Lets discuss: Homophobia

[Flying Pig]

Hardly, you are extrapolating first principles (ie something is unnatural) onto a second principle which is the interpretation or conclusion derived from first principles. The question of morality is not derived ipso facto it is contrary to natural purpose because as disabled person is using his hands when he lackes legs, it is a determination based on reason. Thus in the case of walking on hands your refutation hardly is applicable or even a refutation.

I'm sorry but I really haven't the slightest clue what you're going on about. Could you try it again in English?

 

[holy king]

If we are taking hints from nature, why have we not allowed bestiality? It is something I keep bringing up in these discussion since no one has an effective counter as to why we don't allow that activity if we do allow Homosexuality. Both of these acts occur in nature and yet one of them is illegal in most countries and the other is not. We are not being very considerate. Also using the terms disgusting should be used for bestiality if we can't use it for homosexuality.

because animals can not consent. /end side discussion.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Morality is (partially) suggested behaviour and nature is what impacts that behaviour and is what causes the outcome of that behaviour.

It's nature that causes chili sauce to be painful and sugar to be pleasant. Therefore, the morality of giving chili sauce or sugar to children is based off of nature. If the natural conditions are different, then the morality of specific actions are different.

Morality is determined by our biology, and our biology is determine by our history.

Your chili sauce situation does not mean that morality and nature are tied to one another at all times though.

In Islamic countries morality says that you can't have hot gay sex. Yet, if nature tells me that I have sexual impulses, and my buddy Bill over there is willing to fulfill those sexual urges, would the act of gay sex contradict natural instinct? There are all kinds of creatures in the animal world that engage homosexual behavior. Why can't humans? The morals placed upon culturally differentiating views on homosexuality are not based in anything natural. They are societal constructs designed to perpetuate a pre-ordained "best way" of behaving. Those rules are impositions that go against many natural tendencies and desires. And in the case of the vast majority of homosexual acts, ignore that they are natural impulses.

 

[El_Machinae]

Your chili sauce situation does not mean that morality and nature are tied to one another at all times though.

In Islamic countries morality says that you can't have hot gay sex. Yet, if nature tells me that I have sexual impulses, and my buddy Bill over there is willing to fulfill those sexual urges, would the act of gay sex contradict natural instinct? There are all kinds of creatures in the animal world that engage homosexual behavior. Why can't humans? The morals placed upon culturally differentiating views on homosexuality are not based in anything natural. They are societal constructs designed to perpetuate a pre-ordained "best way" of behaving. Those rules are impositions that go against many natural tendencies and desires. And in the case of the vast majority of homosexual acts, ignore that they are natural impulses.

Well, there's the easy comeback that the Islamic countries have incomplete and poor conceptions of morality. There IS a natural morality, but people have less-than-full understanding of it (much like we don't understand most natural laws), and their societal constructs can teach wrong morals. I mean, Islamic countries bungle teaching evolutionary theory to their citizens, too, but that doesn't mean that there's no actual evolutionary theory. They just don't understand it.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Homophobic is an inaccurately biased word often times when it is used for people objecting morally and religiously, not fearfully. I wish it would be replaced with something else.

 

[useless]

Bigotry then.

 

[holy king]

people object morally and religiously because they find teh gay gross, not because they are fervently into ethics and theology.

people dont work as rationally as they like to think with their oh so elaborate thought constructs.

 

[SG-17]

No, it is NOT acceptable to make racist, homophobic or disabled jokes, Jesus Christ.

I have to disagree here. Jokes are just that, jokes. They aren't serious in nature at all. Hell most of the "life story" jokes aren't even factual. I don't see the problem in making jokes about any subject whatsoever. This includes the Holocaust and 9/11. Of course it can be pretty much universally agreed that they are distasteful, but that doesn't make them anymore wrong than a joke about your in-laws. People might not like it and find it offensive, but then there is rarely a subject that someone doesn't find offensive.

In reality homophobia, racism, murder, and genocide are wrong. But comedy isn't reality.


Now I am skipping over 8+ pages of discussion here, but by the first few pages I can see that it is just an argument between a Christian and a few rational people.

Anyway it seems to me that homosexuals and atheists are the last minority group that it is socially tolerable to discriminate against, despite what the law and especially what the Supreme Court Rules (which surprising has been in favor of atheism for the most part). Of course people who think either are wrong and neither should be afforded equal rights are bigots and horrible people who have no place in society.

 

[timtofly]

Since there is no God and there is no Bible, why are you offended by it? There is no such thing as homosexuality. It is all in your mind and I have no problems with it. There is no hell and thus you will not go there. Unfortunetly I had to go through 10 pages to even get a chance to vent, and thanks for the opportunity. Cheers.

 

[holy king]

i think god was last mentioned on page 2 or so, so what the hell are you on about?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Please keep things civil.

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

people object morally and religiously because they find teh gay gross, not because they are fervently into ethics and theology.

people dont work as rationally as they like to think with their oh so elaborate thought constructs.

I just skip over those types of posts. It all starts to sound like white noise when you realize that all religions are mad-made.

 

[NickyJ]

DO NOT compare the two, homosexuality is between consenting adults.

Why not? They're both between consenting living organisms aren't they? And why the caps for "DO NOT"? You don't like bestiality? BIGOT!!!! BESTIALOPHOBE!!!!

 

[useless]

Why not? They're both between consenting living organisms aren't they? And why the caps for "DO NOT"? You don't like bestiality? BIGOT!!!! BESTIALOPHOBE!!!!

People; this is the reason why I am so aggressive towards homophobes, this post here.

Bigots constantly liken Pedophilia or Beastility to Homosexuality, in an attempt to demonise it.

Moderator Action: Try to use the word bigot a little less, just say "people" or some other word (even if you really think they are bigots, no sense inflaming the other side more). Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lone Wolf]

Statistics say that most zoophiles are (non-human) animals.

 

[MobBoss]

All hetrosexuals are like that? To say that infidelity and recklessness are 'gay' problems is a little extreme

Except I didnt say that. However, I dont think the demographs experience the same ratio of those issues. While heterosexuals do engage in higher risk practices like anal and oral sex, homosexuals (especially gay men) engage in those practices at a far higher rate. My point being, when one makes the comment 'gay sex' what does that mean exactly in common parlance? To the vast majority is means anal and oral sex - both of which are defined as risky sexual behaviors.

Do you disagree with that?

 

[NickyJ]

People; this is the reason why I am so aggressive towards homophobes, this post here.

Bigots constantly liken Pedophilia or Beastility to Homosexuality, in an attempt to demonise it.

So you admit to being bigoted against beastility and zoophiles? I KNEW IT!!!! How dare you, you zoophobe!

Moderator Action: That's about enough of that, please heed BJ's warning. 1. Back on topic, and 2. Do not compare homosexuality with beastiality.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Thread closed for cool-down period. Will reopen later.

 

[Moss]

Moderator Action: Thread reopened. Be polite, discuss actual points and not posters, and stay on topic or it will be closed for good.

 

[Ajidica]

--Please ignore, wrong thread---