[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

TEver met my friend Salty. Yeah it makes no sense, but it's been seen time and time again. People who really ARE straight don't care too much about gays. The ones that post over and over on forums about how wrong it is are trying to convince themselves.

So those that constantly harp about Christianity over and over again are really closet Christians?

If what you say is true, that is also the case. Can't have it both ways.

No, actually it is a real fear. You fear that you may be gay and you fear that your kids may be gay. I can hear it in your voices. And you try to cover that fear by saying you just don't like it.

I have no hateful feelings toward gays.They aren't any better/worse off than I am.We are on the same boat.How is that fear?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As you believe it is. No one knows where it comes from. Not that it matters really.

When one has to compare their actions with those of wild animals to justify their own, one has already lost. There is A LOT of things wild animals do that we punish humans for doing. Lots of things they do that would seem cruel or mental if we did them. That is no justification. As it has been pointing out many times.

These two points aren't really fair. It was the crowd that was opposed to same-sex marriage that first made the arguments that homosexuality was a choice rather than biological and wasn't "natural".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

These two points aren't really fair. It was the crowd that was opposed to same-sex marriage that first made the arguments that homosexuality was a choice rather than biological and wasn't "natural".

Well good for them.

Would you say that since some claim homosexuality is genetic, then other sexual attractions would be too no? Correct.

That alone doesn't legitimize it's practice.

[- - e r i k - -]

****. It's a Kevin-rush.

[Kevin]

Yeah we just got through the erik-rush.

[- - e r i k - -]

Didn't quite compare to this Kevalanche

[Kevin]

What is your point?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yes. Plenty. Namely Confucianism…

Confucianism is not a religion, just for the record.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Well good for them.

Would you say that since some claim homosexuality is genetic, then other sexual attractions would be too no? Correct.

That alone doesn't legitimize it's practice.

I wouldn't say anything either way asI have no opinion on the nature of homosexuality. I think it's irrelevant to the argument of the legitimacy of it's practice.

I'm just saying that olePigeon was pre-arguing the old anti vs. not-anti same-sex-marriage argument. Your response was actually quite similar to the original not-anti-same-sex-marriage response to the "homosexuality is not natural" argument.

Personally, I'm neither for nor against same-sex marriage. As a result, I see no reason to oppose it, don't really understand those who do, and will fight for everyone to enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else ... including being able to celebrate your love for someone else in marriage.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

BTW believing that homosexual sex is a sin isn't homophobia. No more than believing adultery is a sin makes one a heterophobe.

I never really thought of it this way, and I see your point but I think it is a little flawed. Adultery may be a sin but the act of (hetero) sex itself is not. With homosexuality it is being prohibited as a whole. I think it is a different situation. Christians as a whole have put homosexuality on the same level as incest and bestiality. This may not be as true now as it used to be but the point remains.

There is A LOT of things wild animals do that we punish humans for doing. Lots of things they do that would seem cruel or mental if we did them. That is no justification. As it has been pointing out many times.

Exactly.

And, when a man or animal is born with the genetic propensity to be violent? Is that "natural" or is that a "disorder"?

How about when animals have sex with their relatives? Is that justification for man to do the same?

Some animals have been known to kill either their own or another's babies too. Is that something we wanna justify in human behavior?

I don't really care if men want to have sex/be in relationships with each other. I'm not "against" it, and I am not "creeped out" by it in the least. In fact I think that life would be more enjoyable for all of us if we didn't have these hang-ups.

But stop with the inane justifications. I have more respect for the argument that says "**** you I like men if you have a problem with that then too bad." than the one that says "You NEED to respect be because I can't help my behavior." But hey, that's just me.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Buddhism:
"The third of the Five Precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from sexual misconduct; this precept has sometimes been interpreted to include homosexuality. The Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism interprets sexual misconduct to include lesbian and gay sex, and indeed any sex other than penis-vagina intercourse, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand."

This is but one sect of Buddhism and one man's opinion.

The precepts are not really intended to be used as a moral code, at least not the kind of moral code we are used to. It is intended to be used as a self-imposed restriction of behavior that could stand in the way of one's attainment. In fact, they are often referred to as "training" precepts. By the time of Siddhārtha Gautama's death there were several hundred precepts including things like how clothing is to be worn.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

But same sex unions are recognized in many more countries. Which all in all is marriage.

Same-sex union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I counted 26 countries which currently allow same sex marriage/union. Most of them major players.

Not really. As your own source indicates ...

The terms used to designate legally recognized same-sex unions are not standardized, and vary widely from country to country. The exact level of rights and benefits also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country.

OAW

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Was that supposed to be a rebuttal to something?

RELIGION makes people irrational as it is a set of rules and codes grounded in mythology created by men as an explanation for things that used to be unexplainable before there were science and reason.

Rebuttal no.
Just a reminder that it's NOT just Christianity. What this thread was turning into.
As MANY would continue to rant about.
Islam is just as low. If not worse.
Islamic countries execute homosexuals.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is but one sect of Buddhism and one man's opinion.

Yeah, the Dalai Lama isn't like the Pope. He leads a small but visible (due to China's mistreatment of their country) sect of Buddhism. Aside from being the leader of a conquered country, he doesn't have any real authority and doesn't speak for most Buddhists.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

When implying that the majority of the world constitutes a validation of homosexuality being immoral.
Your intentional vagueness doesn't help the fact that you are indeed masking a negative view on homosexuality.

Well see that's where you are wrong. It's not an implication. It's a statement of fact. Why? Again ... the determination of what is and is not "immoral" is done by society at large. Not by individuals. As is consistent with the definition of the term itself. Which is the original point I made that seems to have gone right over your head. Now is that a subjective standard? Yes. Can it change over time? Yes. But be that as it may, as of right now ... homosexuality is considered immoral by most people on the planet.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

The fact that you are not saying "anything one way or the other about whether accepting homosexuality is "right" or "ok"" is just you being afraid to take a stand, cowardly hiding behind your "majority rules" stats.

Oh man please! Anyone who is familiar with my posts on these boards knows for a fact that I am not one who is "afraid to take a stand". Again, it seems to have gone over your head when I mentioned it earlier .... but the fact of the matter is that you never asked me if I thought homosexuality was "right" or "ok". You asked "Why is homosexuality immoral"? Which is a different question.

Now having said that, my personal views on the subject are pretty simple. As I mentioned to someone else earlier, I'm pretty much in the "live and let live" camp. Certainly the thought of two men together sexually makes me go "Ewwww!" ... as it does most men. But it's nothing that I get bent out of shape about because I have neither the time nor the inclination to worry about it if two guys want to bump uglies together. That's their business as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I've probably thought more about the topic since I've been posting in this thread than I have in years. Essentially, I consider myself to be fairly tolerant of homosexuality. But I don't particularly condone it either. And there is a difference, despite the attempts by some to equate the two.

When you analyze a lot of the debate about this topic you will see that there are those who are fundamentally looking for people to say that homosexuality is "Ok". What they want is validation ... and some even resort to hurling around loaded terms like "homophobia" indiscriminately and inaccurately to try to guilt people into giving it to them, or at least into being silent on the topic. And that begs the question ... why is such acceptance or validation even necessary? If one is really comfortable and at peace with who they are then WTF do they care if the majority considers their sexuality immoral? The issue ought to be be discrimination in education, employment, housing, public facilities, etc on the basis of one's sexuality. And when it comes to that I am definitely in the camp that says that such things should be illegal.

OAW

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Gay marriage" isn't widely accepted, so no, it isn't yet really helping to destroy it. Divorce itself isn't really what's destroying it either. It's people who have little respect for the institution, tradition and meaning behind marriage who are helping to destroy it. Those people include those who want to reduce the institution down to simply a legal mechanism instead of the long-held societal man/woman/child building block that our species has had for pretty much all of our existence.

Institute for American Values

And therein lies a huge part of the problem. You seem to believe that, just because it's always been this way, it should always be this way, which is a belief that is intolerant of others' viewpoints. You put these "institutions, traditions, and meanings" on a sacred pedestal as something to be worshipped and strictly adhered to, which is 100% fine with me, as it applies to your situation. If you want to believe that you should be married for life, no one is stopping you from believing such and no one is forcing to you to choose believe so. No one also feels threatened by your decision to do so, yet you feel that your sacred institution is threatened by Bill and Ken getting married, which is an unprovable belief. The Institute for American Values and The American Family Association and The Concerned Women of America, and others like them, would like you to believe that Leave It To Beaver and Lassy were reality tv and that just isn't the case.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never really thought of it this way, and I see your point but I think it is a little flawed. Adultery may be a sin but the act of (hetero) sex itself is not. With homosexuality it is being prohibited as a whole.

I disagree. I think it can be argued that homosexuality is NOT a sin. At least in the religions that worship the God of Abraham. I doubt seriously that God would make a state of being, based on feelings you can't control, sinful.

On the other hand, like many unnatural urges that tempt you to do things that are not acceptable to society or God, if it's something that with a minimum of discipline you can avoid engaging in then the behavior is prohibited. In other words, based on what I know, being gay isn't a sin. Being gay and deciding to have gay sex would be though.

Being born with urges to sin isn't an excuse to sin, if you are a relgious person.

I think it is a different situation. Christians as a whole have put homosexuality on the same level as incest and bestiality. This may not be as true now as it used to be but the point remains.

I disagree. The teachings of the Bible shows that there isn't really a ranking for sin. If you engage in bestiality, or adultery you're not going to be judged differently by God. Sin is sin. For that matter, if you don't respect your mother and father, God's going to judge you just as seriously as if you have gay sex.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

And therein lies a huge part of the problem. You seem to believe that, just because it's always been this way, it should always be this way, which is a belief that is intolerant of others' viewpoints.

A. I don't believe what you claim.
B. Even if I disagree, I'm tolerant to other's viewpoints.

You put these "institutions, traditions, and meanings" on a sacred pedestal as something to be worshipped and strictly adhered to, which is 100% fine with me, as it applies to your situation.

Not my claim. There are reasons why the tradtional man/woman/child genetic unit has worked throughout history, and it has little to do with "tradition". Did you read any of the information at the website I linked to?

The Institute for American Values and The American Family Association and The Concerned Women of America, and others like them, would like you to believe that Leave It To Beaver and Lassy were reality tv and that just isn't the case.

The postive, loving relationships depicted in the shows you mention are a worthy goal to achieve. Going in the opposite direction on the other hand is destructive and NOT a worthy goal..

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I never really thought of it this way, and I see your point but I think it is a little flawed. Adultery may be a sin but the act of (hetero) sex itself is not. With homosexuality it is being prohibited as a whole. I think it is a different situation. Christians as a whole have put homosexuality on the same level as incest and bestiality. This may not be as true now as it used to be but the point remains.

If they are, it's wrong. A sin is a sin is a sin etc.

Them telling a lie is no different than Larry porking Jerry.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I disagree. I think it can be argued that homosexuality is NOT a sin. At least in the religions that worship the God of Abraham. I doubt seriously that God would make a state of being, based on feelings you can't control, sinful.

God didn't make such a thing. What God made was ruined by man. "man" made this choice that caused the change. Not God. But not that part matters. There are people that are "born" with sexual feelings toward children too. They cannot control it. Not that I am comparing the acts. I know they are different. Having lustful thoughts is just as bad as the actions. Something ALL OF US are guilty of.

On the other hand, like many unnatural urges that tempt you to do things that are not acceptable to society or God, if it's something that with a minimum of discipline you can avoid engaging in then the behavior is prohibited. In other words, based on what I know, being gay isn't a sin. Being gay and deciding to have gay sex would be though.

I agree to a point. I think justification is a big slippery slope.

I disagree. The teachings of the Bible shows that there isn't really a ranking for sin. If you engage in bestiality, or adultery you're not going to be judged differently by God. Sin is sin. For that matter, if you don't respect your mother and father, God's going to judge you just as seriously as if you have gay sex.

Indeed.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

No it's not "purely religious". Clearly an atheist can disapprove of homosexuality.

Yes... but then I'd ask an athiest what his/her reasons are? That would be an interesting answer.

Originally Posted by OAW 

As for it being "genetic", in some cases that may be the case. In other cases, perhaps not ...

I didn't intend for that to mean all cases, I was pointing out that "real" homosexuality is genetic. Obviously people can make whatever decision they want. Circumstances can change people, even if it's not genetic.

Originally Posted by OAW 

As for homosexuality among animals, the sexual practices of other species isn't really the topic here now is it?

That was just underlying my point about it being genetic if you're going to remove the choice factor. Some people like to argue that it's 100% choice and that it doesn't happen "naturally in the wild."

Originally Posted by OAW 

Now when you factor all of Africa into the mix the overall disapproval level is going to go through the roof because the populations there have been intolerant of homosexuality for millennia ...

Except that homosexuality is embedded in Egyptian religion between some of the gods. There is even evidence of prostitution in ancient Egypt that involved homosexual relations, especially after the Romans. It wasn't until after the spread of Islam and Christianity did homosexuality become a taboo.

Originally Posted by OAW 

So a little math and common sense will make it clear that what I'm saying is right on.

What two religions have conquered this planet? Christianity and Islam. Your data only reflects that and is completely irrelevant to anything 2000 or more years ago.

Originally Posted by OAW 

What other historical culture even remotely approached these two when it came to the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality?

Buddhists, Hindus, Mayans, Aztecs, many North American tribes. Your assessment completely ignores the entire American continent, and the 3rd and 4th largest religions/philosophies in the world.

Originally Posted by OAW 

There are over a billion Muslims in the world.

Now there are over a billion Muslims. How about 2000 to 4000 years ago?

Originally Posted by OAW 

And homosexuality is even less acceptable in the Islamic world than in Christendom.

Except when Muslims get to Heaven, they get all the homo sex they want. Nymphs, charobs, and virigins. Have at 'em boy.

Originally Posted by OAW 

As I said earlier, in African culture it is highly frowned upon.

Which African culture? Do you realize how many different tribes and religious convictions there are on the African continent?

Originally Posted by OAW 

Whether that culture is Christian, Islamic, or traditional African religion. I daresay you are being a tad bit uh, "optimistic" in your assessment of the situation.

You're using current poll data to extrapolate demographics over 2000 years ago. If anyone's being optimistic, it's you.

All I can say is, take an anthropology course or two at the local college. Or even cheaper, buy a few books on homosexuality in historic societies. You'll be amazed at how many books there are. Unfortunately, you probably won't find them very interesting because they're likely to be completely contradictory to what you want to believe (at least, everything that we've covered in my anthro classes has been contradictory to what you want to believe.)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But be that as it may, as of right now ... homosexuality is considered immoral by most people on the planet.

That I can agree to. However, your original argument was that historically it has been considered immoral by most of the planet. That's where you're wrong.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That I can agree to. However, your original argument was that historically it has been considered immoral by most of the planet. That's where you're wrong.

Something no one can prove either way ole. You know this.
So you saying he is false, is just as wrong as him saying it's true.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Except that homosexuality is embedded in Egyptian religion between some of the gods.

The gods. The realm of mythology and allegory.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

There is even evidence of prostitution in ancient Egypt that involved homosexual relations, especially after the Romans.

As you said .... after the Romans.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Buddhists, Hindus, Mayans, Aztecs, many North American tribes. Your assessment completely ignores the entire American continent, and the 3rd and 4th largest religions/philosophies in the world.

Link please? Just google "homosexuality in ancient societies" and you get pages upon pages on references to Ancient Greece and Rome. At best you get the occasional and rather reference to some other culture. And why do you suppose that is?

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Which African culture? Do you realize how many different tribes and religious convictions there are on the African continent?

I'm quite aware of that. And homosexuality is frowned upon consistently across the continent.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

You're using current poll data to extrapolate demographics over 2000 years ago. If anyone's being optimistic, it's you.

You are welcome to post your evidence to the contrary. But bear in mind that I never said homosexuality was unheard of throughout history. I just said it was not generally accepted by the societies at large. I mean think about it ... an "anthropologist" a thousand years in the future can dig up a sh*tload of gay porn in the US, but that still doesn't mean that homosexuality was approved of by the overall society in the early 21st century now does it?

OAW

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But be that as it may, as of right now ... homosexuality is considered immoral by most people on the planet.

And that still does not answer the question: WHY is homosexuality considered immoral?

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Can we get to the point already?

Originally Posted by OAW 

Essentially, I consider myself to be fairly tolerant of homosexuality. But I don't particularly condone it either. And there is a difference, despite the attempts by some to equate the two.

There is no difference. What you just said contradicts itself. Are you tolerant of homosexuality or not? Stop being wishy washy.

Originally Posted by OAW 

If one is really comfortable and at peace with who they are then WTF do they care if the majority considers their sexuality immoral?

Because immorality is used as a validation tool for discriminiation. This isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by OAW 

The issue ought to be be discrimination in education, employment, housing, public facilities, etc on the basis of one's sexuality. And when it comes to that I am definitely in the camp that says that such things should be illegal.

Thank you. Now lets get on with the program:

Why is homosexuality considered immoral?

[itistoday]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And that still does not answer the question: WHY is homosexuality considered immoral?

It's cause people are fags.

[subego]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And that still does not answer the question: WHY is homosexuality considered immoral?

Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! Can we get to the point already?

Not to get in the way here, but I have a genuine theory which I wouldn't mind having (fairly) challenged.

Would you be interested?

[- - e r i k - -]

Go for it

[subego]

Biology.

Getting squicked by "differently" oriented sex is a side effect of having an orientation in the first place.

If it didn't happen, people would have "leanings" rather than "orientations".

Edit: especially in males.

Edit2: I'm guessing this is clear, but just in case, the morality part is obviously a social construction, I'm saying the biology is what prompts that construction.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not to get in the way here, but I have a genuine theory which I wouldn't mind having (fairly) challenged.Would you be interested?

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Go for it

Originally Posted by subego 

Biology. Getting squicked by "differently" oriented sex is a side effect of having an orientation in the first place. If it didn't happen, people would have "leanings" rather than "orientations".
Edit: especially in males.
Edit2: I'm guessing this is clear, but just in case, the morality part is obviously a social construction, I'm saying the biology is what prompts that construction.

I'm going to cast one vote for NOT attempting to actually answer the question. Huh?

[subego]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I'm going to cast one vote for NOT attempting to actually answer the question. Huh?

I think you're asking me to re-explain, guised in telling me to shut-up.

Or maybe you're just telling me to shut up.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yeah, the Dalai Lama isn't like the Pope. He leads a small but visible (due to China's mistreatment of their country) sect of Buddhism. Aside from being the leader of a conquered country, he doesn't have any real authority and doesn't speak for most Buddhists.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? My sarcasmeter is on the fritz.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think you're asking me to re-explain, guised in telling me to shut-up. Or maybe you're just telling me to shut up.

Nah, sorry, I was just saying I didn't understand what you were saying hardly at all and maybe that nobody can really answer the question so that it makes much sense.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Nah, sorry, I was just saying I didn't understand what you were saying hardly at all and maybe that nobody can really answer the question so that it makes much sense.

Well, to try and put it another way...

Whatever factors are at play that makes someone gay or straight (biology if you ask me), it isn't just making them like one form of sex, it's also making them dislike the other form of sex. As in really dislike. Eww, gross.

This "eww, gross" feeling becomes the basis for becoming part of the social code, like in a religion.

As a quick and dirty empirical proof, most people are either gay or straight. If something wasn't going on to make them also not the other, you'd see a whole lot more bisexuality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

And that still does not answer the question: WHY is homosexuality considered immoral?

In just about every definition of Moral I could find, sexual conduct is referred to specifically such as;

- virtuous in sexual matters; chaste. (chaste meaning free from obscenity, not engaging sexual relations, celibate, pure in style and not overly ornamented; simple.) These are actions.
- morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong. Again, referring to actions.

Homosexuality is not conduct nor is it immoral just as heterosexual is not immoral. In both cases, immorality is gauged by one's behavior, not one's preference. Likewise, I can be heterosexual and as such "immoral" if my conduct is immoral. Sexual preference is not conduct, conduct is conduct.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

As a quick and dirty empirical proof, most people are either gay or straight. If something wasn't going on to make them also not the other, you'd see a whole lot more bisexuality.

... but what if bisexuality actually outnumbers homosexuality? Even by the most liberal estimates;

- 10% predominantly homosexual for at least 3 years of adulthood
- 18% bisexual or homosexual for at least 3 years of adulthood
- 4% exclusively gay throughout adulthood

I don't understand your connection here. You'd see a whole lot more bisexuality? It seems we do. More than 4 times as much bisexuality than homosexuality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

These two points aren't really fair. It was the crowd that was opposed to same-sex marriage that first made the arguments that homosexuality was a choice rather than biological and wasn't "natural".

... but neither have been proven Wiskedjak. Per the APA;

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.

Regardless of which "crowd" we're talking about, it doesn't make sense to frame their opinion as "false".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? My sarcasmeter is on the fritz.

No. I was just clarifying why the Dalai Lama's opinion really isn't that important.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... but what if bisexuality actually outnumbers homosexuality? Even by the most liberal estimates;

- 10% predominantly homosexual for at least 3 years of adulthood
- 18% bisexual or homosexual for at least 3 years of adulthood
- 4% exclusively gay throughout adulthood

I don't understand your connection here. You'd see a whole lot more bisexuality? It seems we do. More than 4 times as much bisexuality than homosexuality.

I didn't mean more than homosexuality, I meant more than we see now.

People are horn dogs, it's how the species propagates. If our biology allowed us to be more comfy with it almost everybody would do it.

Likewise, the number of people who aren't bisexual (and are for instance only straight) is the point of the proof.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I didn't mean more than homosexuality, I meant more than we see now.

People are horn dogs, it's how the species propagates. If our biology allowed us to be more comfy with it almost everybody would do it.

Likewise, the number of people who aren't bisexual (and are for instance only straight) is the point of the proof.

I don't know. It doesn't sound like your "horn dog" hypothesis is founded in anything factual. The number of people who aren't bisexual (and are for instance only straight) is the point of proof for what... that straight people propagate the species?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know. It doesn't sound like your "horn dog" hypothesis is founded in anything factual.

This sounds like you aren't quite grokking my argument.

I would also like to note that the argument I am making I have qualified as empirical. While based in facts, I explicitly state that these facts are observational.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The number of people who aren't bisexual (and are for instance only straight) is the point of proof for what... that straight people propagate the species?

No, the theory is that whatever is at work that makes someone "straight", is also making them "not gay". The way this manifests is straight people thinking gay sex is "eww, gross".

If what is at work to make someone straight didn't make someone also think eww, gross about gay sex, more people would be bisexual.

Plenty of straight people have absolutely no moral issue with homosexual sex whatsoever, yet the concept of engaging in it themselves would turn their stomach. If it didn't turn their stomach, and they had no moral issue with it, what would stop them from doing it?

[Kevin]

'Why is homosexual sex considered immoral?"

Common sense.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

There is no difference. What you just said contradicts itself. Are you tolerant of homosexuality or not? Stop being wishy washy.

No. Tolerance of something and condoning it are two completely different things. I don't have to condone anything but there are some things I have to tolerate. homosexuality falls within category.

Even the dictionary agrees with me (from: dictionary.com)

Tolerance:
the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

(To) Condone:
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.


That said. I don't have to approve of anything you do, homosexuality included. I do however have to tolerate the fact that you are doing it and you are not disallowed to do it. You also have to tolerate the fact that I don't have to approve of anything you do....though you yourself do not need to approve of my disapproval. I decide what I approve of, not you.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

'Why is homosexual sex considered immoral?"

Common sense.

If it were common sense there would be no discussion. You will have to find another reason.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If it were common sense there would be no discussion. You will have to find another reason.

Ah when you stop listening to your common sense, it stops talking to you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

'Why is homosexual sex considered immoral?"

Common sense.

Argumentum ad populum is not valid logic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Argumentum ad populum is not valid logic.

Would you agree some have common sense and some do not?

Or some have a distorted view of common sense?

Not comparing homosexuals to NAMBLA members, but their "common sense" tells them it's ok to have sex with children.

Obviously they are listening to the wrong voices in their heads.

We are all born with consciences that tell us things might not be right or ok. Even things we aren't TAUGHT.

When one keeps ignoring this "voice" telling them right for wrong, that particular voice stops talking to them. Their sense of common sense is lost.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Would you agree some have common sense and some do not?

Or some have a distorted view of common sense?

Not comparing homosexuals to NAMBLA members, but their "common sense" tells them it's ok to have sex with children.

Obviously they are listening to the wrong voices in their heads.

We are all born with consciences that tell us things might not be right or ok. Even things we aren't TAUGHT.

When one keeps ignoring this "voice" telling them right for wrong, that particular voice stops talking to them. Their sense of common sense is lost.

We are not born with common sense, as it means different things to different people. What's common sense to one culture may mean absolutely nothing to another culture. The world isn't black and white; it's many shades of gray. "Common sense" is something that people use to attempt to get others to see things as they do, and as such, is specious. NAMBLA members' "common sense" does not tell them it's okay to have sex with children. There are much deeper issues that they have, regarding their desire for sex with children; "common sense," which is different within cultures, is a simplistic answer for complex issues.

[Kevin]

Oh it's much much complex than that Karl. There are all kinds of influencing "spirits" out there whispering words of "wisdom" into people's ears ever second.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

'Why is homosexual sex considered immoral?"

Common sense.

What is it about homosexual sex that you feel is contrary to common sense, and thus immoral?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Would you agree some have common sense and some do not?

Some people don't have common sense, but by definition most people do. Or it wouldn't be common sense. The view that homosexual sex is immoral is not common.