Homosexuality in Australia (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter stainmepink
- Start date
dagwoman
Welcome to My Lair
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,028
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
You haven't answered the question. You've already told us you think homosexuality is wrong because you're religious, but that's not an answer. Where in your religion does it state homosexuality is wrong? What part of homosexuality is wrong and on what grounds? Why do you agree with and adhere to these beliefs?skip89 said:
While I'll try not to change direction completely I don't think it's wise to detach discussion about belief/argument/truth/validity when examining arguments, otherwise things degenerate into an 'I believe this, the end'-festdagwoman said:
- Consequences: If there is no system of punishment based on an moral system in a society then it is possible that there may be not punishment for immoral actions.skip89 said:
- Who says that we should do right: Our inner convictions (justified of course).
Half the point is that you don't have an ultimate source of authority, like god, dictating what is good. It's up to us to develop and accept a moral system using our faculties of reason and empathy. Some potential starting points:
- Freedom and 'life' could be seen as prerequisits for moral actions. So, if you assume that there exist 'good actions' then in order to perform 'good actions' one must be (1) alive and (2) free to perform such actions. You could then use this kind of reasoning to postulate principles that ensure the freedom and 'life' of other beings etc.
- You could notice that you experience pain and pleasure and, via empathy, realise that others also experience pain and pleasure. One might be able to conclude that it is good to cause another to experience more pleasure (overall) in their life, while it is bad to cause another pain. You then have a kind of 'hedonistic consequentialism'.
etc...
Last edited:
ElendilPeredhil
Member
But don't you need some evidence, however tenuous to support even personal beliefs that you are not stating in a structured argumentative setting? Just asking, not having a go at you.Se!zuRe. said:
Anyway, what are your clear and valid reasons for your viewpoint against homosexuals? You haven't really explained the 'Why' of your views yet.
Your religion tells you homosexuality is wrong- but why is it wrong?
My personal beliefs tell me that murder is wrong- because I wouldn't like to be murdered, because every person has a life and I shouldn't take it away.
I also believe that what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business, not mine, or the government's or anything like that.
You do acknowledge a spiritual bond can exist betwen the same sex as it does between heterosexual couples- is your objection to gay marriage based on your belief that sex should be confined to reproduction, therefore gays should not have sex because that will never lead to reproduction? Maybe you've already said that somewhere and its not a revelation I just had but you'll have to forgive my slowness. I got 2 and a half hours of sleep last night and was woken up at six in order to be yelled at and told to clean the house so I'm not particularily sharp this morning.
dag woman
about every letter by paul says it is wrong to be homosexual. Beliefs are relative, but the right and wrong are universal. Values and points of view are rel;ative to men and as men are impefect theuy cannot approach truth of right and wrong. therefore if we have a chance of believing there is a more important being who knows rioght and wrong and tells us homosezxuality is wrong, then it is much more reliable to believe in it than our own pooints of view.
in addtion, the numbwer of diseases and bacteria in a mans ass, cause the greatest detructive and physycal hurts to the other mans penis. gonhorrea, stafilouscocous, and son on. they wouldnt be there if twe were supposed to root each other up the ass.
about every letter by paul says it is wrong to be homosexual. Beliefs are relative, but the right and wrong are universal. Values and points of view are rel;ative to men and as men are impefect theuy cannot approach truth of right and wrong. therefore if we have a chance of believing there is a more important being who knows rioght and wrong and tells us homosezxuality is wrong, then it is much more reliable to believe in it than our own pooints of view.
in addtion, the numbwer of diseases and bacteria in a mans ass, cause the greatest detructive and physycal hurts to the other mans penis. gonhorrea, stafilouscocous, and son on. they wouldnt be there if twe were supposed to root each other up the ass.
Se!zuRe.
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
OK just for those of you who are unsure of my opinion i have stated many times that i am NOT against homosexuality and see nothing wrong with it in anyway... as for my beliefs on evidence for morality i do not see how i need evidence to make up my own opinion of an issue although i ahve CLEARLY stated that in order for u to discuss these issues in relation to ur own morals u DO infact need evidence, reasons, to support ur own beliefs in a structured arugument. ALL im saying is that to strongly believe in something u dont ned any suport at all to have ur own beliefs... if u believe in something, may not mean ur correct but u do infact believe. xDElendilPeredhil said:
dagwoman
Welcome to My Lair
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 1,028
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
How are the letters of Paul from a more important being? Are you saying that humans are unable to have a sense of moral ground without religion? You do realise that the bible was written thousands of years ago when people were stoned for adultery, don't you? Don't you think morals have changed a little?jhopkins said:
Who are you to judge people for what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? There are bacteria in the anus, but there is bacteria everywhere on our bodies. With safe sex (lube, condoms) there is no issue. STDs are not present in a person's body unless they have contracted them- don't imply that people are naturally diseased or something. And by "stafilouscocous" I assume you mean Staphylococcus aureus which most people do not carry, and again is no issue with safe sex, which most people, gay and straight, practice.
You say you have a problem with anal sex, but what about straight couples with anal sex. Do you think there's something wrong with that? What about lesbians who don't have anal sex?
Even so, the type of sex gay couples have is no business of yours and no reason to dislike gay people.
ihavenothing
M.L.V.C.
Try stopping that.skip89 said:
kami
An iron homily
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
There is an issue with this however - how much of Paul's interpretations of god's truths as opposed to god's truth are within his letters? Whether we have been able to retain the absolute power of such a truth throughout thousands of years of translation and retelling in times of huge political upheaval and literary elitism is another question as well.jhopkins said:
So this allows us to question the validity of this as god's absolute truth, especially when Christianity is essentially based on the premise that we love each other unreservedly and forgive each other all sins and imperfections. To preach against homosexuals (the individual and the relationship) is oppositional to the far more important precept of love and forgiveness, as all it achieves is a form of human segregation/exclusion at best and violent homophobia at worst.
There are an incredible number of diseases one risks when they engage in traditional heterosexual sex - pretty much just as many as with anal sex. There's also the risk that this disease will be given to an unborn child in traditional heterosexual sex. You also can pass on certain diseases via oral sex or even kissing...are these acts unnatural now as well?jhopkins said:
I'd also remind you that anal sex isn't a prerequisite of homosexuality - many gay male couples do not practice anal as a regular form of sex, gay women cannot penetrate each other that way at all, and there are a significant number of straight couples who practice anal. So I don't at all see the point of you structuring an argument around anal sex.
I am aware that you believe sex should be reproductive as god intended, however one could only make that argument about sex involving the penis and vagina. No other form of sex involves a pair of reproductive organs and so god clearly did not intend anal for reproduction. Therefore anal sex is not abusing god's intent for reproduction.skip89 said:
Also, why do you believe God intended all sex to be purely reproductive? Why do you think it is sinful for it to be recreational when forms of sex are clearly not reproductive in intent or design? And what do you define as sex?
Se!zuRe.
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
this topic has gone wayyyyy of track we are now talking about wat classifies as sex... as to the question of whether or not sex shuld be reproductive or for pleasure purposes i dont see how wat ur saying wuld also relate to ur hatred of heterosexuals who also engage in sex for pleasure... in other words ur against everyone who has pre marital sex, and/or sex just for pleasure and not the intention of reproduction..?
kami
An iron homily
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,265
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
The question of what one religious person defines as sex is relevant as it is a form of inquiry into the reasoning of that person's morals regarding sex. This promotes further debate as to why/why not sex between person's of a same gender are permissable.Se!zuRe. said:
Ah, who exactly are you saying hates heterosexuals?
ihavenothing
M.L.V.C.
I don't believe it is anybody's business really. As Pierre Trudeau said "We take the position that there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."Se!zuRe. said:
I think a lot of people do carry staph. aureus (~20-50% depending on the population you're looking at), but it's generally found living up the nose as aposed to the reproductive tract. Also, Staphylococcus Epidermidis is carried quite commonly on people's skin as part of our normal bacterial flora (like lactobacilli in our gastrointestinal tract). Condoms are definately a good form of protection but wont stop all transmission - particularly when an infection involves lesions which aren't covered by the condom, like with herpes and syphilis.dagwoman said:
I think it's more a matter of what his religion thinks is wrong, rather than what he thinks is wrong. The appropriate question in then what kami has been asking: 'how do you know that your religious text(s) portray god's will correctly?'. I found a question response from askphilosophers.org which I thought might be worth quoting here (about whether or not god and morality should be seen as independent of one another) written by Professor Brink from the university of california:dagwoman said:
"Even if we are theists, there's a strong case for thinking that morality is independent of religion. Socrates long ago asked whether something was right because God commanded it or whether God commanded it because it was right (the famous question asked in Plato's dialogue Euthyprho). Socrates reasoned that God's will could not make something valuable, because that would make his preferences arbitrary. Instead, Socrates concluded, the theist should say that God commands what he does, because he himself is good. On this view, God's commands are principled and track what is independently valuable. This also explains why thesists often feel compelled to resolve debates about what God has willed, and how we can ascertain his will, by appeal our moral ideas about what a morally good God could have willed."
You do realise that the bible was written thousands of years ago when people were stoned for adultery, don't you?
dont u realise that thts was befiore Jesus actually told them to stop stoning women. if u had a clue of what ur talking about, uill kknow that jesus himself said stoning was wrong, which again proves my point that the law in which men stoned women was a moral and value created by men of the time making them relative and thus wrong. this means, that only god's and the universal morals are true: dont stone women, dont stone homosexuals, but adultery and homosexuality is wrong, dont do thart either. as for the belief that the tranlation of the bible might have changeds its meaning, think about htis: if god truly wantas hias message to get across and considering he is all powerful he would control any discrepancy that might occur over the centuries of translation keeping his message true. i mean. the very last opage of the bible has a clear curse to anyone who dares to change ' take away a letter' or ''add a letter" to the scripture. even if u dont believe u wouldnt want to risk changing its contents.
dont u realise that thts was befiore Jesus actually told them to stop stoning women. if u had a clue of what ur talking about, uill kknow that jesus himself said stoning was wrong, which again proves my point that the law in which men stoned women was a moral and value created by men of the time making them relative and thus wrong. this means, that only god's and the universal morals are true: dont stone women, dont stone homosexuals, but adultery and homosexuality is wrong, dont do thart either. as for the belief that the tranlation of the bible might have changeds its meaning, think about htis: if god truly wantas hias message to get across and considering he is all powerful he would control any discrepancy that might occur over the centuries of translation keeping his message true. i mean. the very last opage of the bible has a clear curse to anyone who dares to change ' take away a letter' or ''add a letter" to the scripture. even if u dont believe u wouldnt want to risk changing its contents.
to kfunk;
i appreciate ur interest in philosphy and their rational derivations of morality. however, dont forgwet human rationality is imperfect. heres an interiting extract about a man who tried to rationalise god didnty exist.
"I refuse to prove that I exis," says God, " for proof denies faith, and without faith i am nothing." "But" says man, " The Babel fish is a dead give away, isnt it? IT could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont QED" " Oh dear" says God, "I hadnt thought of that" and promptly dissapears in a puff of logic. "oh, that was easy" says Man, and for an encore he goes on to prove that white is black and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.
The hithchikers guide to the galaxy
i appreciate ur interest in philosphy and their rational derivations of morality. however, dont forgwet human rationality is imperfect. heres an interiting extract about a man who tried to rationalise god didnty exist.
"I refuse to prove that I exis," says God, " for proof denies faith, and without faith i am nothing." "But" says man, " The Babel fish is a dead give away, isnt it? IT could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you dont QED" " Oh dear" says God, "I hadnt thought of that" and promptly dissapears in a puff of logic. "oh, that was easy" says Man, and for an encore he goes on to prove that white is black and gets himself killed on the next pedestrian crossing.
The hithchikers guide to the galaxy