Lets discuss: Homophobia

[holy king]

However in the context of the morality of homosexual acts I need only resort to the natural law and biological complimentarity and duality of the sexes to argue that homosexual acts are immoral and contrary to the function of the sexual act.

you would first have to define what you mean by "natural law". then prove that there is such a thing as this "natural law" you just defined.
then you would have to prove that such a "natural law" actually condemns homosexuality.

would you care to?

 

[Jehoshua]

No, because they are not targetting a specific group or minority.

I would hardly call practicing homosexuals a minority. That is an artificial construction. Homosexuals in my mind should not be segregated into some sort of mental ghetto where they are separate from the rest of society. That just opens the door for prejudice on the manner that we mutually agree is immoral and unjustified.

Furthermore as I mentioned before I hardly see how an inclination to homoseexual acts defines a person compared to say the ethnic or cultural group of a person.

 

[useless]

That's all fine and dandy Jesh, but in practise they are, and mostly by the religious. They are "othered" and painted as devils, moral panics that create feelings of revulsion within the already homophobic and bigoted population.

Pat Robertson, Herman Cain, John McCain, Michelle Bachmann, Chris Grayling, Sarah Palin etc, they all propogate such views, as do various organisations.

 

[Jehoshua]

The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person. Thus we have the reality that murder is immoral and it is universally accepted as such. Now why is this so other than the ingrained understanding that it is wrong. Well in this case because it is contrary to the stability of a human society that is natural to man (as we are social creatures) and also because it violates the natural dignity of the human person that is inherently recognised by man towards another man.

Now in the case of homosexual acts they are wrong because they deny the complimentarity of the genders male and female in the faculty of the sexual act. The sexual act is primarily procreative in design and thus under the natural law any use of the sexual faculty that denies this procreative purpose by biological design is immoral. by this same manner anal sex commited by a male and female or oral sex is equally wrong and immoral under the same basis as it is denying the natural faculty of the sexual act and violating the biological purpose of human sexuality. (I would also add that their is a unitative error of homosexual acts under christian theology that adds another layer to the immorality but as practicing homosexuals would deny the unitative purposes importance it is not of relevance here)

-

That's all fine and dandy Jesh, but in practise they are, and mostly by the religious. They are "othered" and painted as devils, moral panics that create feelings of revulsion within the already homophobic and bigoted population.

Pat Robertson, Herman Cain, John McCain, Michelle Bachmann, Chris Grayling, Sarah Palin etc, they all propogate such views, as do various organisations.

Thus why I mentioned the incorrect mentality towards homosexual persons (directing righteous indignation towards the sin onto the sinner) as in particular to certain protestant groups. Furthermore this incorrect mentality is oftentimes directed to homosexually active people politically I would say precisely due to the activism of homosexuals that seeks to redefine morality to accomadate their gravely erroneous worldview regarding morality both in law and in general attitudes. Thus although their attitudes are incorrect towards homosexuals I for one understand how they are lead to such an incorrect approach considering the opposing approach on the part of practicing homosexuals which attacks the natural law and seeks to impose acceptance of immorality in general society.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Yeah, the Baby Boomer's have been systematically discriminated against; they can't marry, they accused of being riddled with disease, they're attacked and even killed due to anti-boomer hate crimes, they're insulted, they're disowned by their family, their religion hates them etc.

I didn't say they've been discriminated against. I do feel that you are undermining your main point in this thread (and I think it's a good and valid point, FWIW) by throwing in this sort of intolerant generalisation.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

No, because they are not targetting a specific group or minority. I do not draw my morality from religious texts or teachings.

Bigotry that comes from religion should be stigmatised, not matter how essential it is to that particular religion and any less is either endorsing such bigotry, or being complicit.

But we're all more or less inclined toward different things in our lives. Someone who is predisposed toward alcoholism is one "minority group" who likely would be more troubled by alcoholism and someone with a strong libido would likely have more trouble with a sinful sex life, from a religious perspective. What makes the homosexual minority so much different than other people who could just as well be grouped together in different constellations depending on their genes or inclinations?

Isn't it just as bigoted to chastise an alcoholic or a "slut" then?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

by this same manner anal sex commited by a male and female or oral sex is equally wrong and immoral under the same basis as it is denying the natural faculty of the sexual act and violating the biological purpose of human sexuality.

Wow, you live in a boring world. Oral or anal sex (or masturbation) hardly "violates" the "biological purpose of human sexuality". Try to think of it more as complimenting the "biological purpose" and you could have a lot more fun.

 

[useless]

What's your point? I don't care who the bigots are, I will rally against them, regardless.

 

[Flying Pig]

Isn't it just as bigoted to chastise an alcoholic or a "slut" then?

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.

 

[Jehoshua]

Wow, you live in a boring world. Oral or anal sex (or masturbation) hardly "violates" the "biological purpose of human sexuality". Try to think of it more as complimenting the "biological purpose" and you could have a lot more fun.

One doesn;t require resorting to sex to actually have a meaningful and "fun' existence. And it is hardly complimenting if an act defies the natural biological purpose (which indeed those acts do). Furthermore anything that is within the bounds of the natural law (and within marriage for a Christian) is perfectly permissable.

 

[holy king]

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

ok, that's your definition. check.



now, two things:

1. claiming that murder is universally accepted as immoral and therefore there is a "natural morality ingrained within the very being of the human person" is not a valid logical conclusion.
back to the drawing board.

2. claiming that murder is universally accepted as immoral is wrong.

nomadic societies would often kill their old since they couldnt sustain them anymore.
most societies dont consider murder during war as wrong, at least as long as conducted by soldiers on soldiers.
murder has been institutionalized and thus detached from it's immoral dimension by pretty much all societies throughout the ages.

anyway, all i would have needed to falsify your claim that "murder is universally accepted as immoral" would have been one human being not doing so.
like a murderer thinking he was right to kill his victim.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

What's your point? I don't care who the bigots are, I will rally against them, regardless.

I genuinely applaud you for it too but maybe , just maybe , take the time to pick your targets more carefully . Us "petty bourgeois , privileged " people live in the same crappy confusing world you do and ain't going anywhere . I absolutely know I , and people who think like me are not the enemy of homosexuals . In I'm fact the opposite , an unabashed believer in the right of everybody to carve out their little niche to live in and try their hardest to get on with all the other peeps .

So if I can make my lame jokes in private , you can can also do whatever you like . And if 2 different people like ourselves ever cross paths and can basically try to function on a level of mutual respect , well heh , that's better than man kinds usual form .

 

[Jehoshua]

ok, that's your definition. check.
now, two things:

1. claiming that murder is universally accepted as immoral and therefore there is a "natural morality ingrained within the very being of the human person" is not a valid logical conclusion.
back to the drawing board.

2. claiming that murder is universally accepted as immoral is wrong.

nomadic societies would often kill their old since they couldnt sustain them anymore.
most societies dont consider murder during war as wrong, at least as long as conducted by soldiers on soldiers.
murder has been institutionalized and thus detached from it's immoral dimension by pretty much all societies throughout the ages.

anyway, all i would have needed to falsify your claim that "murder is universally accepted as immoral" would have been one human being not doing so.
like a murderer thinking he was right to kill his victim.

Your presuming that something that is intrinsically ingrained in the human person can't be rejected. It can that is why we have such abominations as genocide and murder when humanity degrades itself by denying the intrinsic morality of man and man is degenerated into yet another animal. (and why we have practicing homosexuals )

Thus murder is perfectly possible when an individual and even a whole society dulls the voice of the natural law and falls into moral decay. However this same murder has indeed been universally accepted as immoral even within such societies that denied the right of a particular group to humanity. No society has ever justified randomly walking up to your neighbour and hacking his head off. However we have indeed seen societies where the humanity of some group within that society (say young children or the elderly) is surpressed and they are treated as animals or simple commodities, we have even seen scenarios entire races have been classed as subhuman and exterminated as vermin. To a christian perspective this denial of natural morality is a result of original sin .
but thats another story.

However to the point your taking my words too literally, as in saying it is not universal because a murderer thinks he's right or because various groups have been dehumanised. The people responsible may indeed think they are right, but within the depths of his person he still at the least has an understanding of his immorality even if it is surpressed and forgotten and generally within all societies the immorality of casual murder is upheld (at least for now ).

I also find it interesting that you refute my other example rather than attempting to rebut my rationale behind the immorality of homosexual acts.

 

[holy king]

because you didnt even get as far as prove that there is a natural law as defined by you.

1. claiming that murder is universally accepted as immoral and therefore there is a "natural morality ingrained within the very being of the human person" is not a valid logical conclusion.
back to the drawing board.

once you've done that you can continue to prove what this law actually looks like.

Your presuming that something that is intrinsically ingrained in the human person can't be rejected. It can that is why we have such abominations as genocide and murder when humanity depraves itself by denying the intrinsic morality of man and man is degraded into yet another animal. (and why we have practicing homosexuals)

Thus murder is perfectly possible when an individual and even a whole society dulls the voice of the natural law and falls into moral decay. However this same murder has indeed been universally accepted as immoral even within such societies that denied the right of a particular group to humanity. No society has ever justified randomly walking up to your neighbour and hacking his head off. However we have indeed seen societies where the humanity of some group within that society (say young children) is surpressed and they are treated as animals, or where even entire races have been classed as subhuman and exterminated as vermin. To a christian perspective this denial of natural morality is a result of original sin.

yes, yes there are people who do not have "an understanding of their immorality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#WHO

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

 

[Jehoshua]

and you have only done that by focussing on one point of dubiable reference to this particular thread and ignoring everything else I have said in order to justify and defend your view by denying the validity of my argument.

I could argue you are only doing as such as without the murder scenario and If I merely used the example of homosexual acts you would lack a rational reason for arguing against it thus your focus on this one area and blatant denial of any such thing as a reasoned argument.

 

[holy king]

no. proving that homosexuallity is universally viewed as immoral by all human beings will be pretty much impossible for you, as i myself falsify that aspect of your theory.



anyway, there's these three questions you wont get around.


you would first have to define what you mean by "natural law".
then prove that there is such a thing as this "natural law" you just defined.
then you would have to prove that such a "natural law" actually condemns homosexuality.


you cant claim that the "natural law" as defined by you (The natural law is the natural morality that is ingrained within the very being of the human person.) makes homosexuality immoral if you haven even proven that this "natural law" exists.

your conclusion that it exists (by virtue of your murder example) is wrong on two counts. i showed you why. you should come up with a valid proof for your "natural law" now.

 

[GenMarshall]

So this marks another cycle in OT?

 

[LucyDuke]

Now in the case of homosexual acts they are wrong because they deny the complimentarity of the genders male and female in the faculty of the sexual act. The sexual act is primarily procreative in design and thus under the natural law any use of the sexual faculty that denies this procreative purpose by biological design is immoral.

What makes you say non-procreational sex is immoral?

 

[useless]

(The Bible/god?)

 

[Jehoshua]

no. proving that homosexuallity is universally viewed as immoral by all human beings will be pretty much impossible for you, as i myself falsify that aspect of your theory.

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.