Homosexuality

[Dre89]

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.

Again, what is objectively good is specific to the being. This is where 'natural evil' (I personally believe calling it evil is misleading but that's what it's called) comes from, the differences in the objective goods of different beings.

Also, I think that reference is abit misleading in terms of God's relation to morality.

God, being self-necessary, doesn't adhere to a prior concept of perfection, so He isn't obliged to communicate any particular moral. God is being, He is perfection itself, meaning His act doesn't adhere to perfection, His act defines perfection.

 

[Deleted member]

Great, my lack of English understanding just surpassed me.

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

it also doens't mean they're supposed not to be pursued by certain animals.

Really, what makes it wrong for humans to have gay sex and not for monkeys?
monkeys have an incredibly complex social system, they even fight wars for God's sake.

 

[Dre89]

Supposing that it is in fact gay sex; using the partner as a means to gratify sexual ends, which I'm not necessarily convinced it is, this doesn't change much.

What distinguishes humans from other animals is that they can corrupt their own natures. The human sexual act clearly isn't designed for any sex outside that which is tolerant of producing offspring.

 

[Deleted member]

Again, what is objectively good is specific to the being.

And who decides what is objectively good for humans? you or me certainly not.
And I don't believe in God (of any kind) so I can't say that He does.

 

[Deleted member]

What distinguishes humans from other animals is that they can corrupt their own natures.

what is this "human nature" and how does one corrupt it?
you're being quite vague here.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The human sexual act clearly isn't designed for any sex outside that which is tolerant of producing offspring.

How so ?

 

[Sieguest]

Again, what is objectively good is specific to the being. This is where 'natural evil' (I personally believe calling it evil is misleading but that's what it's called) comes from, the differences in the objective goods of different beings.

Now you're contradicting the enitre definition of an objective morality.

Also, I think that reference is abit misleading in terms of God's relation to morality.

God, being self-necessary, doesn't adhere to a prior concept of perfection, so He isn't obliged to communicate any particular moral. God is being, He is perfection itself, meaning His act doesn't adhere to perfection, His act defines perfection.

This may be true, I mainly used the reference for the general definition of objective morality, not so much anything else it may have contained.

 

[SuperBowser]

There's also examples in one species of penguin where you will find homosexual partners that stay together lifelong.

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.

Also, this is only proof that is natural to want to have sex, not to have children.

I should add that it is also very clear humans can naturally derive pleasure from anal intercourse. This cannot make children. How do you explain this?

 

[Dre89]

Again, this is the problem with trying to explain it to people who aren't familair with philosophy.

Ok let me try to explain this.

'Being' is existing, which is a good in itself. Evil is not the opposite of good/being, it is the absence, or corurption of good/being.

The fact it is an absence is evidenced by the fact that no evils (as in moral evils) are necessary for the preservation, and more importantly, the flourishing of humanity. Things like ****, killing etc. aren't necessary, the world is better without the, and if those acts were universalised, humanity would be in an unnatural state, possibly extinction.

This is shows evil is not the opposite of good, for if it were, it would be of necessity, but it isn't.

What is 'natural' is being itself, for it is the original existence without corruption. What is unnatural is evil, it is a corurption of being.

Animals are means to ends, they cannot alter their desires, or what they contribute to, they merely contribute to their ecosystem, they cannot escape that. They cannot corrupt their being.

Humans flourish and ends in themselves, they can alter what they contribute to, they are not bound by ecosystems, they ruin ecosystems. they have the potential to destroy, which is cleraly unnatural, for it would defeat the purpose of having life in the first place.

As a result of this distinct nature, we can corrupt our own natures. In other words, we can do moral evils.

Basically, I believe it is evidenced in human nature that any sex outside of that which I permit is a corruption of human nature, or human being.

 

[Dre89]

There's also examples in one species of penguin where you will find homosexual partners that stay together lifelong.



Also, this is only proof that is natural to want to have sex, not to have children.

I should add that it is also very clear humans can naturally derive pleasure from anal intercourse. This cannot make children. How do you explain this?

I've explained this. It's a psychological perversion.

Just as you would consider being attracted to kids or hurting women is as well. Are they ok by you too?

 

[Dre89]

Now you're contradicting the enitre definition of an objective morality.

Morality only pertains to humanity, because only humanity has the ability to alter what it contributes to and corrupt it's own nature, so there's no contradiction there.

 

[Deleted member]

the world is better without the[m]

You put casual sex and homosexual sex in this category? how so?

 

[SuperBowser]

No, humans naturally derive pleasure from anal intercourse. This is because of our anatomy and the position of the prostate. How can this possibly occur if the sole goal of sexual intercourse is to procreate?

I've explained this. It's a psychological perversion.

I'm hoping that's not a scientific claim. I've debated this before in DH, so I can quite easily disprove you here (with several sources).

 

[Dre89]

Individually, they're not on the same scale.

The problem is they are self-interested practices. If everyone was only concerned with gratifying sexual impulses and practiced them, humanity would die out.

There is no sense of contribution, those practices can't be universalised.

I understand that's a hard concept to grasp because western society is so individualistic these days. Everything is about what's best for you, not for the community.

 

[Dre89]

No, humans naturally derive pleasure from anal intercourse. This is because of our anatomy and the position of the prostate. How can this possibly occur if the sole goal of sexual intercourse is to procreate?



I'm hoping that's not a scientific claim. I've debated this before in DH, so I can quite easily disprove you here (with several sources).

So then how do you classify a sexual perversion?

In my argument, there is a distinction between what I endorse and what I consider a perversion. What's yours?

 

[Sieguest]

Morality only pertains to humanity, because only humanity has the ability to alter what it contributes to and corrupt it's own nature, so there's no contradiction there.

But you called it a natural law, shouldn't a natural law pertain to all things in nature?

On another note, one of your earlier posts reminded me of something.
The definition of philosophy.

Philosophy by definition is subjective. It is even evidenced in how some of the great philosophers of older times did not even coincide in all of their beliefs. So how can you argue something of an inherently subjective nature, as objective?

Note: There is a link in the word "philosophy".

 

[Dre89]

But you called it a natural law, shouldn't a natural law pertain to all things in nature?

On another note, one of your earlier posts reminded me of something.
The definition of philosophy.

Philosophy by definition is subjective. It is even evidenced in how some of the great philosophers of older times did not even coincide in all of their beliefs. So how can you argue something of an inherently subjective nature, as objective?

Note: There is a link in the word "philosophy".

There are natural laws as in physics etc. but natural law in ethical terms refers to the perfecting of being, which of course differs from being to being.

Philosophy, as with all human thought, acknowledges logic as a credible principle. Even saying that philosophy or logic can't be used to deduce truth is using using logic.

Nature isn't subjective. Human potentiality, set of desires, inclinations etc. aren't subjective. That's what I mean when I say it's appealing to a universal authority, it's accepting that your individual logic won't find the answers, and looking to nature instead.

 

[SuperBowser]

You didn't answer my anatomy question. How can you claim sexual acts are solely designed for procreation when this contradiction exists?

Three criteria I would use for disorder of a sexual preference, though it's a difficult question:

1. Most people in the society regard the sexual behavious as abnormal.
2. The sexual behaviour can be harmful to other people (e.g. sadistic practices).
3. The person with this preference suffers from its consequences (e.g. conflict between their preference and moral standards)

I don't view homosexuality as harmful to other people.

 

[Dre89]

You didn't answer my anatomy question. How can you claim sexual acts are solely designed for procreation when this contradiction exists?

People experience sexual stimulation in various manners, some of which I'd argue are corruptions. Not everyone enjoys anal sex.

Three criteria I would use for disorder of a sexual preference, though it's a difficult question:

1. Most people in the society regard the sexual behavious as abnormal.

Differs between societies. Ancient Greeks slept with young boys all the time.

2. The sexual behaviour can be harmful to other people (e.g. sadistic practices).

Child pornography, or any fantasy which isn't acted upon isn't harmful.

3. The person with this preference suffers from its consequences (e.g. conflict between their preference and moral standards)

Their moral standards may permit the act, such as in ancient Cgreece

I don't view homosexuality as harmful to other people.

You haven't defined sexual perversions, you just set out a subjedtive criteria. By your standards, any sexual fantasy is not a perversion in the right context.

 

[SuperBowser]

People experience sexual stimulation in various manners, some of which I'd argue are corruptions. Not everyone enjoys anal sex.

But we are anatomically designed to enjoy anal intercourse.

And I know the criteria I have used are subjective. The idea of sexual deviance has changed throughout history; you are asking me to define something that tells you by its very name it is subjective.

You claimed that homosexuality is a psychological perversion. This implies you believe it can be corrected through psychological means?

 

[Sieguest]

There are natural laws as in physics etc. but natural law in ethical terms refers to the perfecting of being, which of course differs from being to being.

I see what you're saying, now to see whether the second clause can truly be declared subjective.

Philosophy, as with all human thought, acknowledges logic as a credible principle. Even saying that philosophy or logic can't be used to deduce truth is using using logic.

Bingo, what is subjective is what is influenced by our individual thoughts and interpretations. Logic is derived from our thought processes, so logic in this sense can be thought of as a subjective thing.

However before you say that this is how we can derive objective from subjective and citing the example that cars move forward and we use logic to deduce this. Logic can be objective in another sense. Ideas derived from clearly evident and observable things use objective logic. One can take note of a cars forward motion in relation to depressing the accelerator. Therefore a conclusion can be derived in this way.

On the other hand, philosophy is the interpretation of facts found through objective logic. This interpretation of the facts is subjective.
In this way, I can say that philosophy and subjective logic can't be used to deduce truth.

Nature isn't subjective. Human potentiality, set of desires, inclinations etc. aren't subjective. That's what I mean when I say it's appealing to a universal authority, it's accepting that your individual logic won't find the answers, and looking to n

So are you basically saying that we all want to do the same things? This is what it seems like you're getting at.

 

[Dre89]

SuperBowser it has been.

Catholic organisations have converted people into heterosexual Catholics.

Even if it couldn't be corrected, that doesn't weaken the argument, because it's still hugely evident that whilst homosexuality isn't consciously chosen, it's still psychologically influenced.

And even if it weren't psychological, that doesn't mean it isn't a defection, because things like down syndrome are still defections and that's a a chromosonal corruption.

 

[Deleted member]

post
Still haven't answered me.

also to quote your original post

The fact it is an absence is evidenced by the fact that no evils (as in moral evils) are necessary for the preservation, and more importantly, the flourishing of humanity. Things like ****, killing etc. aren't necessary, the world is better without the, and if those acts were universalised, humanity would be in an unnatural state, possibly extinction.

collecting stamps would fall under this.

TL;DR
I find this definition flawed as you could put a lot of things (including casual sex and homosexual sex) under evil which really aren't.

EDIT: by now you have brought in god, humans superiority and Down syndrome into play. What analogy will you pull out of your sleeve next?

 

[Dre89]

I see what you're saying, now to see whether the second clause can truly be declared subjective.

Bingo, what is subjective is what is influenced by our individual thoughts and interpretations. Logic is derived from our thought processes, so logic in this sense can be thought of as a subjective thing.

However before you say that this is how we can derive objective from subjective and citing the example that cars move forward and we use logic to deduce this. Logic can be objective in another sense. Ideas derived from clearly evident and observable things use objective logic. One can take note of a cars forward motion in relation to depressing the accelerator. Therefore a conclusion can be derived in this way.

On the other hand, philosophy is the interpretation of facts found through objective logic. This interpretation of the facts is subjective.
In this way, I can say that philosophy and subjective logic can't be used to deduce truth.

But so is everything else then, even science. Science is based off the philosophy that empirical methodology deduces truth.

So are you basically saying that we all want to do the same things? This is what it seems like you're getting at.

Not specifically. But we all have the same universal inclinations. We all merit logic, we all accept testimony at a young age without justifying it first. We all desire survival, we all desire sex etc.

If things were truly relative, we wouldn't have specific inclinations, we'd have none at all, or they'd all be of equal intensity, but they're clearly not.

 

[Dre89]

post
Still haven't answered me.

I've got alot on my plate as you can see, it's hard to cater to everyone when the debate is so one-sided

also to quote your original post

collecting stamps would fall under this.

No it wouldn't. Collecting stamps isn't of necessity, it isn't an objective good, but it's not morally impermissable because it's not corrupting anything either.

The fact that evils aren't necessary is just used to show that it is an absence, not opposite of good.

TL;DR
I find this definition flawed as you could put a lot of things (including casual sex and homosexual sex) under evil which really aren't.

That's just because you perceive evil as harming others against their own good, which is understandable in today's time.

EDIT: by now you have brought in god, humans superiority and Down syndrome into play. What analogy will you pull out of your sleeve next?

I use examples to indicate the implications of the logic of certain arguments.

 

[SuperBowser]

Catholic organisations have converted people into heterosexual Catholics.

I could make a very long post here.

There is absolutely no scientific adequate evidence as things currently stand to support this belief. Nothing exists to show if therapy is safe or effective. If you want to make this claim, please provide evidence.

And even if it weren't psychological, that doesn't mean it isn't a defection, because things like down syndrome are still defections and that's a a chromosonal corruption.

For something to be a defection the way you are putting it, one needs to consider homosexuality a psychiatric disorder. Psychiatrists and psychologists do not.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

 

[Deleted member]

No it wouldn't. Collecting stamps isn't of necessity, it isn't an objective good, but it's not morally impermissable because it's not corrupting anything either.

so why is homosexuality corrupting anything and collecting stamps isn't?

and my edit was to show a physical disease like Down syndrome has no place in this debate.

 

[Sieguest]

But so is everything else then, even science. Science is based off the philosophy that empirical methodology deduces truth.

Now I direct you to the first definition that is listed in the definition of philosophy.

Not specifically. But we all have the same universal inclinations. We all merit logic, we all accept testimony at a young age without justifying it first. We all desire survival, we all desire sex etc.

If things were truly relative, we wouldn't have specific inclinations, we'd have none at all, or they'd all be of equal intensity, but they're clearly not.

If natural law was truly objective we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. (In all seriousness)

 

[Dre89]

I could make a very long post here.

There is absolutely no scientific adequate evidence as things currently stand to support this belief. Nothing exists to show if therapy is safe or effective. If you want to make this claim, please provide evidence.

I don't need to because it's not central to my argument. Whether or not they have been converted has nothing to do with it, I was just answering your question.

For something to be a defection the way you are putting it, one needs to consider homosexuality a psychiatric disorder. Psychiatrists and psychologists do not.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Homosexuality is just a flaw like any other, I bet they don't consider being a jerk a psychiatric disorder either.

 

[Dre89]

so why is homosexuality corrupting anything and collecting stamps isn't?

and my edit was to show a physical disease like Down syndrome has no place in this debate.

Because the practice of homosexuality is corrupting the natural process and goal of the sexual act.

Collecting stamps isn't corrupting anything.

 

[Deleted member]

Homosexuality is just a flaw like any other, I bet they don't consider being a jerk a psychiatric disorder either.

any other what?

EDIT: who said the sole goal of the sexual act is procreation?

 

[Dre89]

Now I direct you to the first definition that is listed in the definition of philosophy.



If natural law was truly objective we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. (In all seriousness)

Again, what distinguishes humans from other creatures is the ability to corrupt our own natures, meaning we can be wrong.

 

[Dre89]

any other what?

EDIT: who said the sole goal of the sexual act is procreation?

Like any other flaw.

A flaw is simply an imperfection, a particular failure to fulfil your human nature.

I put my argument across before of why I think sex is soley for procreation.

EDIT: Sorry to dissappoint but it's 2 am here I need to go to bed I have to get up early. It's been an interesting debate, and we can continue this another time. Goodnight/morning/day whatever it is where you are.

 

[SuperBowser]

I don't need to because it's not central to my argument. Whether or not they have been converted has nothing to do with it, I was just answering your question.

Well it would be nice if you acknowledged you are wrong sometimes. It's important because beliefs like this all contribute (not to say you specifically do) to the stigma and prejudices we see against homosexual people today. You can't ''cure'' it and it isn't a choice.


I think the implications of this point are very important actually. If you aren't willing to defend this viewpoint, you accept that homosexual people cannot change the way they are. We can then see what your argument is really saying: you are asking these people to never have a sexual relationship in their life. Furthermore, you would make it illegal for them to do so.

 

[Dre89]

Well it would be nice if you acknowledged you are wrong sometimes. It's important because beliefs like this all contribute (not to say you specifically do) to the stigma and prejudices we see against homosexual people today. You can't ''cure'' it and it isn't a choice.


I think the implications of this point are very important actually. If you aren't willing to defend this viewpoint, you accept that homosexual people cannot change the way they are. We can then see what your argument is really saying: you are asking these people to never have a sexual relationship in their life. Furthermore, you would make it illegal for them to do so.

Read the edit in my above post lol.

I do have an aswer for this though, but unfortunately it'll have to wait. Sorry.

 

[SuperBowser]

edit: i realised you meant just read the edit section lol.

May as well add, I don't think you've addressed the anal intercourse question well enough yet either. We are all designed to feel pain. However, some people are born without this ability to feel pain. Giving an example of someone you know who doesn't enjoy anal intercourse doesn't prove anything or account for the discrepancy between your claim and the way we are born.

 

[Crimson King]

Didn't read whole thread, but what about sterile couples? Your argument is contingent on procreation being a key reason for sex, yet people are infertile. Explain. Also, natural sterility occurs in males with down syndrome but not females, so there is proof that sterility can occur from birth.

 

[SuperBowser]

While we're at it, why don't we add any woman who has undergone menopause. Nearly all of them continue to have sexual intercourse.

I was hoping to drop that bombshell tomorrow but oh well.

 

[Deleted member]

well he said he considered casual sex wrong so that last one isn't really a new case.

 

[GoldShadow]

I've explained this. It's a psychological perversion.

Just as you would consider being attracted to kids or hurting women is as well. Are they ok by you too?

Surprised this hasn't been addressed (or has it? I've only skimmed this thread).

Two homosexual adults can mutually consent to engage in sexual behavior. No one is harmed because both participants are able and willing to consent.

Children do not have the mental capacity to consent. They do not have the mental capacity to understand the ramifications of sex. In cases of sex with a minor, the minor is harmed.

When somebody abuses a woman, the woman is harmed.

You cannot legitimately compare homosexuality to either of these things.