Homosexuality

[Daystar]

Italy's nominee to become the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs commissioner failed on Monday to win the backing of the European Parliament's Justice Committee, days after testifying that he considers homosexuality a sin.

The panel narrowly failed to endorse Rocco Buttiglione, who is currently Italy's European Affairs minister, said Jean-Louis Bourlanges, chairman of the Justice Committee.

Buttiglione said that he would fight for the rights of homosexuals, but would not back away from his statement that the lifestyle is sinful.

Isn't this the way it should be? Fight for the rights of homosexuals, but individuals, but define their lifestyle as sinful (Lev. 18:22).

[keltzkroz]

Just to make things clear, I'm not stating my opinion here to judge anyone or impose my beliefs on anyone else's. My opinion is simply what it is, my opinion. First of all, I'm a Christian, so I believe the Word of God (The God of Christians which I Believe to be the One and Only True God) to be True.

Now with religion aside, I believe that everyone and anyone has the right to live their own lives in whatever way they want to (which is focused on human sexuality for this topic). But simply because its a Right to live in whatever way we want to does not make the way we want to live our lives right. As for what is right or wrong, we simply don't have a universal definition of right or wrong. But if a person thinks that the way he or she is living is the right way, then would that person think (but not necessarily imposing such a lifestyle on anyone) that we can all benefit from that way of life?

As for homosexuality, it got me into thinking about a particular question: Would a homosexual person think (but not necessarily imposing such a lifestyle on anyone) that we can all (and I mean all) benefit from their way of life (again, the topic is focused on human sexuality)? What would the world be like if all (and I mean all) people became truly homosexual (at this very moment)? Would that be the end of humans as a species? I am curious about people's responses because I am genuinely interested in learning how to define what is right or wrong (which I believe has an absolute answer, just as Truth can never be False, no matter how many people believe in one or the other).

[greenhornet569]

Daystar wrote:

The male body was designed for a woman, and a woman's body designed for a man. Anal sex between men is as unnatural and repulsive as it gets, as are their other practices.

If you feel that homosexuality is 'repulsive' that is your opinion, but to say that it is 'unnatural' is hardly accurate, considering how prevalent these behaviors are among animals.

The animal kingdom should hardly be the standard for Human conduct

[Amphigorey]

Now with religion aside, I believe that everyone and anyone has the right to live their own lives in whatever way they want to (which is focused on human sexuality for this topic). But simply because its a Right to live in whatever way we want to does not make the way we want to live our lives right.

But since your opinion of what is right and wrong are derived from your religious beliefs, you haven't put religion aside. But in terms of right and wrong, if we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, I doubt what you think has any relevance. You ought to practice worrying more about your own life and less about anyone else's.

As for what is right or wrong, we simply don't have a universal definition of right or wrong.

I'm not sure of this. The idea of consent is pretty uiniversal. Its pretty easy to agree on some fundamentals of personal sexual behavior: anything non-consentual is wrong; rape is wrong; child molesting is wrong. What's difficult about that? If you just gotta worry about other people's sex lives, there's plenty of weird kinky NON-consentual stuff you can think about. Use your imagination.

Would a homosexual person think that we can all benefit from their way of life. What would the world be like if all people became homosexual? Would that be the end of humans as a species? I am curious about people's responses because I am genuinely interested in learning how to define what is right or wrong

Is this unlikely hypothetical curiosity even worth discussing?
This is a curious argument given that 100% pure homosexuals make up a tiny fraction of any population. And I know you're not worried that merely allowing homosexuals to live in peace would cause a massive conversion among heterosexuals. And I hope you would agree that a person's sexuality or orientation isn't a very good measure of their true value to their society. And for the record, 28% of gay couples are raising children. I'm surprised I have to state this: Homosexuals are physically capable of making babies.

[Amphigorey]

Daystar wrote:

The male body was designed for a woman, and a woman's body designed for a man. Anal sex between men is as unnatural and repulsive as it gets, as are their other practices.

If you feel that homosexuality is 'repulsive' that is your opinion, but to say that it is 'unnatural' is hardly accurate, considering how prevalent these behaviors are among animals.

The animal kingdom should hardly be the standard for Human conduct

You're absolutely right! We can't even come close to how strange other animals' sexualities are! The fact that some of us share a sexual orientation with them - heterosexual or homosexual - is merely evidence, exempli gratia, that that orientation occurs naturally.

[Spongemom]

Consider this: Homosexuality has been observed in many, many species of animals, and yet, humans and dolphins are the only species that have sex for pleasure. I haven't been keeping close tabs on this thread, but I'm sure that will come in somewhere.

[keltzkroz]

But since your opinion of what is right and wrong are derived from your religious beliefs, you haven't put religion aside. But in terms of right and wrong, if we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home, I doubt what you think has any relevance. You ought to practice worrying more about your own life and less about anyone else's.

Could you please quote the part where I stated my opinion of what is right and wrong? Please do not confuse Truth or Fallacy with Right or Wrong. If I have not stated my opinion of what is right or wrong, how can you draw any conclusions about it?

As for what is right or wrong, we simply don't have a universal definition of right or wrong.

I'm not sure of this. The idea of consent is pretty uiniversal. Its pretty easy to agree on some fundamentals of personal sexual behavior: anything non-consentual is wrong; rape is wrong; child molesting is wrong. What's difficult about that? If you just gotta worry about other people's sex lives, there's plenty of weird kinky NON-consentual stuff you can think about. Use your imagination.

Consent cannot be applied universally to the definition of Right or Wrong, as it only applies to conscious, sentient beings.

Would a homosexual person think that we can all benefit from their way of life. What would the world be like if all people became homosexual? Would that be the end of humans as a species? I am curious about people's responses because I am genuinely interested in learning how to define what is right or wrong

Is this unlikely hypothetical curiosity even worth discussing?
This is a curious argument given that 100% pure homosexuals make up a tiny fraction of any population. And I know you're not worried that merely allowing homosexuals to live in peace would cause a massive conversion among heterosexuals. And I hope you would agree that a person's sexuality or orientation isn't a very good measure of their true value to their society. And for the record, 28% of gay couples are raising children. I'm surprised I have to state this: Homosexuals are physically capable of making babies.

Please do not confuse Value to Society with Right or Wrong. If you meant 'biologically fully functional' by 'physically capable', I agree. But anyone studying animal behavior would tell you that the physical aspect of sexuality is just one component.

You're absolutely right! We can't even come close to how strange other animals' sexualities are! The fact that some of us share a sexual orientation with them - heterosexual or homosexual - is merely evidence, exempli gratia, that that orientation occurs naturally.

I do agree that many patterns of behavior occur naturally, including Homosexuality, though I doubt it makes such a behavior right or wrong.

[Amphigorey]

Could you please quote the part where I stated my opinion of what is right and wrong? Please do not confuse Truth or Fallacy with Right or Wrong. If I have not stated my opinion of what is right or wrong, how can you draw any conclusions about it?

But simply because its a Right to live in whatever way we want to does not make the way we want to live our lives right

My apologies. I jumped to conclusions. But in this last sentence it appears you were implying something about right and wrong. True, you hadn't stated it explicitly. I suppose you'll get there, soon enough.

The idea of consent is pretty uiniversal. Its pretty easy to agree on some fundamentals of personal sexual behavior: anything non-consentual is wrong;

Consent cannot be applied universally to the definition of Right or Wrong, as it only applies to conscious, sentient beings.

I didn't know we were debating the absolute or universal definitions of Right and Wrong. And here I assumed this thread was about homosexuality within the context of sentient beings since it began with the example of an Italian politician running for public office, unless you're saying politicians aren't sentient beings. Since I'm certain "Right and Wrong" are inventions of sentient beings, it seems reasonable to me to assume we're talking about them in this debate.

Please do not confuse Value to Society with Right or Wrong.

I would hope that value systems - "right and wrong" - contain something of value for the societies and individuals that use them.

I do agree that many patterns of behavior occur naturally, including Homosexuality, though I doubt it makes such a behavior right or wrong.

I'm certain that naturally occuring behaviors will continue to occur regardless of the label your value system applies to them. keltzkroz, you may want to debate Right and Wrong as mathematically elegant absolutes, but we live in a messy naturalistic world.

[keltzkroz]

And here I assumed this thread was about homosexuality within the context of sentient beings since it began with the example of an Italian nominee running for public office. Since I'm certain "Right and Wrong" are inventions of sentient beings, it seems reasonable to me to assume we're talking about them in this debate.

My mistake there. My mind seems to be wandering between associating the concepts of "Right or Wrong" with "Homosexuality" and thinking about the very concept of "Right or Wrong".

I would hope that value systems - "right and wrong" - contain something of value for the societies and individuals that use them.

Every conceivable society (not just societies in existence) can have very different value systems, which means that their concept of "Right or Wrong" could be very different from each other. At the back of my mind, I'm always asking why something so universally basic and essential to every society is relativistic.

[Amphigorey]

Every conceivable society (not just societies in existence) can have very different value systems, which means that their concept of "Right or Wrong" could be very different from each other. At the back of my mind, I'm always asking why something so universally basic and essential to every society is relativistic.

I see the moral sense as a Universal that everyone shares. However, exactly what is thought moral varies from place to place and time to time. Societies evolve differently. Some are patriarchical, others are matriarchical where women hold all the property, run the businesses, make all the decisions, etc. Some societies value the unusual and hold albinos as blessed or hermaphrodites as semi devine while other societies denigrate the unusual and see these things as signs of something bad.

[Dilettante]

Greenlight:

You simply can't justify homosexuality without unwittingly justifying beastiality, incest and pedaophelia too.

But there is a huge difference between homosexual relations between consenting adults and the other practices you mention, where typically there is one person who makes the decision and the other is not old enough to decide or is an animal and can't decide either.

I can't see how homosexuality would be a choice. Given the number of people who regard it as something abject, who would choose to be gay? Most likely it is not a choice. I didn't choose to be heterosexual.

Invoking "natural law" only opens another can of worms. What is this natural law we are talking about? Where is it written? In the starry sky?

Defining what's "natural" in the case of humans is particularly difficult. We humans do all manner of unnatural things, like wearing clothes, driving cars, and posting things on the Internet.

Anyway, I think the thread started with Buttiglione and his failed attempt at becoming EU Justice Commissioner. While I don't think it was very elegant to attack Buttiglione on account of his faith or his opinions (in his case, probably prejudices), there were good reasons to veto him. He was in the corrupt Berlusconi government which partly decriminalized double accounting for businesses and he helped pass laws to shield Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi from justice. One of those laws makes it illegal to use evidence collected outside Italy against the Prime Minister. So there were good reasons to veto him (and several other commisioners). Unfortunately those reasons were not invoked. All we heard was how he thought "single mothers could not be very good mothers" and "homosexuality is a sin". Come to think of it, it is not elegant either to go around calling people sinners if you're not God.