Lets discuss: Homophobia

[useless]

There -is- no "natural" law, Humans are animals. These laws (if they exist) are social constructs.

 

[Jehoshua]

What makes you say non-procreational sex is immoral?

because it denies the natural use of the sexual act it can thus be said to be immoral secularly. However in addition to that as the one called uselesss so eloquently said sexual acts that incidentally violate the procreative purpose are rejected and condemned by the Church and within sacred scripture.

 

[Jehoshua]

There -is- no "natural" law, Humans are animals. These laws (if they exist) are social constructs.

Argumentum ad lapidem: Saying that something is so doesn't make your argument correct.

 

[useless]

Wait what?

 

[Jehoshua]

you used a logical fallacy in your argument in that you said something and failed to provide justification for your argument.

 

[LucyDuke]

because it denies the natural use of the sexual act it can thus be said to be immoral secularly. However in addition to that as the one called uselesss so eloquently said sexual acts that incidentally violate the procreative purpose are rejected and condemned by the Church and within sacred scripture.

"It's non-procreational so it can thus be said to be immoral" does nothing to explain why it is immoral.

Saying that something is so doesn't make your argument correct.
You said something and failed to provide justification for your argument.

What makes that sex immoral?

 

[Tee Kay]

One doesn;t require resorting to sex to actually have a meaningful and "fun' existence.

I'm not sure that any one here actually believes otherwise.

 

[Jehoshua]

"It's non-procreational so it can thus be said to be immoral" does nothing to explain why it is immoral.

Sex evolved to facilitate procreation, given.
We have sex that does not facilitate procreation, given.

What makes that sex immoral?

One argues that since the sexual act has a biological purpose, making use of the sexual faculty contrary to this biological purpose is immoral in that to do so is denying its fundamental purpose and acting as such contrarily to the natural law ergo immoral.

I'm not sure that any one here actually believes otherwise.

obviously: best to mention it anyway in order to ensure that living according to a moral sexual existence doesn't neccesitate mind-numbing boredom.

 

[Tee Kay]

One argues that since the sexual act has a biological purpose, making use of the sexual faculty contrary to this biological purpose is immoral in that to do so is denying its fundamental purpose and acting as such contrarily to the natural law.

Is reproduction the only purpose of a sexual act.

 

[holy king]

So you took my reference to the universal recognition of hte immorality of casual murder and equated that to the Natural Law. Effectively your attacking a construct of your own creation that I never said.

This I said about natural law.

The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person.

and then in the very next sentence I cited an example and simply mentioned it was universally considered immoral which you then equated with a definition for natural law proper erroneously and in order to support your own argument.

no. i showed you murder is not universally considered immoral. ergo, murder is not against the natural law as defined by you.
homosexuality, btw, is not universally considered immoral either. ergo homosexuality is not against the natural law as defined by you.

you could go on trying to prove that a natural law with the following definition

The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person.

even exists, since citing examples that dont even fit your definition is not proof (hint: even if they would fit your definition that wouldnt be proof) of the said natural law existing.

anyway, since your premise was to prove that homosexuality is against this natural law, but this failed already (since homosexuality is NOT universally accepted as immoral, thus homosexuality being immoral doesnt fit your definition of natural law, remember?) you could as well give up proving it exists.
as you like it.


now all this of course is not proof that homosexuality is not immoral, it is however proof that homosexuality is not immoral as per the "natural law" as defined by you.

also, the whole thing shows you are completely unable to prove the existance of your natural law.

 

[LucyDuke]

Ah, I didn't ninja quickly enough.

What is the natural law?

EDIT

"The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person."

You're going circular here. Non-procreational sex is immoral because it is contrary to your "natural law". Your "natural law" is "the natural morality". What is that natural morality, and why is non-procreational sex contrary to it?

 

[holy king]

The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person.

it's just a hypothesis though, since there's no proof for it.

 

[MobBoss]

No, because there is definitely some bad effect on the individual and on society from being an alcoholic or a prostitute. For someone who is gay to act on his inclinations is, if anything, good for him.

Errr. Huh? You think engaging in high risk sexual practices is 'good' for you?

Not sure I would agree there. Hetro or Homosexual.

As to the OP, not sure we would ever agree on the definition of homophobia to be honest. Your definition is sure to be far more broad than how I would define it.

 

[LucyDuke]

Errr. Huh? You think engaging in high risk sexual practices is 'good' for you?

Not sure I would agree there. Hetro or Homosexual.

As to the OP, not sure we would ever agree on the definition of homophobia to be honest. Your definition is sure to be far more broad than how I would define it.

Gay sex is not a high risk sexual practice.

BTW, here are a bunch of dictionary definitions of homophobia.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10435990&postcount=454

 

[Jehoshua]

no. i showed you murder is not universally considered immoral. ergo, murder is not against the natural law as defined by you.
homosexuality, btw, is not universally considered immoral either. ergo homosexuality is not against the natural law as defined by you.

you could go on trying to prove that a natural law with the following definition

even exists, since citing examples that dont even fit your definition is not proof (hint: even if they would fit your definition that wouldnt be proof) of the said natural law existing.

anyway, since your premise was to prove that homosexuality is against this natural law, but this failed already (since homosexuality is NOT universally accepted as immoral, thus homosexuality being immoral doesnt fit your definition of natural law, remember?) you could as well give up proving it exists.
as you like it.

now all this of course is not proof that homosexuality is not immoral, it is however proof that homosexuality is not immoral as per the "natural law" as defined by you.

also, the whole thing shows you are completely unable to prove the existance of your natural law.

again you are attempting to equate my assumption of the universal acceptance of casual murder as immoral as intrinsic to the definition of defining something as immoral according to the natural law. If that was the case I wouldn't be arguing homosexual acts are immoral as you so eloquently state according to it for obvious reasons. You are effectively basing your argument contary to mine on something I never said regarding the definition of what constitutes immorality under the natural law.

To specify it explicitly so that even the less intellectually inclined amongst the people on these forums can understand.

Universal acceptance is not intrinsic to the definition of what constitutes immorality under the Natural Law.

What does as far as my limited understanding on the topic states, is that it violates either a) the natural usage or purpose as in homosexual acts or that it b) act contrarily to the fundamental dignity of man or c) that it is contrary to the natural conscience of man. These three things are not mutually exclusive nor do they all neccesarily have to be present.

Again I might mention that you are making an argument against a definition of your own fabrication in regards to universal acceptance.

 

[MobBoss]

Gay sex is not a high risk sexual practice.

Uhm...yes, it is. Whether it is practiced by gays or straights.

 

[classical_hero]

Gay sex is not a high risk sexual practice.

If you seriously believe that, then you are not based in reality.

 

[LucyDuke]

You two can go ahead and educate us on how it is, then. And yes, I seriously believe that.

 

[useless]

Apparently somehow, Gay sex is more effective in giving someone aids, more effective than say heterosexual sex.

 

[holy king]

Again I might mention that you are making an argument against a definition of your own fabrication.

ehm, no i'm arguing against your definition:


The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person.

you see if you meant every human being, this would have meant universal acceptance. but obviously you didnt.

Universal acceptance is not intrinsic to the definition of what constitutes immorality under the Natural Law.

The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person.

so you didnt mean every human person? well, should have made that clear from the start.

so, who are those human persons that do have the natural morality ingrained in them, thus define what the natural law is?