Homosexuality

[razovor]

I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.

I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?

[Darias]

First, I don't know whether sex is an identity or a preference...

Well, people can craft or adopt identities out of anything under the sun.

In my opinion, "preference" indicates the other option is doable. You could say in my case I legitimately have a preference.

Others prefer to use the term orientation, since, to a great number of people, same sex attraction or thoughts either never occurs or rarely occurs to the point that it's not relevant.

I think the two schools of thought are mutually exclusive, but I don't know which, if either, is correct.

Sex is clearly something you engage in. Ethnicity is something you inherited. Some people just like to substitute their own unique identities for group think, in this example, "I'm straight, I'm black, and I'm proud!" Atheists and Christians do the same thing. The problem with labeling yourself is that it causes other people to think of you in terms of their negative misconceptions, and you're just making it more difficult for yourself. Of course I'm not advocating dishonesty, but surely one can be forthcoming about what they do and think without dawning a straw man outfit for others to assail.

Just an observation, not an argument: Your personal experience on the matter sits in contrast to Goat, above. You are open to the idea that maybe you could be gay, but Goat is decidedly not gay.

Well it's important to note that my experience and Goat's experience are anecdotal, and not indicative of a trend.

So long as I continue to have feelings for the opposite sex, I can never become gay. At this point in my life where I'm being completely honest with myself, I can't ever imagine not finding women attractive. I can choose to have a monogamous homosexual relationship, but I still think I prefer women. In any case, my orientation, is bisexual... and my preference is whatever I'm in the mood for on any given day.

Goat's experience is very different. The first thing that comes to mind when he imagines another guy is "Nope!" It's probably a major turn off for him, just as it is for me when I think about morbidly obese women or feminine men with a lisp (which by the way is an accent, usually adopted by people, not representative of the majority of gay men). Goat has been straight for a good part of his life so the probability of anything changing now is not likely. I on the other hand discovered my preferences as a young adult. Who knows maybe I was born bi and he was born straight; let's just assume that orientation is innate and not an acquired taste. In any case, be it through biology or life experiences, both of our likes are perfectly explainable.

This would support the idea that there's a spectrum. However, there is the nagging thought in my mind that perhaps many of us are in fact wrong about our own libidos.

Now that I've accepted the reality that I have the ability to experience same sex attraction, I'm probably biased towards the idea that sexuality is more of a spectrum than a fixed position. I mean there are people who have far fewer instances of same sex attraction than me and who are only minimally interested. Bisexual can come across as a loaded term -- meaning that people might think it means being equally attracted to both sexes, or being incapable of monogamy. For this reason some people who are bi curious may adopt the term heteroflexible (if they mainly identify as straight). I was open to the idea of using that term to accurately describe my feelings, but in reality it falls under the bisexual umbrella. If I'm still in that category it's probably on the end closer towards bisexual than straight.

The scientific consensus is that orientation is innate, but there's also evidence that sexuality is a spectrum. It's very much possible that these two things are not mutually exclusive. You, for example, could be born (minimally bisexual). I don't really know how any of that works, but I'm not really an expert on this sort of thing.

Now, does that 3.5% statistic refer to those who are gay, or who have had gay thoughts, have had gay intercourse... and would you mind posting where you got the statistic?

The poll asked people what they identified as, so this strictly accounts for more or less honest, certain, and out-of-the-closet (at least in their own minds) type of folks. Here is an article about it.

Your premises are 1.) that gayness has no victims, and 2.) that morality is defined in terms of hurting individuals.

Well having feelings and engaging in consensual behavior certainly doesn't create victims. I personally hold the view that there is an objective framework for ethics and that because "LGBTness" does not necessarily mean the initiation of force against other people, it is therefore either amoral, personally positive, or aesthetically preferable (in terms of being true to oneself). Because there is no force inherently involved in attraction or sex, it cannot be objectively condemned. But that doesn't mean it's some goal everyone should strive towards. Some sexual interaction might not be healthy, e.g. if you were abused and in need of therapy, but choose to engage in consensual BDSM sex. There's no crime occurring here, but this might be personally negative for you.

I would agree that your premises are reasonable in the era and society I currently occupy. However, as I said before, reason alone is not sufficient. What's reasonable to me may not in fact be reasonable to someone else. There is always a chance that my reason could be faulty due to a lack of understanding, perspective, or experience. There is a very complex system keeping us alive, and few of us, I think, truly understand its nuances.

I understand your concern because I have been wrong before on many issues. But this is not the fault of reason or evidence, this is the fault of my failure to examine evidence or properly use logic.

Reason and evidence are universal. Just because someone gets the math wrong or because scientists come to the wrong conclusions, this isn't the fault of mathematics or the scientific method, which are objective. There's no such thing as Christian math, Chinese science, or female logic.

Yes, there's always a chance that one's reasoning could be faulty, but that's due to logical fallacies on behalf of the individual, and it's certainly no reason to forgo reason and evidence in the name of "well, you see it's more complex than that." This sort of response is a non-answer. It's like saying god did it in response to a scientific question. It's the type of "philosophy" you would expect to hear at Woodstock.

Certainly you can admit that you're not sure about something, but saying that every culture has their own reasoning and logic seems like a desire to avoid the truth.

For that reason, I cite precedent as an equally important factor in decision-making. Note I said equally - I'm not against reason, I just think it needs to be weighed against our society's long-standing traditions, even if it doesn't make sense to me.

‣ Ad antiquitatem

Oh come now. Tradition should not be a check on reason. It certainly makes sense that we should change, but let me consult the forefathers first. A lot of people here, Christian and Atheist alike love this fallacy. But the problem is that precedent does not mean that things cannot or should not change. Slavery, divine-right theory of kingship, and the white male vote were once age old longstanding traditions/institutions within society. Thank god the people who said, "yes subjugating people against their will in the form of rule or enslavement is immoral and unreasonable, but traditions are equally important too!" didn't get their way, or we'd all still be living in the Dark Ages.

But you see when it comes to state subsidized straight marriage and governments, oh people love those things and "it's always been done that way, and what about the consequences if people don't do things the way I want them to! Guess we have to control society." Oh boo hoo the lot of you. There's enough reason and evidence for any reasonable person to reject longstanding immoral institutions in favor of peaceful alternatives. Don't let "without slaves who will pick the cotton?" keep you from pursuing the morally correct position. It's like saying without government or government subsidized marriage, no one will want to live together and have children -- or it's like saying that unless gay relationships are illegal, everyone will become gay and our species will die out, or Yahweh will swing an asteroid our way.

As far as I know, we stand today at a crossroads - my society may be approaching a threshold where reproduction is no longer important, and may actually be detrimental to our society. Thus I am open to the idea that change is necessary. Open, but not convinced.

What? Gay couples want the right to raise and adopt children more than straight folks. The amount of unwanted children in the world is staggering, and the earth's population is continuing to grow, although it's not rising as quickly/staying steady in more developed countries. We don't have 15 children like we used to back in the day. Children are the future of a better world, so yeah I'm all for reproduction and adoption. I don't really understand how you get from legalizing gay marriage and gay adoption to putting humanity on the endangered species list.

And what is society but a collection of individuals? How many atrocities have been committed in the name of "the greater good," as though a majority were an entity to be wronged by the existence of a few.

So how do you know that mainstream acceptance of this won't somehow indirectly hurt our society?

You'll need to define what "hurt our society" means. But in any case, last time I checked, none of these countries have become lakes or seas of glass:

[center][/center]

But places like Uganda, Iran, Russia, and Afghanistan aren't so wonderful.

I think the problem is you're assuming the legalization or tolerance of something means that it will spread, but that's just not the case. I support the legalization of weed but I'll be damned if I smoke away my IQ. I support getting rid of the soda bans in New York, but I'm not gonna drink gallons of sugary soda. I just don't think your concerns are valid here.



-

[Goat]

First, I don't know whether sex is an identity or a preference...

Well, people can craft or adopt identities out of anything under the sun.

In my opinion, "preference" indicates the other option is doable. You could say in my case I legitimately have a preference.

Others prefer to use the term orientation, since, to a great number of people, same sex attraction or thoughts either never occurs or rarely occurs to the point that it's not relevant.

I think the two schools of thought are mutually exclusive, but I don't know which, if either, is correct.

Sex is clearly something you engage in. Ethnicity is something you inherited. Some people just like to substitute their own unique identities for group think, in this example, "I'm straight, I'm black, and I'm proud!" Atheists and Christians do the same thing. The problem with labeling yourself is that it causes other people to think of you in terms of their negative misconceptions, and you're just making it more difficult for yourself. Of course I'm not advocating dishonesty, but surely one can be forthcoming about what they do and think without dawning a straw man outfit for others to assail.

Just an observation, not an argument: Your personal experience on the matter sits in contrast to Goat, above. You are open to the idea that maybe you could be gay, but Goat is decidedly not gay.

Well it's important to note that my experience and Goat's experience are anecdotal, and not indicative of a trend.

So long as I continue to have feelings for the opposite sex, I can never become gay. At this point in my life where I'm being completely honest with myself, I can't ever imagine not finding women attractive. I can choose to have a monogamous homosexual relationship, but I still think I prefer women. In any case, my orientation, is bisexual... and my preference is whatever I'm in the mood for on any given day.

Goat's experience is very different. The first thing that comes to mind when he imagines another guy is "Nope!" It's probably a major turn off for him, just as it is for me when I think about morbidly obese women or feminine men with a lisp (which by the way is an accent, usually adopted by people, not representative of the majority of gay men). Goat has been straight for a good part of his life so the probability of anything changing now is not likely. I on the other hand discovered my preferences as a young adult. Who knows maybe I was born bi and he was born straight; let's just assume that orientation is innate and not an acquired taste. In any case, be it through biology or life experiences, both of our likes are perfectly explainable.


-

I will agree. I don't see anything wrong with being gay or bi... although in our society ,particular in the more conservative parts of the country, but everyplace, it is still a stigma to a large degree to be gay or bi (or at least act on it). In places where gay marriage is legal, there is less of a problem , but still there, particularly in the over 30 group. It has been found that many people who are bi/gay, and who are in an environment thinks 'homosexuality is a sin', there often are people who react strongly against homosexuality who are bi/gay, in an effort to suppress or deny it. Take a look at how many preachers who obsess about homosexuality get caught with gay prostitutes, or in gay bars (yet, Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual, so goes the song).

[Wissing]

I don't really understand how you get from legalizing gay marriage and gay adoption to putting humanity on the endangered species list.

saying that every culture has their own reasoning and logic seems like a desire to avoid the truth

I never said anything about cultural relativity, gay marriage, or the law, or gay adoption. I also did not say humanity was in danger. In fact, I said the opposite, and was actually supporting your point of view. You assume that I'm against you at every turn. I'm not. I am willing to consider the possibility that we no longer need to continue making new babies. If true, this would render homosexuality harmless, or even beneficial. That is one side of the issue. I often merely state points from the left or the right - that doesn't mean I'm arguing with you. Just laying out the arguments.

You claim that reason is universal. Sure. But who has access to it? No one. Every single one of us has a different set of opinions. Precedent is important precisely because of the possibility of faulty reasoning. You cite racism in order to disqualify precedent, but you neglect to cite other forms of precedent. What about building codes? That's precedent too. Logically speaking, one could dupe herself into designing a bridge on theory alone.

There's enough reason and evidence for any reasonable person to reject longstanding immoral institutions in favor of peaceful alternatives.

These institutions are immoral?
The alternatives are peaceful?
There's enough evidence to reject them?

that's just, like... your opinion, man.
-The Dude

you're assuming the legalization or tolerance of something means that it will spread, but that's just not the case.

I'm not assuming that - I'm allowing for the possibility of it. Just like, if I see a black guy in a long T-shirt with his boxers showing and bling around his neck, and I'm walking down the street alone at night - I don't assume he's going to try to kill me, but you know what? I'm looking for an escape route just in case (been there).

Like I said, I'm not really sure. Your points make sense to me! But that doesn't mean I will accept them outright.

[DanieltheDragon]

Does anyone have personal, first-hand experience as to whether being gay is in fact a choice or not?

If it's not, I think the argument is settled - you can't help who you are, and gay is ok. This is the argument I often hear on the news, but I'm not so sure that sex defines a person like that. I have a very close friend who claims to be attracted to both sexes, but chooses to be heterosexual out of personal preference. To me, the idea of sexual preference is mutually exclusive with the idea of sexual identity. Either its something you do, or something you are. Not knowing, I don't have a stance. I'd like to find out, if possible.

If it is a choice, then the argument breaks into two factions. One (the left) is implied in the OP: there's no conceivable logical reason why it's wrong to choose homosexuality. In short, reason. The other argument (the right) is almost never stated outright, and seldom wins arguments, but does have a profound way of winning votes: discouraging homosexuality has been a long-standing tradition for a really really long time, and you don't mess with a complex system you don't understand. In short, precedent.

In my mind, reason does not always trump precedent, because my reasoning has proven itself faulty many times, and my parents seem smarter now than they did 5 years ago. However, precedent does eventually die. Innovation is key to our survival. Both are important.

But again- choice or not?

Sexuality is a bit more complicated than you might realize. For the most part sexual orientation is set at age 3. certain events like extreme trauma can alter your orientation such as stroke or coma. This doesn't mean your hetero or homo though, as it is more like a scale

Gay [-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 0 +1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10]Straight

even that visualization is a bit over generalized. let say 0 is an equal bi 1-5 is also bi on both sides but with a preference. Only 0 has a choice. your friend is likely a +1 through +3 and naturally leans to the opposite sex given the choice between a male and female of equal attractive attributes income and personality they will make the choice of the opposite gender(again oversimplifying)

Can you look at your own gender and categorize them by attractiveness? most people can. Indeed when gender populations get cut off from the opposite sex sizable portions engage in same sex behavior.

My wife is bi-sexual, however she is attracted to men and women in very different ways. If she wants to be dominate she is like a -4 if she wants to be submissive she is a +3 I am referring to gender roles not whips and chains. She prefers men though mainly because she has a preference for being stimulated in that way not necessarily the gender.

The element of choice is merely an illusion could a straight person engage in homosexuality and vice versa? Yes. Is that conducive to a healthy mental state? no.

Indeed engaging in sexual activity against your orientation can cause severe mental distress. Even bi's can become unhappy stuck in a relationship against their orientation.

Homosexuality being discouraged really only occurs in certain religious and centralized (i.e. communism) cultures and in the past has been promoted hardly making it precedent.

So it's not reason or logic that is defying precedent it's biological fact. Discouraging homosexuality causes harm and mental anguish, being neutral does no harm. Ergo State discrimination of legal rights based on sexual orientation fosters a culture of discrimination causing mental anguish therefore immoral.

Precedents are based off of reason and therefore should be given no more credence than reason especially when those precedents are based off of poor reasoning i.e. kings, arranged marriages, and slaves being counted as 3/5's a person

[Wissing]

@Daniel:

First, for clarification, here is the hierarchy I'm currently operation on:
1. Personal experience
2 & 3: Reason & Precedent

I think my own reasoning should be weighed with equal credence as the long-standing traditions I am fed by my society. Not more, not less. There are some precedents that need to change, others that need to not change. In my mind, society is like a Jenga tower - progressives strive to pull the blocks out and build the tower taller, while conservatives try to keep them from pulling the wrong block and toppling the tower. Homosexuality (from an ethical standpoint, not a legal standpoint) is just another block in the Jenga game. I'm all for change, but I'm also for caution. I don't think it's worth pulling this block if there's any chance it could topple the tower.

Now here's the issue: I can't use personal experience to validate your statements. I can't use precedent to validate your statements. I can't even use reason, because it appears you and I are not starting from the same premises. So how do I know that any of the following statements are true?

Sexuality... is more like a scale

The element of choice is merely an illusion

Discouraging homosexuality causes harm and mental anguish, being neutral does no harm

discrimination... causing mental anguish therefore immoral

The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ki ... f_his_work) on Alfred Kinsey notes that there is controversy around the guy's work.

James H. Jones, author of Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, and British psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple, amongst others, have speculated that Kinsey was driven by his own sexual needs.

Indeed, Kinsey did not simply stand by and observe; he actually took part. One the one hand, that could give him added insight; on the other hand, it could cause bias.

Not that I wholeheartedly trust Wikipedia - but my point is that your statements are debatable, not, as you say,

biological fact

Furthermore, it is clear that you take an Epicurean approach to morality (defined in terms of happiness vs. suffering) which is highly subjective. My mom, for instance, repeatedly claims that she "needs" to spend her money on a big old house to be "happy". I point out that there are many people in the world who cannot afford a big old house, and are still "happy". I instead posit that we should spend our money helping people with their tiny, falling-apart houses, that are, as is, a threat to people's survival because of air quality and safety concerns. Happy is subjective. Survival is objective. Again, the very fundamental definition of "morality" is debatable.

[DanieltheDragon]

One [Replying to post 104 by Wissing]

Personal experience is anecdotal and is a poor reference point. Precedent is even worse. One thing your lacking is evidence. Do I need to personally experience slavery to know it's wrong?

All you need to validate my statements is observation and collecting evidence you don't need personal experience precedent or reason. Let's use your hierarchy to examine slavery.

There is a larger longer and more adamant historical precedent for supporting slavery.There is some strong reasonable arguments in favor of.
And since I have no personal experience with slavery I can't validate it causes anguish.

so it passes your 3 bars, in fact you have a stronger case pro slavery than anti-homosexuality rights.

I think my own reasoning should be weighed with equal credence as the long-standing traditions I am fed by my society. Not more, not less

.

This sounds like your falling into the Dunning-Kruger effect, I would be leary of believing this statement. As it could give you a false sense of justification.

Alfred Kinsey is a straw man as I didn't cite his research not to mention it's also ad hominem to his work. That aside I agree some things are debatable but to deny that the LGBTQA community doesn't suffer from state sponsored discrimination is arguing against biology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_am ... homophobia


United States medical community position on conversion therapy

United States

National health organizations in the United States find that conversion therapy is ineffective, risky and can be harmful, and that there has been no scientific demonstration of its efficacy in the last forty years.[4][11][105][106] Anecdotal claims of cures are counterbalanced by assertions of harm, and the American Psychological Association, for example, cautions ethical practitioners under the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to refrain from attempts at conversion therapy.[105] Mainstream medical bodies state that conversion therapy can be harmful because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide.[107] There is also concern in the mental health community that the advancement of conversion therapy can cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation and the ability of gay and bisexual people to lead happy, healthy lives.[11]

Mainstream health organizations critical of conversion therapy include the American Medical Association,[108] American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants.[11][109][110]

The American Psychological Association undertook a study of the peer-reviewed literature in the area of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and found a myriad of issues with the procedures used in conducting the research. The taskforce did find that that some participants experienced a lessening of same sex attraction and arousal, but that these instances were "rare" and "uncommon." The taskforce concluded that, "given the limited amount of methodically sound research, claims that recent SOCE is effective are not supported.[111] Two issues with SOCE claims are that conversion therapists falsely assume that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that their research focuses almost exclusively on gay men and rarely includes lesbians.[112][11][84][95][

You mentioned a Jenga tower about to fall if we pull this block. well 14 states already passed marriage rights for Homosexual marriage and civilization hasn't crumbled.

Give me one valid reason to support state sponsored discrimination of the LGBT community. What harm is there in allowing equality under the law?

I don't take an Epicurean approach to morality again you are fond of using ad hominem in this post. Your example is also a poor counter argument to Epicurean philosophy as a bigger house for her causes suffering for your hypothetical strangers so strangely enough your arguing for a net epicurean philosophy lol. Even then it's a poor reason to bring up this argument as it's not one I was making.

This is my point legal discrimination to a group of individuals without reason or evidence for a need to do so is wrong. In order to establish discrimination you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the harm caused by non discrimination.
To needlessly discriminate is a form of sadism. Supporting needless discrimination is accessory to sadism. Any precedents that are sadistic are irrational therefore unreasonable to support

[bluethread]

Do you have any evidence to suggest that Jesus was heterosexual.

You don't seem to have addressed this question Blue. When using the good book as an authority on the sexual practices of humans(let's leave animals) surely one of the sources for your conclusions should at least have his sexuality declared, or in the least not be a matter for speculation. Especially when you are championing one form of sexuality against another with reference to the alleged opinions of this person of undeclared sexuality.

The evidence is the lack of any accusation. The people wishing to discredit Him would have no doubt brought this up.

[Wissing]

I still haven't said anything about legislation. We're not talking about the government. We're talking about whether people generally accept this or not. Like I said, I'm all for change, but I think we ought to be careful. This is something that could revolutionize the way families operate, how kids are raised... it's not likely to show an effect for many generations. It's a big puzzle - I don't claim to know whether or not it will be harmful. Instead I claim that no matter how much research you do, you're not gonna know either. I haven't specialized in the liberal arts; any research I do will be biased, and I'm sure anybody on here can one-up me on anything I may find. It's not that precedent is absolute truth; it's that precedent is all I've got. My parents both have masters degrees in Journalism from an accredited university. They've done their research on this topic. They spent many years, in fact, doing just that. Nothing I can do is gonna be better than that. So yes, I'm being naïve, uneducated, and ignorant, and taking their word for it.

By the way, Kinsey would only be a straw man had I burned him down... I didn't.

And yes, it is about that time in the discussion that I spend some time at the library. I'll get back to you after some thorough research, although it may be a week or two.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 107 by Wissing]

http://mccaugheycentre.unimelb.edu.au/_ ... eport_.pdf

These early findings suggest that Australian children with same-sex attracted parents are developing well. They are growing up in a range of contexts and score well on measures of health and wellbeing in the face of discrimination. Further analysis of the ACHESS data will identify in what ways this discrimination affects children and their families, as well as characterising overall health and wellbeing in more detail. It is anticipated that full results will be available by September 2013.

Gay families have been studied for years.

what exactly are you urging caution with exactly?

[master_blaster]

Strictly from utilitarian, it seems to me that opposing homosexuality in 21st century harms society. It leads to sham marriages and gay people themselves can suffer mental health issues from the stigma. Depression is a negative, a burden to society in every way. I think most studies also show that adoption is superior to the foster care system. In a less tangible way, collectively we can only gain from learning to accept others' differences. Certainly it is better than being like russia, where the educated have mostly fled because that country is so backwards.