Homosexuality

[1048576]

So contraception is as bad as gay sex?

I'll be satisfied if we end up there.

Also, you missed part of my previous post.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Dre., the view that sex was ONLY designed for procreation is very rigid and wrong. Sex is meant to be enjoyed, cherished, pleasurable. But only in the right confines. Think of it like fire. When a fire is in a fire pit, or a fireplace, it is warm, pleasant, and cozy. But what about when the fire gets out of control? What about forest fires? Sex is the same way: outside of the boundaries, it is dangerous and deadly. I'm not exaggerating. One of those boundaries is that it must be heterosexual.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Well, no, sexual intercourse is naturally there to create offspring. The fact that it can be pleasurable is just a secondary effect.

However, that doesn't mean that going beyond its usage of creating offspring is wrong. It may not have been made for that purpose, but it's physically possible (read: well, not having sex to have a child xD).

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Since this isn't something that can be backed up, and is going to turn into a discussion where every post is going to look something like "no, I'M right!" I'll back off of the intention of sex.

@104: What do you mean by "as bad"?

 

[1048576]

Dre posed a moral system whereby it is wrong to use sex or think of sex anything other than as a means for procreation. He then argued that under such a moral system, homosexuality is bad. This is a correct conclusion following his premise. I'm trying to invalidate his premise by listing some other conclusions that his premise leads to (e.g., contaception is bad, and cheating on your post-menopausal wife with a 13-year-old is good.) If he doesn't agree with those beliefs, then he needs to clarify or restructure his premise.

 

[Dre89]

Dre posed a moral system whereby it is wrong to use sex or think of sex anything other than as a means for procreation. He then argued that under such a moral system, homosexuality is bad. This is a correct conclusion following his premise. I'm trying to invalidate his premise by listing some other conclusions that his premise leads to (e.g., contaception is bad, and cheating on your post-menopausal wife with a 13-year-old is good.) If he doesn't agree with those beliefs, then he needs to clarify or restructure his premise.

I agree contraception is a violation of the natural act, but so is cheating on your wife with a 13 year old.

Naturally, sex is designed to procreate. Now I'm sure we can all agree that the best way to raise a child is for it to have a dedicated, loving mother and father.

For this reason, I consider it a corruption of the natural act to have sex with anyone other than who you are willing to have children with. The only person who should be willing to have kids with is someone you're willing to spend the rest of your life with (for that's the best way to raise the kids), which is essentially your wife or husband.

KirbyYoshi, pleasure is not a secondary end of sex. If it was, the act owuld be designed differently. Pleasure is there to entice you into the act, that's why the pleasure concludes after ejaculation. Even more so, males who endure prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation beging to experience pain down there, further suggesting the point is to ejaculate.

If pleasure was an alternate end to sex, we would be able to chose when we ejaculate, or chose if sperm is ejected when we ejaculate, but we can't, it's automatic. Furthermore, pleasure would continue beyond ejaculation, but it doesn't, it ends with it. Hence why immediately after ejaculation sexual desire flees from us, because we don't have any more sperm ready to ejaculate.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I agree contraception is a violation of the natural act, but so is cheating on your wife with a 13 year old.

It depends has the 13 year old gone though puberty? Also He/she has a point if it is a violation of the natural act and so is homosexuality then by your logic contraception is bad.

Naturally, sex is designed to procreate. Now I'm sure we can all agree that the best way to raise a child is for it to have a dedicated, loving mother and father.

I do not completely agree, a loving mother and father no matter how loving do not always create a productive member of society.

For this reason, I consider it a corruption of the natural act to have sex with anyone other than who you are willing to have children with. The only person who should be willing to have kids with is someone you're willing to spend the rest of your life with (for that's the best way to raise the kids), which is essentially your wife or husband.

Can you support this with examples from the rest of the animal kingdom?

Also response to the underlined statement (I underlined it for convenience sake but is that an ok thing to do or is that a no no in a debate.) I presume you are saying that a corruption of something in the natural world or the natural purpose of something natural would be immoral, am I understanding you correctly?

 

[1048576]

It's better to have sex with a 13-year-old than a 50 year old if you want to procreate, even if the 50-year-old is your wife. Therefore, if sex is for procreation, you should stop having sex with your wife once she reaches menopause, and start doing it with 13-45 year old women, even if you're like 80.

And I disagree with your second assertion, that two fathers or two mothers are inferior to one of each. http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0201gayadopt.htm
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/gay_adoption.HTM
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58O3MK20090925
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341
http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/an-end-to-gay-adoption-bans/

I can find more studies, but hopefully that will be sufficient. This notion that gay people make worse parents is nothing but fear and smear propaganda perpetrated by evil religious people.

 

[Dre89]

I never said gays made bad parents, but they don't make kids.

If you're going to make a kid, it's your responsibility. Therefore, you should only be having sex with those who you want to have kids with, which should only be one person.

It has nothing to do with gays being good or bad parents.

Dragoon Fighter- Yes, I said before that I think contraception is immoral.

My issue with homosexuality isn't a personal hate I have for gays or anything. I don't hate gays, I've been friends with gays before. It just stems from my argument that all sexual acts outside of the procreation act are immoral, it's nothing personal against gays in particular.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

DA time.

If you're going to make a kid, it's your responsibility. Therefore, you should only be having sex with those who you want to have kids with, which should only be one person.

Who says it should only be one person? What if I want to have kids with 5 different women? Is that permissible?

 

[Dre89]

Is that responsible?

Do you think that was the way we were supposed to raise kids, with a father who has to divide his time between multiple families?

 

[Deleted member]

Is that responsible?

Do you think that was the way we were supposed to raise kids, with a father who has to divide his time between multiple families?

Some people do think that.

there are also tribes where the parents don't have "their kids", as every single person is part of the community, no more and no less, and is also raised by the entire community.

 

[1048576]

I never said gays made bad parents, but they don't make kids.

If you're going to make a kid, it's your responsibility. Therefore, you should only be having sex with those who you want to have kids with, which should only be one person.

It has nothing to do with gays being good or bad parents.

Dragoon Fighter- Yes, I said before that I think contraception is immoral.

My issue with homosexuality isn't a personal hate I have for gays or anything. I don't hate gays, I've been friends with gays before. It just stems from my argument that all sexual acts outside of the procreation act are immoral, it's nothing personal against gays in particular.

Fine: here's a quiz. You're 60-years-old, and two women want to have sex with you and be your wife and whatnot. One is 15 with fiery loins, one is also 60 and nature has activated the shut-off valve. Which one do you take?

Here's a more direct one, although I'd like you to address both: should old women be allowed to have sex?

 

[Dre89]

I'd take the 60 year old, becuase she is closer to my age. it'd be wrong to marry a 15 year old, becuase I'd die when she's 30, and the maturity levels are different.

I don't have a problem with two fifteen year olds getting married though. The life expectancies of Ancient Egyptian peasants was 35, so they had to get married young, otherwise they would die when their kids were 5. That's why we hit puberty so young.

I don't endorse marriage that young in this culture. Here we're so spoilt and privellaged that we only develop the required level of maturity in our twenties, yet in other parts of the world 12 year olds are supporting families, so the necessary level of maturity certainly is attainable at young ages.

As for old/ infertile couples, yes I think they should still have sex, because it is still the natrural act. They are still doing what is natural for humans.

 

[1048576]

So sex without procreation can be natural. Cool. At what point does it become not natural? Are you allowed to use a vibrator? Two other people? What characteristics does "natural" sex have?

Looking at examples from the animal kingdom, father cats often accidentally their kittens trying to mount them. Is the human equivalent of that okay? http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx Apparantly 1500 different animals practice homosexuality.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@dre

You realize that if we had been strictly living naturally, there would have been no cars (we would just be walking), no lightbulbs (we would just be using fires), no smashboards (we would be outside), etc etc. Right?

 

[Deleted member]

As for old/ infertile couples, yes I think they should still have sex, because it is still the natrural act. They are still doing what is natural for humans.

You're being inconsistent with the earlier hypothetical sterile couples we brought up earlier in the debate. What is difference between 65 year old and 30 year old couples, who both can't procreate and know it?

 

[Dre89]

You're being inconsistent with the earlier hypothetical sterile couples we brought up earlier in the debate. What is difference between 65 year old and 30 year old couples, who both can't procreate and know it?

There isn't any.

 

[Deleted member]

Then why were you against sterile couples having sex?
(that know they are)

 

[Dre89]

I'm not, as long as they're still acting like a couple that could have kids, as in they only sleep with someone they are willing to have kids with, which would only be one partner.

 

[Deleted member]

Seriously? now I have dig up quotes where you said it was wrong.

EDIT:
drop that, I wasn't paying attention back then.

However, reading through those posts you are explicitly stating that the sterile/old couples are still trying their best to procreate by means of the act.
how does this make sense? they know they can't and won't procreate, why on earth would they still have sex if nothing will ever come from it?

 

[Dre89]

Because they are still doing what's natural. The only requirement is that they're willing to have kids with the partner, not expect to.

 

[Deleted member]

Then what is the difference with homosexuals having sex, wanting kids and not expecting it?

And don't do it by calling it the natural act or not because you're kind of pushing that defenition with the serile/old couples already.

 

[Dre89]

The natural act is designed to produce kids, it's not producing kids, there's a difference.

They are still doing what we are naturally structured to do, just the end result is different. Any sexual act outside if this is unnatural, our biology wasn't structured for anything else.

 

[Deleted member]

The natural act is designed to produce kids, it's not producing kids, there's a difference.

They are still doing what we are naturally structured to do, just the end result is different. Any sexual act outside if this is unnatural, our biology wasn't structured for anything else.

And Biology also structured women to be unable to have children after a certain age.

 

[Sucumbio]

I have to ask, what do you think of butt sex between a man and woman? You've prolly already been asked this but I don't feel like skimming 31 pages. The reason I ask is because to me under your premise I'd assume you'd think hetero-anal sex would be unnatural because .. they're doin' it wrong. lol. right?

 

[Dre89]

And Biology also structured women to be unable to have children after a certain age.

Biology also structured us to live only to a certain age, but technology makes us live longer. Women only stop procreating at the point where technology makes us live longer.

Sucumbio, I would consider it wrong because we aren't naturally structured to do that. You're simply just using someones body for pleasure.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Question @ Dre: So anything that defiles original intentions is wrong by your opinion, am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Dre89]

I think so, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Let me try to clear away any misunderstanding with an example.

Would it be immoral to use a real sword as a decoration? (The sword was not made for a decoration it was made as a weapon of war, and thus corrupts its original intentions.)

 

[Debugger]

While I may not be of the homosexual variety myself I don't really see what some people have wrong with it. To some it just doesn't work in their mind and that is their own business. However; it isn't right in my mind for some people to say you are wrong and you should feel terrible for being wrong. That seems like it is trying to shove the "right way" down other people's throats.

It really shouldn't be a problem what some people do. Live and Let Live and all that.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@debugger

That defeats the whole purpose of this debate.

 

[Dre89]

Dragoon, that's an artificial object, so no.

Debugger, I didn't say they should feel terrible, because it's not really their fault, just that they shouldn't practice it.

By your logic, **** would be ok too, because it's just my opinion that it's wrong. And when you say it's wrong because it's harming an innocent person, I can just say that that's your conception of morals.

No offence, but it's not a good idea to come late to a debate and say something really obvious and basic that would obviously have been said at the start of the debate.

Try next time to provide a mire substantial argument that will actually contribute to the debate.

Again I don't mean that in a rude way, just some constructive advice.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dragoon, that's an artificial object, so no

How does an artificial object make it "no"?

 

[Sucumbio]

Dark Horse: because Dre.'s talking about natural acts...

Dre: that's what I thought. Can you offer an explanation, then, as to why sexual acts feel pleasurable? Why is it that the act of sex is so easily corrupted?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dark Horse: because Dre.'s talking about natural acts...

And what makes natural acts different then a sword?

@dre

Saying "we're supposed to stay natural" is denying evolution. Where would we be without evolution?

 

[Dre89]

Sucumbio, I've explained that the pleasure is to entice you into the act, which is why it ends with ejaculation.

It pleasure was an alternate goal, you would be able to chose whether to ejaculate or not, but you can't control it.

In fact men feel pain if they experience prolonged stimulation without ejaculation, making it pretty evident ejaculation is the goal of sex.

DH, I don't really understand how evolution is relevant.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Dragoon, that's an artificial object, so no.

Mmmmm ..... maybe that was a bad example. Let us say I get the perfectly natural impulse (for which ever logical reason take your pick.) to kill some one and I do not kill the person in question. That is going against the purpose of my natural impulse. Am I doing wrong?

Edit:

swords don't grow on trees

That would be awesome though (Ignore this part of the post, please.)

 

[Sucumbio]

And what makes natural acts different then a sword?

swords don't grow on trees

Sucumbio, I've explained that the pleasure is to entice you into the act, which is why it ends with ejaculation.

It pleasure was an alternate goal, you would be able to chose whether to ejaculate or not, but you can't control it.

Actually, I will disagree with this. Pleasure is a sensation that can be felt during the sexual act, true. But ejaculation, though the "end result" (for men, anyway) is not exclusively pleasurable. For instance many people will claim that it's the foreplay that they find the most pleasurable part of sex. Also feeling pleasure is not required to achieve ejaculation in males. For that matter neither is stimulation... the so-called 'wet dream' or nocturnal ejaculation for instance.

In fact men feel pain if they experience prolonged stimulation without ejaculation, making it pretty evident ejaculation is the goal of sex.

Prolonged stimulation of the male can result in a back-up of seminal fluids which can indeed be painful and even a health risk.

The question still remains, why is that the sex act is so easily corruptible? If ejaculation is evidence that sex is meant for procreation only, how does it make sense that men can ejaculate -without- a female involved?

 

[Dre89]

swords don't grow on trees



Actually, I will disagree with this. Pleasure is a sensation that can be felt during the sexual act, true. But ejaculation, though the "end result" (for men, anyway) is not exclusively pleasurable. For instance many people will claim that it's the foreplay that they find the most pleasurable part of sex. Also feeling pleasure is not required to achieve ejaculation in males. For that matter neither is stimulation... the so-called 'wet dream' or nocturnal ejaculation for instance.

In mature males, wet dreams occur as a result of an extended period without ejaculation. If anything, this just further strengthens my point that it is natural to ejaculate.

As for sexual gratification found outside of ejaculation, I would say that is a corruption of what's natural. Secondly, the pleasure in enjoying foreplay may be so intense that it may lead one to ejaculation, where the desire for foreplay will cease.

So let me ask you this, suppose ejaculation occurs, does the male still desire foreplay immediately after? No, because the ejaculation has occurred. Foreplay is merely what leads to ejauclation in this individual case.

Prolonged stimulation of the male can result in a back-up of seminal fluids which can indeed be painful and even a health risk.

The question still remains, why is that the sex act is so easily corruptible? If ejaculation is evidence that sex is meant for procreation only, how does it make sense that men can ejaculate -without- a female involved?

Because humans can corrupt their own nature, that's what the power of reason gives us.

Secondly, there needs to be sexual desire within the individual (without the female) for them to desire the sexual act.

If sexual desire could only occur with a female, then you'd need to be already having sex for the desire of sex to begin. Of course, If there is no desire for sex prior to the sex, what will incline one to have sex in the first place, if there is no desire?

So to me, it makes perfect biological sense that desire and ejauclation can occur without the female.