Lets discuss: Homophobia

[El_Machinae]

No, there's no guarantee that we can ever properly understand natural law. You can only approximately get better at it. So, yes, rational discourse and thinking can get you a better understanding, but there's no reason to think it's a complete understanding. And, obviously, rational discourse can get ruined if some of the people are trying to shoehorn in deceiving texts.

 

[Jehoshua]

Someone asks you for proof of Natural Rights, and you say that it doesn't exist and requires mental exertion to arrive at the conclusion that they exist. Well guess what buddy, we may haven't found the genetic mutation which causes homosexuality, but we will. It simply requires a little bit of mental exertion that it is indeed a natural occurrence. And let's pretend that it's not. Let's pretend that I just wanna go out and bang a dude. I mean, I wanna get really dirty with it. I'm going in until the balls touch. So what? The same theories that you are using to say that homosexuality is immoral actually provide individuals an avenue to pursue this act without you or anybody else getting in the way of a mutual adult act with another consenting adult. Ya know, pursuit of happiness and all that jazz. Pursuits of hedonistic acts, that, provided they do not violate anyone else's natural rights, are perfectly justified and righteous. How can you argue natural right versus positive right, use natural right to say homosexuality is hedonistic, and then turn around and say you're not using a philosophical theory that you think is wrong?

As to genetic mutations first, so you are simply saying that you have no evidence, none at all that it exists, but that it clearly exists despite this lack of evidence and will be found eventually. Illogical reasoning there. (either way it would still remain contrary to the natural law)

Secondly as to Natural Right theory it is in effect a theory that says go forth and do what you want so long as you don't harm anyone else overtly. It has no basis for its logic beyond the fact that if a society accepts whatsoever principles and they don't harm overtly they are permissable. Contrarily the Natural Law holds that acts contrary to the natural purpose of whatsoever act according to nature are immoral. Thus homosexual acts are immoral to this concept whereas in the hedonistic natural rights theory which I would hazard exists solely on the premise of justifying the desires of its inventors you can do whatsoever you want, so long as it harms no one else.

I might as well get going to that graveyard to dig up that unknown corpse so I can consume it. After all it makes me happy and it isn;t harming anyone is it, its an unknown corpse no one knows who they are so under natural 'rights' its perfectly permissible.

 

[holy king]

ehm, yes, i dont see why you couldnt do that.

 

[Jehoshua]

No, there's no guarantee that we can ever properly understand natural law. You can only approximately get better at it. So, yes, rational discourse and thinking can get you a better understanding, but there's no reason to think it's a complete understanding. And, obviously, rational discourse can get ruined if some of the people are trying to shoehorn in deceiving texts.

That is correct. But in the context of homosexual acts (the reason I brought up the topic of Natural Law) I would argue that they are clearly contrary to the natural law as they violate the biological, procreative purpose and design of the sexual faculty. So although our understanding can only ever be incomplete of the natural law in its totality there are certain areas where we can be certain of the immorality of a certain action.

 

[Flying Pig]

That is correct. But in the context of homosexual acts (the reason I brought up the topic of Natural Law) I would argue that they are clearly contrary to the natural law as they violate the biological, procreative purpose and design of the sexual faculty. So although our understanding can only ever be incomplete of the natural law in its totality there are certain areas where we can be certain of the immorality of a certain action.

What is the biological purpose of legs? Suppose I were to walk on my hands, would that be immoral? Were I to lose my legs for whatever reason, would it be immoral to walk exclusively on my hands?

 

[Jehoshua]

What is the biological purpose of legs? Suppose I were to walk on my hands, would that be immoral? Were I to lose my legs for whatever reason, would it be immoral to walk exclusively on my hands?

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.

 

[Jehoshua]

Took me about five seconds to find this.

Firstly its the guardian. Secondly it "suggests', hardly the smoking gun of a gay gene.

 

[Azash]

Firstly its the guardian. Secondly it "suggests', hardly the smoking gun of a gay gene.

I'm sorry, I thought we were taking vague suggestions and passing them on as evidence.

 

[useless]

Could we please get of the natural rights topic and back to the thread's topic?

 

[Jehoshua]

fortunately in philosophy tangible evidence doesn't apply. In a hypothetical reality such as the existence of a biological genetic cause of homosexuality, yes it does.

Could we please get of the natural rights topic and back to the thread's topic?

So be it I shall refrain from perpetuating this discussion so long as various opponents do the same.

 

[useless]

It is a derail, sorry.

 

[Jehoshua]

no problem.

I suppose the problem with such threads where the topic is specific is they tend to veer of topic. So we had my opinion relating to correct relationship with homosexually inclined people quickly being challenged by supporters of the morality of homosexual acts (as I said they were immoral in my support that homophobia against individuals is to be discouraged) which then developed into an argument on that topic.

 

[useless]

If you have an issue with homosexuals or their acts, they aren't the problem, its you. (Not towards anyone in particular!)

 

[Jehoshua]

naturally my view is well established on this issue (check first or second page), anyways this ends my contribution for now.

 

[El_Machinae]

That is correct. But in the context of homosexual acts (the reason I brought up the topic of Natural Law) I would argue that they are clearly contrary to the natural law as they violate the biological, procreative purpose and design of the sexual faculty. So although our understanding can only ever be incomplete of the natural law in its totality there are certain areas where we can be certain of the immorality of a certain action.

Homosexual acts do not 'violate' a 'purpose'. They have their own purpose. Homosexual activities can easily be good or can easily be wrong, but it's incident-specific.

You're also making a fallacy by insisting upon a design and a purpose for that design.
Physical laws do not have those traits. Nuclear fission doesn't occur in order to cause cancer. Gravity does pull in order to suck apples to the ground.

Or, at least, there's no reason to suggest so (and especially no reason to insist so).

You're now shoehorning natural law into a conception of divine law. This, again, can cause people to become confused when trying to determine natural law. Natural law is not divine law, there's no logical reason for it to be, excepting a limited definition of 'divine'.

Homosexual acts have a wreath of purposes. There's a vast array of biological, emotional, and physical results. Yes, procreation is not one of them. Clearly, the 'purpose' of a homosexual act is not procreative, so it's not violating any procreative purpose.

What we see is scripture fortifying homophobic urges, or even worse, causing them.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

What does morality have to do with nature?

 

[Jehoshua]

As I said I would not perpetuate an off topic discussion I shall refrain from answering these here until such time as enough time has passed that eeryone forgets we got off topic so I can drag it up again

If you want to continue on this line of thought PM me El Machinae or create a thread specifically related to homosexuality. Im not going back ob my word to not perpetuate an off topic discussion.

And even irrespective of that I need to get to sleep its 12:30 in the morning my time at the moment.

 

[El_Machinae]

What does morality have to do with nature?

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.

 

[classical_hero]

What does morality have to do with nature?

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.

 

[useless]

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