the people you are speaking with.

I can just as easily make up a person against gay rights and rip down an argument I imagined too.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
It's illegal to dream about ****** a woman?
No. I think he is using the law as a proxy for morality. If the law reflected morality, then the situation you described would be considered acceptable, which is antithetical to your claim that society would object to that situation.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
What I don't understand is that when I first brought up the argument, people like you (Superbowser) were criticising me for comparing those scenarios to homosexuality, as if it to compare it to those scenarios was an inhumane insult to homosexuality, yet now you guys tell me those scenarios are permissable.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
No I think they're both wrong for the same reasons.

I'm just saying alot of people who acecpt homosexuality probably wouldn't accept the other perversions, and I think that is inconsistent.
What? People can't even THINK about it? How can someone control that? How do you keep things out of your dreams? Are you seriously going to claim you've never had any dream or thought of doing something terrible (i.e. killing someone)? Even if you did make this claim, it's impossible to back up since you don't remember the vast majority of your dreams.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
yet now you guys tell me those scenarios are permissible.
Permissible is different from morality. There is no way to police thought crime so all thoughts are permissible (or nonpunishable) by society, but that does not mean that desiring to do good is morally equivalent to desiring to do bad. I think people were reading your earlier inferences as saying someone who desires to do bad, yet has yet to act on it would be morally equivalent to homosexuality, which is not the case according to the moral theory I defended. Since they are not morally equivalent, this is why everyone is urging you to drop this dead point.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Firstly Krazyglue, people can influence, and even control their dreams entirely, it's called lucid dreaming, but I'm assuming you already knew that.

Secondly, people do bad things in their dreams, but they don't necessarily get sexual gratification out of them. If you're intentionally dreaming of events which provide you sexual gratification, then that's no different to watching porn or homosexuality- you are attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of other people.

Now if I can prove that attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of other people is morally impermissable, which I have attemtped to do in this thread, then I am entitled to say that it is morally impermissable to intentionally dream of ****.

Rvkevin- Desiring to do evil is different from fantasising about doing evil. Desire implies an intent to actuate the state of affairs in relaity, fantasising is merely (in this case) attaining sexual gratification through contemplation of such affairs. It does not equate to the intent of actuating such affairs in reality.
 

rvkevin

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
1,188
Desiring to do evil is different from fantasising about doing evil. Desire implies an intent to actuate the state of affairs in relaity, fantasising is merely (in this case) attaining sexual gratification through contemplation of such affairs. It does not equate to the intent of actuating such affairs in reality.
I don't see the distinction. Why would someone fantasize about something that they do not want to actualize? That is what a fantasy is, to desire fulfilling some set of affairs. Fantasy is the manifestation of desires. Imagine the person stranded on an island fantasizing of all the foods that await him when rescued, I would be insane to suggest that such a person does not have a desire to eat. The same could be applied to the example given. Substituting the word desire with the word fantasy does not change the fact that there are desires underlying the fantasy and that those desires are the object of consideration.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Firstly Krazyglue, people can influence, and even control their dreams entirely, it's called lucid dreaming, but I'm assuming you already knew that.
Sometimes, but not every dream you have is controllable.

Secondly, people do bad things in their dreams, but they don't necessarily get sexual gratification out of them. If you're intentionally dreaming of events which provide you sexual gratification, then that's no different to watching porn or homosexuality- you are attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of other people.

Now if I can prove that attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of other people is morally impermissable, which I have attemtped to do in this thread, then I am entitled to say that it is morally impermissable to intentionally dream of ****.
Ah, I get it, it's only if they intend it. Makes more sense.

Still, by using this definition, you're saying MANY common things are immoral:

- Masturbation
- Watching an R rated movie that you know has nudity in it
- Playing an M rated video game that you know has sexual themes (i.e. Grand Theft Auto 4)
- Going to a museum that has paintings and/or sculpture of nude women

Of course, the above only apply if you're sexually excited by them, but you get my point.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
Secondly, people do bad things in their dreams, but they don't necessarily get sexual gratification out of them. If you're intentionally dreaming of events which provide you sexual gratification, then that's no different to watching porn or homosexuality- you are attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of other people.
Why is there a distinction between sexually gratifying evil acts (evil according to you) and other evil acts?

If you fantasize all day long about killing children, but receive no sexual gratification out of it... how is that less of an issue than fantasizing about having sex with them? This of course is according to your line of reasoning that thoughts can be considering "wrong" or "right"...

-blazed
 

Xsyven

And how!
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Messages
14,070
Location
Las Vegas
But if you're going to accept homosexuality as permissable, why is it wrong for a person to lust over children if they would never harm them?

The argument for homosexuality is that it doesn't harm anyone against their will, it's not about what they're attracted to. The person in the above sentence isn't harming anyone .The same goes for a good-hearted person who dreams of ****** women. He wouldn't do it in real life so why is it wrong?

Both of these scenarios are examples of people attempting to attain sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing on the rights of any other person.

So how is this different from homsoexuality?
What the hell are you talking about! No one should care what the hell anyone else dreams about having sex with-- the problem lies in actual physical relationships. Being in a physical relationship with another adult consenting man is okay. Being in a physical relationship with a child is not okay. That's the difference.
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
What the hell are you talking about! No one should care what the hell anyone else dreams about having sex with-- the problem lies in actual physical relationships. Being in a physical relationship with another adult consenting man is okay. Being in a physical relationship with a child is not okay. That's the difference.
Xsyven, please calm down. There's no need to yell or use that tone of voice.

Also, please make sure to add a "?" (question) mark when asking a question as proper punctuation makes your debate points look better.

-blazed
 

Sieguest

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,448
Location
San Diego, CA
Why? Do you have any evidence that this is true?

Also I don't get what point you're trying to make. If you acknowledge having fantasies about sex with children isn't wrong, and you're saying it's not different from homosexuality....... aren't you really saying homosexuality isn't wrong?

Transitive Property

if a=b and a=c, b=c

perverted fantasies = homosexuality
perverted fantasies = not wrong
therefore, homosexuality = not wrong


(Sorry if I missed something; it's 5 in the morning and I have yet to get any shut-eye.)
Actually that's on the line of being an improper use of the transitive property. The transitive property uses facts for the arguments that fill "a", "b" and "c" Since the moral character of an action is subject to interpretation, we cannot say that anything equals right or wrong and be able to say with one hundred percent certainty that it is correct.

In other words you have prove that a=b and that b=c before you can say that a=c.

Saying perverted fantasies=homosexuality isn't true. A male pedophile can have perverted fantasies about that little girl picking daisies in the park. That being the case a=/=b and if a=/=b then the rest falls apart.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Actually that's on the line of being an improper use of the transitive property. The transitive property uses facts for the arguments that fill "a", "b" and "c" Since the moral character of an action is subject to interpretation, we cannot say that anything equals right or wrong and be able to say with one hundred percent certainty that it is correct.

In other words you have prove that a=b and that b=c before you can say that a=c.

Saying perverted fantasies=homosexuality isn't true. A male pedophile can have perverted fantasies about that little girl picking daisies in the park. That being the case a=/=b and if a=/=b then the rest falls apart.
Dre is saying perverted fantasies and homosexuality are morally equivalent.

So, if you want me to restate it:

Morality of perverted fantasies = morality of homosexuality
Morality of perverted fantasies = not morally wrong
Therefore, morality of homosexuality = not morally wrong

Of course, he later stated he believes they are both morally wrong, so the opposite of the above is true.
 

TheMike

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
1,860
Location
Brazil
Just for the record, Argentina's Senate approved yesterday the marriage between two people of the same gender. Most Argentinians are catholic and the Vatican doesn't approve it. Thoughts?
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Italy is supposed to be a Catholic country yet it is one of the most sexually seedy nations in Europe, so Argentina's decision isn't that surprising.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Italy is supposed to be a Catholic country yet it is one of the most sexually seedy nations in Europe, so Argentina's decision isn't that surprising.
Catholics are divided on homosexuality for one, and two the citizens of Italy hate how much influence the catholic church had over their laws and government, so naturally the Italian government doesn't listen to them as much.

I mean America is a secular nation but we act nothing like it.

edit: Dre I hope you're not trying to suggest that we make laws against what's in peoples heads now, that would be a horrible idea. Who honestly cares what they think about inside the confines of their thoughts. It doesn't matter to me, just as long as they keep it inside their head and don't manifest that into actions I'm okay with it. What harm does it do? Nothing.
 

#HBC | Dark Horse

Mach-Hommy x Murakami
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
3,739
edit: Dre I hope you're not trying to suggest that we make laws against what's in peoples heads now, that would be a horrible idea. Who honestly cares what they think about inside the confines of their thoughts. It doesn't matter to me, just as long as they keep it inside their head and don't manifest that into actions I'm okay with it. What harm does it do? Nothing.
Agreed. Taking away their right to think more or less makes them slaves. If they can take away that right, they could, more or less, take away all their rights.
 

Dragoon Fighter

Smash Lord
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
1,915
Agreed. Taking away their right to think more or less makes them slaves. If they can take away that right, they could, more or less, take away all their rights.
I agree and disagree

I agree that taking away ones right to think is nothing short of horrible

I disagree in that this post implies that it is possible to take such right away in the first place you can to a degree by Brainwashing the soul at youth, but even then they do have some thought of there own (not much though).
 

#HBC | Dark Horse

Mach-Hommy x Murakami
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
3,739
I disagree in that this post implies that it is possible to take such right away in the first place you can to a degree by Brainwashing the soul at youth, but even then they do have some thought of there own (not much though).
:confused: I never meant to imply that you could brainwash people.
 

TheMike

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
1,860
Location
Brazil
Vatican and sex issues...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/24/catholic-church-gay-priests-exposed

The Guardian said:
The Catholic church, already reeling from a string of clerical sex abuse scandals, was last night facing new embarrassment after an Italian magazine published an investigation into what it termed the double life of gay priests in Rome.

Using hidden cameras, the weekly Panorama, owned by Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, captured priests visiting gay clubs and bars and having sex. The Vatican does not condemn homosexuals, but it teaches that gay sex is "intrinsically disordered". In one of his earliest moves, pope Benedict barred actively gay men from studying for the priesthood.

The diocese of Rome lashed out at the prime minister's magazine, saying its aim was "to create scandal [and] defame all priests". But it also urged gay clerics to leave both the closet and the priesthood.

It said, "Consistency would require that they come into the open", but that they "ought not to have become priests".

The semi-official papal daily, L'Osservatore Romano, made no reference to the affair. Vatican Radio reported it briefly.

One priest, a Frenchman in his 30s identified as Father Paul, attended a party at which there were two male prostitutes then said Mass the following morning before driving them to the airport, Panorama reported. A photo on its website claimed to show the priest in his dog collar but without his trousers with a gay man who acted as decoy for the magazine. In other shots, priests were shown apparently kissing Panorama's collaborator.

A member of the clergy quoted by the magazine put the proportion of gay priests in the Italian capital at "98%". The Rome diocese insisted the vast majority of priests in the city were "models of morality for all", while adding that the number of gay clergyman was "small, but not to be written off as isolated cases". A review eight years ago of research on the American church concluded that between a quarter and a half of seminarians and priests there were homosexual.

A former Italian MP and gay activist, Franco Grillini, said: "If all the gays in the Catholic church were to leave it at once – something we would very much like – they would cause it serious operational problems."

Another well-known spokesman for the gay community, Aurelio Mancuso, condemned Panorama's investigation as a "horrible political and cultural operation", but agreed that if priests in Rome were to follow the advice given to them in yesterday's statement, it would "paralyse" the diocese.

In March, the pope's own household was rocked by scandal when court documents revealed a Vatican chorister had procured male prostitutes for a papal gentleman-in-waiting.
 

gm jack

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
1,850
Location
Reading/Cambridge, UK
Being homosexual is not away around the whole celibacy thing for catholic priests? I agree in that the article did nothing in terms of the debate.
 

TheMike

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
1,860
Location
Brazil
That article talks about sex issues inside of the Catholic church(gay priests and such), and we had a small talk concerning the "war" between the Vatican and these issues if I recall correctly. I just thought it would be good if I post the article in here, but apparently it wasn't. My bad. :S
 

#HBC | Dark Horse

Mach-Hommy x Murakami
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
3,739
I did not say you did, I stated the only possible way to take away (or come close to) the removal of human rights.
There are other ways. I this one book I read (1984) there are thought police, who vaporize you when you think of something negative about big brother (with vaporizing guns)

I don't care if it seems far-fetched, It's still another way.

Also, i'm against taking away rights.
 

Kirbyoshi

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
164
Location
Lynchburg, VA
NNID
acme2491
Some people in here are confusing "lawful" with "moral." This is especially evident when it comes to the subject of thoughts. I believe that even thoughts of pedophilia/homosexuality carry a certain degree, if you will, of immorality. However, I do not believe such thoughts should be unlawful, because a law like that would be completely unenforceable. DH, your example is from a sci-fi book, and therefore is meant to be far-fetched. However, even if it becomes possible to scientifically read one's mind, the thoughts should still not be against the law. Controlling the thoughts of people is something no government should ever do, and it leads down a dangerous path.

I am also against Catholicism, but that debate is for another day ;)
 

1048576

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
3,417
If thinking about acts of non-procreation for sexual gratification is wrong, then is thinking of having intercourse with your post-menopausal wife worse than thinking about cheating on her with some 13-year-old girl?

I've only read the last 3 pages or so, but keep in mind the issue of consent. Comparing homosexuality to **** or pedophilia is disingenuous because of that issue. The only common characteristic is that's they're both commonly characterized as 'icky' which isn't exactly a compelling argument.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
I've only read the last 3 pages or so, but keep in mind the issue of consent. Comparing homosexuality to **** or pedophilia is disingenuous because of that issue. The only common characteristic is that's they're both commonly characterized as 'icky' which isn't exactly a compelling argument.
Or that neither of them result in procreation, which is arguably what sex is designed for.

No one thinks homosexuality is as bad as ****, **** is bad on a number of levels, but they both share a flaw in being outside of procreation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom