The morality of homosexuality

[Upchurch]

The question of the (im)morality of homosexuality was brought up over in Politics. I thought I'd see where the majority of this section of society stood on the matter.

[Crossbow]

I really do not care about anyone's sexual preference provided that it involves consenting adults.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I really do not care about anyone's sexual preference provided that it involves consenting adults. I had hoped that was implied by asking about homosexuality and not about pediphilia or rape, but just to be clear, I am talking about adult conscentual homosexuality.

[Yahweh]

First, I'd like to define what I think is immorallity: Any act that done that results in money loss, damages, or otherwise hurts another in any way is considered immoral.

Homosexuality doesnt appear to hurt anyone. At most, the only damage it does to others is "looking really disgusting".

Before you say homosexuality is immoral, you have to ask yourself "What is it about homosexuality that offends me?". And if you come up with the "its not normal" excuse, [buzzer] try again.

[triadboy]

Depends on the definition of 'immoral'.

If you define 'moral' from a heterosexual point-of-view, then being homosexual is, by definition, immoral.

If you define it from a homosexual point-of-view, then I imagine being immoral is overseeing other people's lives and forcing correction to your standards.

I personally don't care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. I find most homosexuals I've met to be funny, intelligent, cultured and pleasant to be around.

[Fade]

Well I'm sure you all know how I voted.

I mean, homos are so gross that it just HAS to be immoral.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by triadboy
Depends on the definition of 'immoral'.

If you define 'moral' from a heterosexual point-of-view, then being homosexual is, by definition, immoral. I disagree. different sexuality doesn't equal immoral sexuality. Is being white immoral from a black person's point of view or vice versa?

And just to clarify some more, do you consider homosexuality immoral from you perspective of morality?

[Jet Grind]

Homosexuality is not immoral in the least. Of course this is coming from a libertarian point of view, so nothing is immoral unless it involes the initiation, threat, or deligation of force.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I had hoped that was implied by asking about homosexuality and not about pediphilia or rape, but just to be clear, I am talking about adult conscentual homosexuality.

You are correct of course and I figured that is what you meant as well. I was not trying to be difficult, it is just the usual CYA qualification for the benifit of those who are not quite as understanding.

[Charlie Monoxide]

For the most part, I've felt somewhat indifferent about homosexuality. Human sexuality is very diverse and there is no single definition of "normal".

I think the advent of gay rights came about due to the AIDS crisis. I'm sure many people were not aware of how extensive homosexuality (both men and women) is in society and it took something like AIDS to make it more mainstream.

I'm looking forward to seeing more politicians and other community leaders coming out of the closet. The defense department policy of "don't ask don't tell" is downright silly.

I'm always amazed that some people equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Everytime some gay news is on TV they show transvestites. Looks like the gay community have a long way to go yet.

I'm happy that Canada (and a couple of European countries) have allowed gay marriages.

Being somewhat of a wag I felt that gay men upped the male/female ratio in my favour. The problem with that observation is that I forgot about lesbians. :D

Charlie (I did live in the Castro for 8 months) Monoxide

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Fade
Well I'm sure you all know how I voted.

I mean, homos are so gross that it just HAS to be immoral.
Good point?:confused:

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I disagree. different sexuality doesn't equal immoral sexuality. Is being white immoral from a black person's point of view or vice versa?

Of course not, but immorality implies an 'act'. Being black or white is not an 'act'.

Can you name a different sexuality that doesn't equal immoral sexuality? (No fair using abstinence - I'm thinking goats here)

And just to clarify some more, do you consider homosexuality immoral from you perspective of morality?

From my perspective - no.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
For the most part, I've felt somewhat indifferent about homosexuality. Human sexuality is very diverse and there is no single definition of "normal".

I think the advent of gay rights came about due to the AIDS crisis. I'm sure many people were not aware of how extensive homosexuality (both men and women) is in society and it took something like AIDS to make it more mainstream.

I'm looking forward to seeing more politicians and other community leaders coming out of the closet. The defense department policy of "don't ask don't tell" is downright silly.

I'm always amazed that some people equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Everytime some gay news is on TV they show transvestites. Looks like the gay community have a long way to go yet.

I'm happy that Canada (and a couple of European countries) have allowed gay marriages.

Being somewhat of a wag I felt that gay men upped the male/female ratio in my favour. The problem with that observation is that I forgot about lesbians. :D

Charlie (I did live in the Castro for 8 months) Monoxide
For a while, AIDS was concered a "gay disease". Then some (straight) famous NBA star contracted the disease and lo and behold we realized that AIDS could be transmitted through hetero sex (it probably took years of scientific research to figure out that mystery).

As far as the "dont ask dont tell" policy, its is probably a good move to neither ask nor tell. Too many people can be influenced (usually negatively) if a politician comes out the closet. It also keeps idiots from unnecessarily harassing and abusing gay people.

"some people equate homosexuality with pedophilia"... isnt it the only time you hear about homosexuality now is when a young boy is molested. And now NAMBLA... what bunch of people... f**king idiots dont realize that even consentual sex with young boys (meaning under 16) is illegal.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Fade
Well I'm sure you all know how I voted.

I mean, homos are so gross that it just HAS to be immoral.

Gross = immoral?

Okay, I vote that we make the eating of raw oysters to be immoral!

If you don't deep fry your oysters, then you are living in SIN!

What other gross things can we deem immoral?

[Dancing David]

Eating animals is immoral.

There is no real reason for homosexuality to be immoral, if something does not harm the self or others, how can it be immoral.

[Fade]

Originally posted by calladus


Gross = immoral?

Okay, I vote that we make the eating of raw oysters to be immoral!

If you don't deep fry your oysters, then you are living in SIN!

What other gross things can we deem immoral?

Whoosh.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Crossbow

I was not trying to be difficult, it is just the usual CYA qualification for the benifit of those who are not quite as understanding. I figured as much, which is why I tried to clarify as much as possible.

What amazes me, and maybe it's just to early to know for sure, is what overwelming agreement (90.62% as of this writing) there is on this board that homosexuality isn't immoral.

[Pahansiri]

The question is too vague and not that my friend Upchurch thinks this way but it is worded or presented in a way that so many Christians see homosexuality.
1- that it is sex
2- 2- it is evil sex.

Homosexuality is not just sex anymore then heterosexuality is just sex. It is a small part of a relationship.

As to immoral?

Is it immoral to love another being? To care about and for them to seek to spend time and perhaps ones life with this person.

How can that be?

As to the sexual part of homosexuality being immoral.

If one feels it is, don’t do it. Simple really.

The Bible says most sex is immoral also many OT things are seen as abominations and we have posted these many times and don’t need to rehash it but this includes also divorce and yet 60% of Christians divorce yet we don’t see many carrying signs that say “GOD HATES divorcees”

Or any of the others such things said to be immoral. Christian ( and others of course)etc lie, cheat, steal etc yet love to turn a blind eye to the things they do because it is something THEY do so it is OK or God will forgive them.

billiefan2000 is a perfect example of this, it is easy to point out his lies, his bearing of false witness, speaking with a sharp tongue, name calling all things the Bible say will send you to hell fire. Yet billiefan2000 just ignores these because he wants to spend hour after hour on the computer doing this, attacking anyone not like him and then yelling that anything said against his beliefs are bad non-Christians attacking him.

He and many love to attack what others hold dear but cry foul when it is done to them. Hypocrisy.

billiefan2000 tells me his attacks are out of love and he is helping and “saving people” so it is OK.

He believes he is helping people, I have pointed out he just sits on a computer for most of the day attacking and cutting and pasting others words or hate and attacks on non-Christians.

I have offered if he really wishes to help others he should feed someone who is hungry, help someone who has no home get shelter, teach some to read etc etc. My sweet young friend seems to just ignore this.

I have spoken to many once Gay hating Christians who when their sweet child looked them in the eye and told them they were gay, changed their mind because it was not THEIR Child not the child of another.

What is immoral is hate.
What is moral is love.

Gay people do things sexually that harm others but not at any higher rate then non gays.

Funny we here people like billiefan2000 and Falwell, Pat R etc say Gay men are sex crazy and have many partners.

A few points here.
1st of course they judge all by perhaps some, there is NO way they can know what ALL gays or anyone do.

2nd They say that about gay males but not lesbians. Why?
Because this has everything to do with being male and nothing to do with being gay, well just a bit as to being gay and that is this.

Go into any single bar and grab a college kid and tell him he can nail every girl in the bar every night. What will he do, nail as many as he can every night every night as many new as he can physically before MR wee wee will not again arise.

Girls for the most part will not allow this or seek this, this is everything to do with endocrine/ hormonal make up.

Now in a group of people all gay males, all ( or most) thinking like and acting like a male well, it is like the non gay kid in a bar of 100 woman who will all have sex with him.

As Buddhist our precept concerning sex is against sexual misconduct, seek to avoid sexual misconduct. That being sexual activity that causes suffering to self or the other person.. Respect.

Just what I believe.

[Keneke]

I voted "it depends".

Firstly, it does NOT depend upon the antiquated laws of morality as determined by religion. That, we can all agree on.

Now then, let's look at the word moral - Of or concerned with the judgement of being good or conforming to good behavior. (American Heritage, 3rd ed.) Using this definition, what is *good* for the human race?

Reproduction is good for the human race. That's how we live on, that's the sole purpose of life itself. To live, and to prosper. Therefore, being heterosexual is good. Therefore, homosexuality may be thought of as immoral.

However, there are reasons for seeing the opposite side, if we look deeper. I read of a theory that homosexuality is an escape valve for the "failures" of a species (meaning, the non-reproductive ones) to vent and release their reproductive urges without harming the child-bearing members of the species. Because a person's sex drive is so strong, it may not be able to be completely turned off if the situation calls for non-sexuality. Instead, it may only be re-directed. That's why there's masturbation; it is considered a distraction from sex until the right time. Such may also be the same for homosexuality. A man may subconsciously know that his DNA is not suitable, and therefore changes his sexuality appropriately. In this instance, homosexuality may be another important function in life, and therefore not immoral.

All in all, I'd say this sort of thing (and most things) cannot always be judged by a black and white morality, so I vote "It depends".

[The Mad Linguist]

.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahweh
First, I'd like to define what I think is immorallity: Any act that done that results in money loss, damages, or otherwise hurts another in any way is considered immoral.

How did you arrive at this definition? Is it from observation of the natural world? Does it have a historical, philosophical, legal, or "theological" basis? Is it just your "opinion"?

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by LCBOY

Originally posted by Yahweh
First, I'd like to define what I think is immorallity: Any act that done that results in money loss, damages, or otherwise hurts another in any way is considered immoral.
How did you arrive at this definition? Is it from observation of the natural world? Does it have a historical, philosophical, legal, or "theological" basis? Is it just your "opinion"?
He defined it as his opinion! Read the post!
" The only sin lies in hurting others unnecessarily. Hurting yourself is not sinful, just stupid" RA Heinlein
Our laws are set up on that morality pretty much as Yahweh defined his opinion--see fraud, embezzlement, assault, battery, etc
Homosexuality is immoral in the same conditions heterosexuality is-when it is forced on someone (rape), or when you insist on sharing the details with the rest of the world. Sex is and should be a private affair (pun intended)

RW

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Keneke
I voted "it depends".

Reproduction is good for the human race. That's how we live on, that's the sole purpose of life itself. To live, and to prosper. Therefore, being heterosexual is good. Therefore, homosexuality may be thought of as immoral.



Two points-

First, there is no reason a homosexual may not also reproduce--just not with the desired sexual partner--in fact they have done so including a famous singer whose name escapes me at this moment...

Second, while I agree that reproduction is good for the human race --I would not say that morality demands reproduction as it has no effect on the present human race--only a future extension of it--if no body wanted to reproduce-nobody.... and everybody--everybody wanted only homosexual contact it would be the end of the human race but not necessarily good or bad...just the self-selected ending of one of many of the life forms on this planet.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Keneke

Reproduction is good for the human race. That's how we live on, that's the sole purpose of life itself. To live, and to prosper. Therefore, being heterosexual is good. Therefore, homosexuality may be thought of as immoral.



would heterosexual people who choose not to reproduce be immoral?

[Roadtoad]

Bottom line:

It's none of my business.

Simple, no?

[Tricky]

I was once having a rather heated discussion with a friend of a friend about the dangers of homosexuality. This woman (yes, there are female homophobes too) was nearly foaming at the mouth in anger at how I could defend such activity. At one point she said (although 'screamed', is more accurate) that "those damn queers were gathering down there in Montrose" (an "arts" neighborhood of Houston) "and breeding like flies."

I am still proud of my ability to not guffaw and point what she had said, but to merely raise an eybrow and look at her with an amused grin. She stammered for a minute then said, "well, you know what I mean." I did indeed.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


would heterosexual people who choose not to reproduce be immoral?

According to the priest who married my wife and I, yes. Plus he had a perm, a checking account for his dog (you may have seen him on Oprah with his freakin' dog with the checking account), and was way to into wine tasting to be straight. He was in denial BIG TIME.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by LCBOY


How did you arrive at this definition? Is it from observation of the natural world? Does it have a historical, philosophical, legal, or "theological" basis? Is it just your "opinion"?
Primarily it is my opinion. I base my opinion on many things. Yes, it was based on observations of the natural world. Anything that doesnt harm people, animals, or the environment usually is pretty moral. Not necessarily historical, I try to think more within the time constraints of last few decades. Philosophical, of course. I'd consider myself to be better versed in the field of philosophy than most. Legal appeal, yes. Theological, no. I would never base my opinion on theological principles.

[Tormac]

It seems obvious to me that actions performed by consenting adults are not immoral.

Homosexuality is not for me, but then again I find the taste of bananas repugnant as well. I have it on good authority that otherwise normal people live a full, rich, and even healthy and happy life while voluntarily consuming the nasty tasting things (bananas that is).

Although eating things that taste like bananas may be border-line masochistic, I will grudgingly admit that it is not immoral to eat them. As far as homosexuality is concerned, it seems to me to not be quite as bad as eating bananas, since I've never had someone try to trick me into a homosexual relationship, but I have had people try to sneak bananas in my food.


edited for poor grammar

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer


According to the priest who married my wife and I, yes. Plus he had a perm, a checking account for his dog (you may have seen him on Oprah with his freakin' dog with the checking account), and was way to into wine tasting to be straight. He was in denial BIG TIME.

Sorry for the topic drift, but I have got to ask. Does anyone know if animals can legally have a savings account?

I was under the notion that animals were by legal definition, private property, and therefore could not own property. I had heard of some municipalities that were lobbying to change this, but did not think that they were successful. Am I mistaken (or is it just a case where if it was on Oprah once no amount of reality can ever be applied to it again?)

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by Tormac


Sorry for the topic drift, but I have got to ask. Does anyone know if animals can legally have a savings account?

I was under the notion that animals were by legal definition, private property, and therefore could not own property. I had heard of some municipalities that were lobbying to change this, but did not think that they were successful. Am I mistaken (or is it just a case where if it was on Oprah once no amount of reality can ever be applied to it again?)

As far as I know, you are correct about every state of the union except California. In California you are an "Animal Guardian", not a pet owner. I don't know what rights this has given the pets, but it has made them something other than property.

[Upchurch]

I forgot about it until recently, but I have a better pseudo-analogy for homosexuality than racism.

I am a... a... left handed person.

It's true. I was born that way. Fortunately, my parents were very open minded people and didn't try to force me into the right handed mold, like my grandfather was when he was a child. That's right, my grandfather was also left handed, but he lived in a society that didn't accept lefties and he was forced to live his life as a righty.

Growing up as a lefty was hell. Door knobs and water fountain buttons on the wrong side. Special scissors that they only sometimes have available. Wearing your watch on a different arm than everyone else in your class. Left hand smeared with pencile lead and ink because you have to drag your hand through what you just wrote.

But I had it lucky. There was a time when being left handed was seen as immoral (seriously!) and a sign of the devil. Lefties had to learn to be righties or be seen as untrustworthy and somehow decadent.

Okay, (mostly) kidding aside, do you see my point? Yes, people can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual, but what they choose to be may not be their natural tendency. Just like I could choose to write with my right hand, but it will never be as comfortable as when I write with my left hand.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

Second, while I agree that reproduction is good for the human race --I would not say that morality demands reproduction as it has no effect on the present human race--only a future extension of it--if no body wanted to reproduce-nobody.... and everybody--everybody wanted only homosexual contact it would be the end of the human race but not necessarily good or bad...just the self-selected ending of one of many of the life forms on this planet.

I can see where you're coming from, trying to invalidate the notion that the survival of our species as good. However, we, as life forms, have from the beginning made it our primary goal to survive and reproduce. Doing the opposite, that is, becoming suicidal (or homosexual) can only be "good" if it helps the whole of the species progress. Can we, as finite beings, commit to ending our whole species for the greater good? Whose greater good? Does any species on earth have more of a right to life than us? No.

Now then, on to EdipisReks' question, which also feeds into the above paragraph. Heterosexuals who choose not to reproduce are only as immoral as homosexuals, from my starkly utilitarian POV. Of course, in my second original point (which you should have read, EdipisReks, but apparently did not) I brought up that homosexuality may be (and in my opinion, is) a genetic device brought on by any number of factors, but all with the final assumption: not all of us need to reproduce.

I think the argument here is that you, and many of us, are still using the word "morality" in its original, holy-roller concept. We must examine why some are indignant at homosexuals (though I think the power of persuasion is enough to cause it) and how we can institute "morality" without falling back on our Judeo-Christian background of pointing fingers. Is there a morality without religion? What is this morality based on?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Primarily it is my opinion. I base my opinion on many things. Yes, it was based on observations of the natural world. Anything that doesnt harm people, animals, or the environment usually is pretty moral. Not necessarily historical, I try to think more within the time constraints of last few decades. Philosophical, of course. I'd consider myself to be better versed in the field of philosophy than most. Legal appeal, yes. Theological, no. I would never base my opinion on theological principles.

Can you give an example of moral or immoral behavior in the natural world? By this do you mean the animal kingdom?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Can you give an example of moral or immoral behavior in the natural world? By this do you mean the animal kingdom?
Moral behaviors:
Recycling.
Adopting an animal.
Watching TV.
Having an opinion.
Going to school.
Helping the homeless.


Immoral behavior:
Denying someone an education based on the color of their skin.
Killing a person.
Stealing.
Hurting animals for fun.
Adultery.


"By this do you mean the animal kingdom?"
I dont know what you mean by this. I used the phrase "Yes, it was based on observations of the natural world". I chose those words to make its relevance to what I was responding to more apparent. I'm pretty sure the "I didnt really say that, but you should know what I mean" principle is usually a pretty crappy debating style, but in this case it applies. Why? Because at the moment I cant really find the proper words to explain what I clearly meant.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Keneke

Is there a morality without religion? What is this morality based on?

You are kidding, aren't you? Not only is there morality without religion--there could never exist religion if it were not for morality...morality (determing what is good or bad) is based on the same thing all REAL things are based on--evidence and logic....what is "good" or "bad" has no meaning unless you define the goal...I have made this analogy before so excuse me for repeating myself --but consider this question: What is a "good" temperature for water? Immediately you should be asking --good for what purpose? for swimming? bathing? drinking? skating on? Cooking with? It all depends on what you want to do....what is good (moral) behavior depends on what you hope to achieve---evidence has shown us that might does not make right, that oppression does not achieve even what it hopes to, etc...I am confident that legislating sexual behavior will also be found to be completely ineffective to achieve anything desirable, even by those who want such legislation...so far the evidence shows that freedom extending to as many as possible without infringing the freedom of others is the surest way to achieve what each of us determines is a reasonable goal of goodness.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Moral behaviors:
Recycling.
Adopting an animal.
Watching TV.
Having an opinion.
Going to school.
Helping the homeless.


Immoral behavior:
Denying someone an education based on the color of their skin.
Killing a person.
Stealing.
Hurting animals for fun.
Adultery.


"By this do you mean the animal kingdom?"
I dont know what you mean by this. I used the phrase "Yes, it was based on observations of the natural world". I chose those words to make its relevance to what I was responding to more apparent. I'm pretty sure the "I didnt really say that, but you should know what I mean" principle is usually a pretty crappy debating style, but in this case it applies. Why? Because at the moment I cant really find the proper words to explain what I clearly meant.

I still am trying to understand how you came to define these acts as moral or immoral. Could you explain you reasoning?

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Eating animals is immoral.


Not if ya kill 'em first!

Mmmmmmm, steak.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


You are kidding, aren't you? Not only is there morality without religion--there could never exist religion if it were not for morality...morality (determing what is good or bad) is based on the same thing all REAL things are based on--evidence and logic....what is "good" or "bad" has no meaning unless you define the goal...I have made this analogy before so excuse me for repeating myself --but consider this question: What is a "good" temperature for water? Immediately you should be asking --good for what purpose? for swimming? bathing? drinking? skating on? Cooking with? It all depends on what you want to do....what is good (moral) behavior depends on what you hope to achieve---evidence has shown us that might does not make right, that oppression does not achieve even what it hopes to, etc...I am confident that legislating sexual behavior will also be found to be completely ineffective to achieve anything desirable, even by those who want such legislation...so far the evidence shows that freedom extending to as many as possible without infringing the freedom of others is the surest way to achieve what each of us determines is a reasonable goal of goodness.

Those were rhetorical questions, dude. Whoosh! :rolleyes:

[bignickel]

I can see no connect between 'sex' and 'morality' at all.

If Xtians or PlanetXtians or whomever say that 'sex and morality are related' a million times, it still doesn't make it true.

However long that they've tried to 'take it as a given', they've never actually bothered to try and make a case. I suspect they never will try, since there is no case to be made.

So they just say 'God/Niberu says it, I believe it, that settles it.' Poor God/Niberu, left holding the bag again. From creator of everything under and above the sun, down to cosmic cop with a big billyclub. What a demotion. Hope sh/e didn't get a massive pay cut; I'd be pissed.

If any man sleeps with another man in the same way that he would sleep with a woman, he has done a hateful thing in the sight of the lord. He shall be taken out and stoned, and his blood shall be on his head.

Note: this biblical passage doesn't say God/Niberu wants you, Joe/Jane Reader, to deny gay men housing, or loans, or the right to marry each other, or beat them up, or march against them (doesn't even mention gay women, does it?). God/Niberu is asking you to stone them.

So you, Joe/Jane Reader, have eitherof two choices, and no more: God/Niberu is asking you to stone gay men to death (and you're disobeying God's direct orders if you're not!)

... or the writer of this passage is a hobophobic nutjob who would be sent to prison in this day and age if he actually carried out himself what he was telling others to do.

Which is it folks?