patrick.net

FortWayne says

It's a bad example for children. At certain age a child will do everything they see, and I don't think any parent would want their child to be messed up by seeing homosexuality and thinking it as normal and something they should do.

Here's what I think you are proposing, and I apologize if I'm not getting it right. Homosexuality is immoral because it encourages children to think that homosexuality is normal and to become homosexual.

Assuming that I got this premise right, here's how I would respond.

1. This premise is circular and therefore meaningless. If homosexuality is not immoral then encouraging other people to participate in it cannot be immoral either. This premise could not possibly justify that homosexuality is immoral because it assumes that homosexuality is immoral in the first place.

2. The term "normal" is not particularly meaningful and it certainly has no bearing on morality. Let's take one arbitrary criteria for "normal". It doesn't matter if we substitute other arbitrary criteria as the analysis is the same, but let's use popularity so we can do some examples.

4% of the U.S. population is gay. So let's say normal is 5% or more and abnormal is less than 5%.

It is abnormal to save another human being's life. Clearly less than 5% of the U.S. population have saved another person's life. In fact, saving a person's life is much more rare than being gay. You are more likely to run into a gay person than a hero.

The inescapable logical conclusion is that heros are immoral people. Since it is not normal to save a person's life, it must be immoral to do so.

Adopting a child when you could have your own biological child is not normal either. Is adopting a child rather than producing your own immoral? That's a hard stance to take.

Again, if we use some other arbitrary criteria for what it means to be normal, nothing changes. Let's define "normal" as conforming to the arbitrary cultural preferences of the majority of the population.

By that standard enjoying classical music like Mozart is not normal. Listening to Britney Spears is. Is listening to Mozart immoral since it violates the prevailing culture? One only has to watch the TruTV channel for ample demonstration that cultural standards do not make good moral standards.

Of course, if cultural conformity determines what is moral and what isn't, that means that morality varies considerably from culture to culture. Gay sex may be immoral here, but it certainly wasn't immoral in ancient Greece. To argue that morality based on culture is simply to say that we can make having gay sex moral by doing much, much more of it. I suppose then we could also make murder and rape moral by doing much, much more of that.

Furthermore, in many middle eastern countries it is "normal" to honor kill rape victims. Such honor killings would have to be moral if the morality of an act is based on how "normal" it is. Conversely, it is abnormal for a woman to vote or get an education, and clearly the Islamic men do consider it immoral for a woman to pursue such matters. I would argue, however, that this is nothing more than the corruption of the very concept of morality to justify using violence to enforce arbitrary cultural norms.

In conclusion, I see no evidence that upsetting cultural norms is immoral or bad. Actually, I hold the exact opposite philosophy. Upsetting cultural norms is exactly what the people in a society must do in order to advance that society and further social justice. Interracial marriage certainly wasn't normal in the 1950s, but that didn't make it immoral. All social advances are precisely turning the unimaginable into the normal.

Not to beat a dead horse, but there are also two more points regarding this premise. First is that the idea that people can be turned gay by watching gay acts is ridiculous. Don't believe me, then perform an experiment. Watch a few hours of gay porn and see how much gay sex you want. Children are not turned gay by watching pro-gay t.v. Trust me, I watched He-man growing up.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/32FB-gYr49Y

The fact that I watch this growing up and haven't sucked any dicks is proof positive that no gay musical, cartoon, or children's character is going to turn kids gay.

Furthermore, given that heterosexual sex is "normal" by whatever definition your using, why aren't six-year-olds fucking like crazy? Oh, because six-year-olds aren't engaging in sex to mimic adults any more than they wash dishes to mimic adults. And as for teens, a straight teen is going to want straight sex and a gay teen is going to want to have gay sex regardless of what they've seen in movies, television, or on the Internet. It's biological.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

3.2 See 1.3 Homosexuality occurs throughout nature. Clearly homosexuality does not cause extinctions. And if it did, then it would be a self-correcting problem as natural selection would have eliminated it. Instead, homosexuality thrives in nature across many species.

It doesn't in our society because of our success. Our capitalism is so successful, that almost everyone survives. One can be born with millions of diseases and abnormalities and still make it to old age. And now with artificial insemination, some of these even get to procreate their bad genes.

I think you missed the point. Homosexuality doesn't cause problems in countless other species including elephants, dolphins, and chimps. Clearly it is not the "sheer success" of our species that is preventing homosexuality from driving us to extinction.

FortWayne says

I'm not saying it is immoral in a religious kind of way. I'm saying that it is bad for society in a long run. Goes against evolution and Darwinism. It adds a cost to society.

Well, this thread is about the morality, not practicality of homosexuality. I don't want to get off on a tangent about all the practical advantages that are attributed to homosexual behavior by anthropologists and biologists. Sufficient to say, there are plenty of arguments that performing homosexual acts is beneficial to social species and one has to look no further than our closest living relatives, the Bonobo chimpanzees for ample examples. One could argue that gay sex promotes world peace based on the biological evidence alone.

Nevertheless, the only question this thread deals with "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?" and that question has nothing to do with practicality.

Finally, as an atheist, I can assure you that questions of morality are not the exclusive domain of religions. As a rational, thinking atheist I ponder the nature of morality all the time and consider many difficult moral dilemmas. If something is truly immoral, like drowning puppies in a river, then it should be easy to justify why that thing is immoral regardless of religious beliefs and mythology.

Dan8267 says

Here's what I think you are proposing, and I apologize if I'm not getting it right. Homosexuality is immoral because it encourages children to think that homosexuality is normal and to become homosexual.

My argument, as a parent who has raised a child. I tell you kids repeat everything they see, everything. Which is why parents like us would not like children to see homosexuality. We don't want children repeating that behavior. And at small age they can't comprehend why certain things are the way they are, and why some men dress and look like women.

I grew up in an older society, it seems like we never had seen a big deal about gays. Back in the days media wasn't exploding with gay rights activism, and parading gays. A child could grow normally without being exposed to this harm. Today it is a lot harder for parents.

That is my argument, disorders should be treated not celebrated.

CaptainShuddup says

I'll support gay marriage when the Liberal propaganda machine stops their assault on the Family unit.

To oppose the legality of gay marriage simply because you are upset with what Viacom airs is quite frankly childish and stupid, and it should be beneath you.

Would you seek to ban interracial marriages if you didn't like what BET aired?

Really, my captain, my captain, that's a stupid reason to oppose turning 6% of the U.S. population into second class citizens. It's a real shitty reason to turn a single person into a second class citizen.

Dan8267 says

It's biological.

yea .. so in most criminal activity and all perverted activity .. and all other activity and mental conditons. Being born an axe murderer does not have axe murder reduced to "a choice".

By the way, in your above post you mixed up valor with moral. Traits of character, such as valor and courage and ethics and honor and honesty, are extreemly important and were charished in pre-progressive-era America. Right around 1963ish the progressives began pushing America away from such silly things as character. Look at us now! nice huh?

FortWayne says

That is my argument, disorders should be treated not celebrated.

AMEN!!!

New Renter says

Bobpak says

Homosexuality is wrong! Our bodies are not design for this and they need help. We make a big deal about 1% of the population. Silence all homos and get them treated because they are sick and they don't think correctly.

Argue your point rationally please.

I think he was being factitious.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 invited Pope Benedict XVI to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Thanks for inviting an expert! Kind of doubt he will reply, but it's always good to ask experts for their opinion...

If the pope is too busy to address the moral question of homosexuality then he should have one of his high-ranking minions respond. Otherwise, I say they forfeit their position.

Of course, I have no problem engaging in a Lincoln-Douglas debate with the pope. I suspect I'm far more clear thinking than he is and have a much better understanding of morality. He's, of course, welcome to try to disprove this assertion.

leo707 says

Dan8267 says

OK, so at least Fort Wayne has the balls to provide reasons.

Yes, thanks Fort for providing an honest response to the question.

Yes, Fort's reply was honest and rational even though it failed to justify regarding homosexuality as immoral. At least he made an honest attempt and that shows he has more balls than those who have been writing anti-gay posts and have yet to man up and take a swing.

errc says

Do gays really have it that bad in modern society?

Not in comparison to the Middle Ages, but they are still legally treated as second class citizens. That's what the the gay marriage debate is all about. Can the government legally discriminate against gays including in regards to taxation simply because of the popularity of an ugly culture?

It doesn't take a legal scholar to understand that the issue of gay marriage is exactly the same as the issue of interracial marriage and that the case of Loving v Virginia could have easily been about gay marriage without changing a word in the judges' opinions.

People are funny about sex. In one culture a certain sexual practice may be prohibited under the most dire consequences for infraction! In another it may be frowned on but tolerated. In another it may be mandatory.
Culture shapes our beliefs about sex.

That said, sexual orientation isn't so simple as a mere "gay gene." Many gay men have been sexually abused by a man when they were boys. Some revert back straight. Gay women are likely to have tried the hetero thing with a man or two, had a bad experience, and decided they'd get along better with another woman.
Some men who start out hetero turn gay years and years later. I've a friend from childhood who had two children with his wife before switching genders and inviting another man to share their marriage. I guess he's both of their boyfriends now. Is that polygamy or gay marriage or what? Should it be legal as well? Who knows, but it's a real life example of this stuff.

I know the argument: "well my little boy seemed gay when he was young, so it's genetic."
I'm calling bullshit. I have a number of friends I've known for decades who are a little effeminate, maybe on the metrosexual side of hetero. Before they got married, I wondered a little. But they're all happily married. And their wives are happy too because they're more interested in the same kinds of things.

My theory is sexual orientation is a result of either a child's first exposure to sex, or a result of repeated self programming (hetero sex, gay sex, or type of porn watched for example).

Whether its right or wrong seems a lesser argument. From a religious viewpoint, Christians believe that sins can be forgiven. If gay sex is a sin, it's no worse than lying to your boss or stealing office supplies. If we're going to hell for our sins, ain't nobody going to the other place. I think Christians should be kind to gays even if they don't agree with their lifestyles. Many Christians agree with me on this. Domestic partnerships and equal rights are part and parcel of that belief. However they see marriage as a religious thing that belongs to them. Which is why the issue is such a contentious one.

zzyzzx says

I voted FOR gay marriage in Maryland because I want the gays to pay the extra income taxes in the form of the marriage penalty.

Actually the vast majority of gays would pay less in income tax if they were allowed to marry just like the vast majority of heterosexual couples pay less in taxes.

The truth is that the tax policies discriminate against single people.

CaptainShuddup says

errc says

They sure as shit seem to have a remarkably high quality of life.

Yep!

Tell that to the parents of Mathew Shepard. He was brutally beaten to death because some assholes thought that gay men were immoral and subhuman. And Shepard was hardly the first gay man brutally murdered because of the "homosexuality is a sin" argument.

So no, I do think that it is a moral imperative that we discredit the idea that homosexuality is immoral. Enough people have suffered or died as a result of this bullshit. If homosexuality isn't immoral than certainly claiming that homosexuality is immoral is itself immoral because of the harm done by such claims.

FortWayne says

Which is why parents like us would not like children to see homosexuality. We don't want children repeating that behavior.

That is not relevant to the question of "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?".

Even if children started sucking dicks because they saw people sucking dicks, which I don't believe children would do, then the answer is simply not to exposed children to gay porn or gay orgies. I'd argue that you probably should expose your children to heterosexual porn or heterosexual orgies either. It doesn't make gay sex any less moral than straight sex.

Furthermore, the fact that you don't want your children engaging in certain acts does not in any way make those acts immoral. No parent wants his 16-year-old daughter to suck a boy's dick or to have intercourse with him. That doesn't make teenage heterosexual sex immoral.

Many parents don't want their kids listening to a certain type of music -- insert any type that their parent's didn't grow up with for any generation -- but that doesn't make listening to certain music immoral.

Most parents don't want their kids smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol, and there are practical reasons for this. Nonetheless, smoking and drinking aren't immoral.

The fact is that all parents are hypocrites. Hell, one could argue that in order to be a decent parent you have to be a complete hypocrite and make sure your kids don't do the exact same thing that you did when you were their age. Yes, I'm talking to all the Baby Boomers, here.

Nevertheless, the conflict between parents and their children is no justification for stating that there is anything immoral or subversive about homosexuality.

I think that many parents don't want their own kids to turn out gay, but that doesn't make being gay or having gay sex immoral. Many parents don't want their own kids to marry someone of a different race or religion, but that doesn't make either of those things immoral.

If anything, it is selfish and immoral to use any kind of force to make your kid marry a member of the opposite sex and give you grandchildren. Yes, that may be what you want from your kid's life, but it is not moral to force your will onto the kid. If your teenage son likes sucking dick, then it is immoral -- hell, it's child abuse -- to try to cleanse him of gayness.

Bap33 says

yea .. so in most criminal activity and all perverted activity .. and all other activity and mental conditons. Being born an axe murderer does not have axe murder reduced to "a choice".

You are making a Straw Man argument. I did not make the statement that all natural behavior is moral. In fact on many threads I have shown this not to be true.

The context of the phrase you quoted was that since sexual orientation is biological, you can't flip it by watching a cartoon.

Furthermore, your Straw Man argument does not address the question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?". The burden of proof is on you. There are an infinite number of things we can do, most of them have nothing to do with morality. For example, I could drop 1 gram stone. That's not immoral. Second example, I could drop a 2 gram stone. That's not immoral. I have an infinite number of other examples just dealing with stones. It's not practical to assume everything is immoral until proven otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bap33 says

By the way, in your above post you mixed up valor with moral.

You are making a red herring argument. My counter-argument that "normality", whatever that means, does not imply morality perfectly answered Fort Wayne's concern.

If you want to state why homosexual sex is immoral, then just do so. If you can't think up any reason why it's immoral, then you should be questioning why you believe that in the first place. It should not be hard to show why something so terrible is wrong. If it is hard then your assumption is wrong. Why the hell is gay sex immoral? This isn't a trick question. It shouldn't stump you if you are correct.

FortWayne says

I grew up in an older society, it seems like we never had seen a big deal about gays. Back in the days media wasn't exploding with gay rights activism, and parading gays. A child could grow normally without being exposed to this harm. Today it is a lot harder for parents.

Gay rights is a big issue in the media precisely because of the anti-gay bigotry and the institutionalize discrimination against gays. If gays had equal rights and we're harmed by anti-gay bigotry, you'd see as much coverage of gay issues as you do of abolitionist issues.

You say, "A child could grow normally without being exposed to this harm.". Exactly what harm is befalling a child who sees a marriage equality protest or a gay pride parade? Just because as a parent you are uncomfortable discussing a topic with your children does not mean that it is harmful to discuss that topic with your child. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite.

It is good parenting to discuss difficult topics with your child including sex, racism, slavery, torture, death, and so on. By avoiding these issues you are not preventing your children from having to deal with these realities. However, by discussing these issues you can provide some wisdom and understanding that will make your children deal with these issues better both as children and, more importantly, as adult citizens. It is precisely the responsibility of parents to teach their children the difficult lessons in life, to attempt to answer the difficult questions, and to ensure that their children understands the failings of the society they live in so that those children may have the ability to correct those failings when they become adults.

Parents should be telling their kids that America enslaved people for over a hundred years, that the south lynched blacks for another hundred, that recently evil people in our government tortured innocent people to death, and that sometimes your government does things that you only think other governments do. It would make the children better citizens and better leaders as adults.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ateh7hnEnik

Bap33 says

FortWayne says

That is my argument, disorders should be treated not celebrated.

AMEN!!!

A mental disorder cannot be immoral, by definition. Only the biggest bastard in the world would say that a child with Down Syndrome is being immoral. Does any asshole here want to claim that this girl is immoral for having Down Syndrome?

Ok then. If you even think that homosexuality is some kind of disorder, then it cannot be immoral.

Of course, then it is your burden to prove that homosexuality is a disorder.
The American Board of Medical Specialties does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
The American Board of Family Medicine does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
The Department of Health and Human Services does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
The World Health Organization does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
The American Medical Association does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
The American College of Physicians does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons does not classify homosexuality as a disorder.

None of these reputable organizations or countless others consider homosexuality to be at all a disorder. Nor does any of these organization prescribe any medical treatment for homosexuality. If you are going to make a claim that the entire medical world is wrong and you know more about medical disorders than they do, then you better have some damn good evidence to back up your claim.

Of course, there was a time when interracial lust was called a mental disorder, when the female orgasm was called hysteria, and when it was considered a "scientific fact" that the white man was mentally superior to the black or yellow man. Do you really want to join this camp by asserting that homosexuals are mentally deficient without having some objective evidence to back up that claim?

Dan8267 invited World Health Organization to fact-check this discussion.

Invite another expert to fact-check this discussion.

Trying to invite people from the above organization to voice whether or not homosexuality is a disorder and if so what the medical treatments are. You know, because I'm not a doctor, but I do play one with your daughter.

Can't customize the invite an expert email, so going through forms.

If you dont believe in a teleological explanation for life on Earth then all morality is subjective and comes from the society you either find yourself in or that your society was derived/evolved out of. Religious people and others who believe there is a purpose for life on earth and that there is something higher then man accept that there is a higher form of morality than that created by man. The Ten Commandments, at least some may fall into this a category of a objective morality. This is certainly not to say that that all religious "laws" fall into this category far from it. The contradictions within religion and religious people are legion and man's "touch" permeates all religious teachings.

My feeling is that homosexuality is something like a third sex, people are born that way cannot change and should be left alone to live as they see fit. They should be neither elevated or denigrated. It has nothing to do with living a moral or an immoral lifestyle as it is not a volitional choice, it is not conscious.

In case anyone thinks I'm bluffing...

Ok, maybe we'll get some experts to ring in now.

If this is immoral than I'm for more of it...

Quigley says

[Some Christians] see marriage as a religious thing that belongs to them. Which is why the issue is such a contentious one.

Some people drive like they own the road, but they don't. Their position isn't "moral," it's theft. Marriage goes back a lot further in human history than Christianity does, and besides there are Christian denominations that recognize same-sex marriage.

Dan8267 says

A mental disorder cannot me immoral, by definition.

Correct. The condition is not immoral, the activity that comes about as a result of the condition is. Just like the axe murderer gene. Lots of different "maniacs" exist. Maybe Sodomitomaniac has yet to be correctly diagnosed?

Bap33 says

Correct. The condition is not immoral, the activity that comes about as a result of the condition is. Just like the axe murderer gene. Lots of different "maniacs" exist. Maybe Sodomitomaniac has yet to be correctly diagnosed?

And what exactly about the activity is immoral. In other words, answer the freaking question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?"!

Bap33 says

yet to be correctly diagnosed?

Bap69, your comments (e.g. "Sodomite Nation," a phrase coined by Fred Phelps) don't answer the original question, but they do show something about where you devote your attention. You seem to overlook the actual story of Sodom, which was about hospitality and sexual assault, and had nothing to do with same-sex marriage for example. Since you copy Phelps' phrasing, I have to wonder, do you also picket military funerals with him?

never heard of the guy or him using my phrase. sorry. I think I got it from Rush, but not sure. I honor all of Americas warriors.

you are wrong about the story of Lot in Sodom.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

Correct. The condition is not immoral, the activity that comes about as a result of the condition is. Just like the axe murderer gene. Lots of different "maniacs" exist. Maybe Sodomitomaniac has yet to be correctly diagnosed?

And what exactly about the activity is immoral. In other words, answer the freaking question, "Why the hell is gay sex immoral?"!

male / male coupling is immoral for the same reason abortion, rape, and cutting in line is immoral. Right?

Bap33 says

Right?

Wrong. Most of your examples involve stealing from someone else in one form or another. Sort of like when a group of religious fanatics hijack an airplane or a government and use it as a weapon to hurt other people. Abortion is not necessarily an example at all. And you haven't identified anything at all wrong with, as you put it, "male / male coupling." The one thing you have illustrated correctly is why Republicans lost last week: they've fallen into the Rush Limbaugh / Fred Phelps cesspool, and they can't get out.

what's wrong with cutting in line the next time you go to the store or bank?

Bap33 says

what's wrong with cutting in line the next time you go to the store or bank?

You're taking something from the other people who have been waiting in the line. And you're still no closer to answering the original question.

curious2 says

You're taking something from the other people who have been waiting in the line. And you're still no closer to answering the original question.

What about bestiality? Is that immoral? You can't use the excuse that you are hurting something else. Maybe the animal is a consenting party. "Little Tommy was born attracted to the dog, he can't help it."

As far as comments made above about animals being homosexual, they also eat their own excrement. Should humans do that too?

Whittaker you aren't even trying to answer the topic question. You're merely trying to distract and possibly offend with off topic questions.

Bap33 says

I honor all of Americas warriors.

Including the gay ones?

Bap33 says

male / male coupling is immoral for the same reason abortion, rape, and cutting in line is immoral. Right?

That's not an argument. Simply naming things that have nothing to do with gay sex is not an argument that gay sex is immoral. I could just as easily say "heterosexual marriage is immoral for the same reason abortion, rape, and cutting in line is immoral" and it would make as much sense as what you just said.

Again, this shouldn't be a stumper question. If you have any legitimate reason to believe that gay sex is immoral, it should not be at all difficult for you to express that reason. If you cannot think of a reason why gay sex is immoral, then perhaps you should accept that it is only your own bigotry that causes you think that it is.

whittaker says

As far as comments made above about animals being homosexual, they also eat their own excrement. Should humans do that too?

If it were necessary for human babies to eat their mothers excrement in order to introduce bacteria essential for survival into their own digestive system as it is for elephants, then yes. If it were necessary for humans to digest food twice to extract the nutrition like it is for many herbivores, then yes.

However, your comments are simply a Straw Man argument. No one has claimed that an action is moral simply because other species in nature do it. The argument that the religious often make is that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. Showing that homosexuality is common in nature disproves the false argument presented by the religious.

Once again, what few arguments for claiming that homosexual acts are immoral have been easily disproved by ample counter examples. I'm not even being intellectually challenged here. Through me some argument that at least requires a micron of thought to discredit.

curious2 says

Whittaker you aren't even trying to answer the topic question. You're merely trying to distract and possibly offend with off topic questions.

True. The subject of bestiality is a red herring. It has no more to do with gay sex than it does with straight married sex.

curious2 says

Whattaker you aren't even trying to answer the question. You're merely trying to distract and possibly offend with off topic questions.

Sorry I guess I hit a nerve. Just expounding on reasoning that I see in this thread. You can get yourself in real trouble when you reason everything away....

But to be fair I will answer your question, which I think was already answered, but it just isn't liked.

Definition of morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
Definition of moral: of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

Based on the definition and the fact that only 5% of the population identifies themselve as a homosexual, I think it would be obvious why people view homosexuality as immoral. It is unnatural to most people and the thought of engaging in such acts themselves is repulsive to them.