Lets discuss: Homophobia

[MobBoss]

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

Gay people dont like anal or oral sex? Interesting. Doesnt leave them many options left does it? If you are saying they dont (inherently)like either of those, what else is left that is common practice?

 

[Jehoshua]

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.

what would you in your own opinion define as proof.

I have shown particularly in the case of homosexual acts that they are contrary to the natural purpose of the sexual faculty and thus are ipso facto contrary to the natural law. All you have made thus far are arguments on a flawed and incorrect interpretation of my responses and upon simplistic and ultimately fallacious arguments. Finally now upon the latest clarification you now respond with a simple denial and go on your merry way.

All this shows on your part is an attitude typical of people confronted with an opposing idea or alternatively the wrongness of their acts. Denial. They refuse rational argument and the merits of an opposing argument and fail to engage in a genuine dialogue precisely because to do so would be to confront their own error.

 

[Flying Pig]

Gay people dont like anal or oral sex? Interesting. Doesnt leave them many options left does it? If you are saying they dont (inherently)like either of those, what else is left that is common practice?

...call yourself a squaddie? More than one way to sexually satisfy the cat, as it were.

 

[LucyDuke]

(lesbians) still exhibit a higher than average infection rate

You haven't sourced that part, btw.

 

[MobBoss]

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.

I dont pretend that heterosexuals dont practice any and all kinds of sex that homosexuals practice. Of course they do. But the rates of those sex practices among heteros and homos do differ.

Do you disagree?

You haven't sourced that part, btw.

Linked earlier.

There was also an even more comprehensive study listed regarding 'women who have sex with women' on the CDC website, but although the link is still there the study itself has been removed. Odd.

 

[Tee Kay]

Biologically the sexual act is procreative in nature and design, that is indisputable.

I'll grant that it's one purpose of it...

 

[Jehoshua]

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.

hardly. I have argued that acts that are contrary to the natural law are immoral. Again an example of taking something I have said and twisting it in an attempt to support your own worldview.

Thus I have said non-procreational sex is immoral because it is contrary to the natural procreative purpose of the sexual act and is thus contrary to the natural law.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'll help.

Unprotected mouth-to-genital contact, except in a long-term monogamous relationship.
Having anal sex or a partner who does [have a high risk partner?], except in a long-term, single-partner (monogamous) relationship.

Those are very specific. It doesn't say oral sex and anal sex. It says QUALIFIER oral sex QUALIFIER and anal sex QUALIFIER QUALIFIER.

 

[MobBoss]

I'll help.

Unprotected mouth-to-genital contact, except in a long-term monogamous relationship.
Having anal sex or a partner who does [have a high risk partner?], except in a long-term, single-partner (monogamous) relationship.

Those are very specific. It doesn't say oral sex and anal sex. It says QUALIFIER oral sex QUALIFIER and anal sex QUALIFIER QUALIFIER.

Ah, so now all gay people use condoms and are in long term monogamous relationships and engage in those high risk practices equally as heterosexuals do.

Got it.

Again, Lucy, the facts on this dont work for you in this argument. But hey, your mind is set here, so nothing I am going to offer is going to change your opinion in the slightest, even if I offer up links, proof and various definitions to counter your opinion. So....as we so often do, lets just agree to disagree and call it good, eh?

 

[Jehoshua]

I'll grant that it's one purpose of it...

Indeed it is. There is also a unitative purpose, however when the sexual act denies one or both of these purposes it is immoral. In the case of homosexual acts it denies the biological and naturally ordained purpose of the sexual act (procreation) and is thus immoral.

Rape is immoral because it denies the unitative purpose in that one of the persons is being violently forced against their will to engage in sexual behavior, and yet presuming this is heterosexual and without contraception this does not deny the procreative purpose, but it is equally if not more immoral regardless because of the denial ofthe unitative purpose and the degradation of the human dignity of one of the parties involved.

 

[LucyDuke]

hardly. I have argued that acts that are contrary to the natural law are immoral. Again an example of taking something I have said and twisting it in an attempt to support your own worldview.

Thus I have said non-procreational sex is immoral because it is contrary to the natural procreative purpose of the sexual act and is thus contrary to the natural law.

Your words:

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

Non-procreational sex is "contrary to [procreation] and thus contrary to [morality]". That's supposed to be why it is immoral? Because it's immoral? Throwing extra bus stops into the loop doesn't make it less of a loop.

 

[Jehoshua]

The natural law is precisely that. The understanding of natural morality is ingrained in each human person. However that requires qualifiers in tangible acts which thus break that natural morality.

Thus it is against morals to do (x) because it violates the natural purpose of (y) and thus immoral. This natural morality is ingrained in every human person.

Hardly contradictory and definitely not simply a case of its immoral because its immoral. You simply are holding quite frankly to a ridiculous interpretation of what I have said perhaps because your own behaviour is thus immoral under it, the only other option is you simply are not intellectually inclined to understand the written word.
Moderator Action: Another option is for you to not make personal assumptions about other people and post them here as if they were were true. Make your case as best you can, but please leave the personal attacks out of the discussion.

 

[holy king]

what would you in your own opinion define as proof.

I have shown particularly in the case of homosexual acts that they are contrary to the natural purpose of the sexual faculty and thus are ipso facto contrary to the natural law. All you have made thus far are arguments on a flawed and incorrect interpretation of my responses and upon simplistic and ultimately fallacious arguments. Finally now upon the latest clarification you now respond with a simple denial and go on your merry way.

first of all, there is no such thing as natural purpose. evolution happens, it doesnt have a purpose.
sex came to be because it gave the life forms reproducing by sex a selection advantage. there's no purpose to sex, it just makes life forms who have it more successfull than those who dont.

second of all, you say because homosexuality is against this (nonexistant) natural purpose it is against some natural law you have thus far failed to prove it exists.

 

[Jehoshua]

sex is biologically procreative. without it a species could not survive as all members would eventually cease to be. Thus the act itself has a purpose even if evolution or what have you has no other purpose beyond simply existing and an act denying this procreative nature to the sexual faculty is thus contrary to its purpose and can secularly be considered immoral under the natural law.

How can I prove something when as of yet you havent told me what you define as proof.

I have shown that it is contrary to the natural faculty of the sexual act which is one of the tangible qualifiers of immorality under the Natural Law. From what your saying you expect me to come up with some tangible evidence for what is an intangible reality aside from the logic of the particulars I have already described, naturally it is impossible to give tangible evidence for the intangible. I cant dredge your brain and come up with natural law particles can I. It would be equivalent to attempt to prove the existence of something such as justice which lacks a tangible manifestation beyond its various particulars.

So I ask once again define what you mean as reasonable evidence.

 

[Tee Kay]

Indeed it is. There is also a unitative purpose, however when the sexual act denies one or both of these purposes it is immoral. In the case of homosexual acts it denies the biological and naturally ordained purpose of the sexual act (procreation) and is thus immoral.

Rape is immoral because it denies the unitative purpose in that one of the persons is being violently forced against their will to engage in sexual behavior, and yet presuming this is heterosexual and without contraception this does not deny the procreative purpose, but it is equally if not more immoral regardless because of the denial ofthe unitative purpose and the degradation of the human dignity of one of the parties involved.

So would you argue that rape and homosexuality are equally immoral?

 

[Jehoshua]

So would you argue that rape and homosexuality are equally immoral?

I am not one with authority to determine which is more or less immoral. If you read my post though I said that rape is equally if not MORE immoral. I would personally think rape is of a graver nature as in addition to denying the unitative purpose (and in some cases also the procreative) it also seriously violates the dignity of the human person (in the case of the victim) whereas homosexual acts do not violate this dignity when they are conducted consensually although of course they violate the procreative purpose.

They are however both immoral and can nowhere be approved.

 

[holy king]

sex has the same quality of purpose for a species as the force of adhesion has for two butt cheeks to stick together.

How can I prove something when as of yet you havent told me what you define as proof.

a series of syllogisms would be nice, instead of just saying it exists over and over.

 

[Tee Kay]

So I can say that violating either of the natural purposes is not inherently immoral and still hold rape to be morally abhorrent. That's good.

 

[Jehoshua]

So I can say that violating either of the natural purposes is not inherently immoral and still hold rape to be morally abhorrent. That's good.

on the contrary violating either one of the natural purposes is immoral and is everywhere to be condemned precisely because to deny either one is abhorrent.

As to Holy_King I have already given you logical reasoning for the immorality of homosexual acts. It violates the natural purpose and is thus immoral, and that this understanding of morals is ingrained into the being of the human person. Once again you are simply avoiding what I have said probably for reasons I have already mentioned in this thread in similar instances. (ie you are likely a homosexual and accepting what I have said would imply to you that you are acting immoraly)

 

[LucyDuke]

Ah, so now all gay people use condoms and are in long term monogamous relationships and engage in those high risk practices equally as heterosexuals do.

Got it.

Who said that?