Lets discuss: Homophobia

[useless]

But let's ignore the lower risk of getting aids from Lesbian sex

 

[holy king]

But let's ignore the lower risk of getting aids from Lesbian sex, all gays are icky and diseased!

they're not even pretending to be talking about homosexuality in general.

 

[holy king]

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.

on second thought, now that's a totally new defintion of natural law you bring into this discussion.

well, alright, prove it exists.

 

[MobBoss]

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

Ok, lets do some educating. http://health.msn.com/health-topics/high-risk-sexual-behavior

Examples of high-risk sexual behavior include:

Unprotected intercourse without male or female condom use, except in a long-term, single-partner (monogamous) relationship.
Unprotected mouth-to-genital contact, except in a long-term monogamous relationship.
Early sexual activity, especially before age 18.
Having multiple sex partners.
Having a high-risk partner (one who has multiple sex partners or other risk factors).
Having anal sex or a partner who does, except in a long-term, single-partner (monogamous) relationship.
Having sex with a partner who injects or has ever injected drugs.
Exchange of sex (sex work) for drugs or money.

Since gay sex is generally characterized by oral or anal sex, its precisely within the definition of high risk sexual practice.

But let's ignore the lower risk of getting aids from Lesbian sex, all gays are icky and diseased!

While the actual sex practices that lesbians frequent do carry lower risk of HIV/AIDs, they (lesbians) still exhibit a higher than average infection rate due several other factors, those being drug use, and engaging in risky sex with men although they self-identify as lesbians. I suggest you read up on some studies from the CDC about it. There is some pretty interesting reading there.

EDIT: http://caps.ucsf.edu/factsheets/women-who-have-sex-with-women-lesbians-2/ will help. For example:

Women who identify as lesbian or bisexual and have sex with men may be at high risk for HIV due to male partnering choices and low condom use. A study of lesbians and bisexual women in San Francisco, CA, found that 81% reported sex with men in the past 3 years. Of those women, 39% reported unprotected vaginal sex and 11% unprotected anal sex. In a survey of lesbians and bisexual women in 16 small US cities, among women who were currently sexually active with a male partner, 39% reported sex with a gay/bisexual man and 20% sex with an IDU.

 

[LucyDuke]

Not one of those things is exclusive to or representative of gay sex.

 

[holy king]

oh i see, gay sex is by definition unprotected.

 

[Tee Kay]

Not one of those things is exclusive to or representative of gay sex.

I believe they are, therefore it is true. ( )

 

[useless]

Let's not forget; homosexuals have many partners, I for example have 10.

 

[MobBoss]

Not one of those things is exclusive to or representative of gay sex.

I didnt say they were (if you noticed I did say hetero and homo earlier), however, that doesnt change the simple fact that gay sex is far more dependent upon high risk sexual practices than common hetro sexual practices.

Sorry, Lucy, but on this one you dont have a very compelling argument against this. Your denial has now entered the 'yeah well, but' phase. It would behoove you far better to simply admit that gay sex (sic) is indeed characterized by risky sexual habits (especially since about any decent study on it will indicate that as well).

oh i see, gay sex is by definition unprotected.

Who said that?

 

[Jehoshua]

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

Your equating it being ingrained within everyone with universal conscious acceptance. The reality of the natural Law is ingrained but consciously as we see man can ignore the natural law or overshadow it say and act contrarily to this natural morality by dehumanising the subject (in the case of acts to other people) or simply by denial that is ingrained to a degree that ingrained morality hardly registers on the conscious mind.

According to your definition with the Natural Law we would have no immorality as everyone would be happily going along in universal conscious acceptance of the natural law all perfect in their morals. A cursory glance around humanity shows this is not the case. This is because conscious acceptance is entirely distinct from the fact it is ingrained in the human person.

-

hardly a new definition rather than a clarification of its particulars in light of your obvious lack of understanding in regards to philosophy in this area. As to those particulars I hardly need to proove them because they proove themselves. For example in regards to homosexual acts since the sexual act in itself biologically is procreative in design, homosexual acts according to descriptor a) of why precisely they are immoral is clearly an immoral act since it denies by definition the natural procreative biological purpose of the sexual act. I don;t need some philosophical ramble to show that.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

The tandem parachutists will be next on the hit list

 

[LucyDuke]

I didnt say they were (if you noticed I did say hetero and homo earlier), however, that doesnt change the simple fact that gay sex is far more dependent upon high risk sexual practices than common hetro sexual practices.

Sorry, Lucy, but on this one you dont have a very compelling argument against this.

No, it isn't. Gay sex is not at all inherently dependent on any of the things you listed. (Hint: there were qualifiers in your list.)

 

[Tee Kay]

Is reproduction the only purpose of a sexual act.

I'll just answer my own question. No.

 

[MobBoss]

No, it isn't. Gay sex is not at all inherently dependent on any of the things you listed. (Hint: there were qualifiers in your list.)

Oh really. So you posit that gay sex doesnt hinge upon anal or oral sex? I think most (professional) opinion will greatly disagree with you here.

Or are you about to argue that all practioners of gay sex are in long term monogamous relationships?

 

[holy king]

ok, you cant prove that natural law exists.

i will thus not believe that homosexuality is immoral under a law there's no proof for. let's leave it at that.

 

[LucyDuke]

Oh really. So you posit that gay sex doesnt hinge upon anal or oral sex? I think most (professional) opinion will greatly disagree with you here.

You forgot your qualifiers.

 

[useless]

Oh really. So you posit that gay sex doesnt hinge upon anal or oral sex? I think most (professional) opinion will greatly disagree with you here.

I didn't realise that gay people inherently liked either!

 

[Jehoshua]

I'll just answer my own question. No.

Argumentum ad lapidem (again): a simple statement of yours doesn't make it correct.

Biologically the sexual act is procreative in nature and design, that is indisputable. Thus according to the natural law homosexual or any other acts contrary to this natural purpose are immoral precisely because they deny the natural purpose.

 

[holy king]

I didnt say they were (if you noticed I did say hetero and homo earlier), however, that doesnt change the simple fact that gay sex is far more dependent upon high risk sexual practices than common hetro sexual practices.

i'm not sure if that speaks for your dirty mind (i can hardly imagine all the common homosexual practices you seem to imagine) or against it, since your heterosexual sex seems to be rather non-imaginative.

 

[LucyDuke]

Argumentum ad lapidem (again): a simple statement of yours doesn't make it correct.

Biologically the sexual act is procreative in nature and design, that is indisputable. Thus according to the natural law homosexual or any other acts contrary to this natural purpose are immoral precisely because they deny the natural purpose.

You've defined the natural law as morality. You are arguing that non-procreational sex is immoral because it is immoral. Tailless is not the one talking himself in circles.