Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[Kafriel]

I know, the internet's a hard place to understand everything the others say, it got me too yesterday

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

The only thing prohibited here is joining the army and having a religious marriage, but that topic was already covered some pages ago, so it's all cool.

No, I'm afraid, it's not all cool; that's rather the point of this thread. Were it decades ago, we might be having this discussion regarding "Blacks marrying whites and other problems they face". Discrimination wasn't "all cool" back then, and it's not "all cool" now.

Most of the discussions on this thread pertain to wondering why people are so dead set against homosexual marriages (or civil unions or foobars), how it can hurt anything, and so on.

Those seemingly "only things" that you mentioned are, in fact, a HUGE part of American culture (at least). Boys especially are raised with this expectation that when they turn 18 they'll register for the service, help defend their country, etc (at least it was so back in my late teen years). Why should people NOT be allowed to defend their country based on their sexual orientation? That alone could make up a huge topic due to its senselessness.
And marriage? The protection of home, children, and so on? Good gods, that's even bigger. Imagine the heartbreak of losing your loved one, only to have it followed up by being kicked out of your communal house, or possibly losing your children, because you were not given the same rights as the straight couple next door to you. It happens; it's happening right now around us, and whether you agree with homosexual partnerships or not, THOSE are the people being hurt.

[Kafriel]

Once again, I don't think anyone complained about civil weddings or religious marriages where the religion allows such marriages to take place, but about homosexuals wanting to hold a religious wedding in a church that cannot approve of it because of their beliefs.

Those seemingly "only things" that you mentioned are, in fact, a HUGE part of American culture (at least)

Afaik Americans do not have to serve time in the army mandatorily, Greeks do though (men at least) and I have to say nobody cares, despite being a vulnerable country.

Why should people NOT be allowed to defend their country based on their sexual orientation? That alone could make up a huge topic due to its senselessness.

Take it to the army, it's a place of discipline and you're not thrown out unless you're caught having sex, and that applies to heterosexuals as well. It's just that few women ever join, so the topic has more events being caused by homosexual couples.

And marriage? The protection of home, children, and so on? Good gods, that's even bigger. Imagine the heartbreak of losing your loved one, only to have it followed up by being kicked out of your communal house, or possibly losing your children, because you were not given the same rights as the straight couple next door to you. It happens; it's happening right now around us, and whether you agree with homosexual partnerships or not, THOSE are the people being hurt.

What the hell have you been reading, we all said that civil marriage is ok, so don't start another fight. If a government says it's not, then they're wrong, and bitching at me about it here won't change it, I'm not the president!

The only thing prohibited here is joining the army and having a religious marriage, but that topic was already covered some pages ago, so it's all cool.

Edit: As a reminder, the purpose of this thread is to establish a common view so that people who face this problem can get an idea of what others believe on the topic.

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Kafriel

Afaik Americans do not have to serve time in the army mandatorily, Greeks do though (men at least) and I have to say nobody cares, despite being a vulnerable country.
Take it to the army, it's a place of discipline and you're not thrown out unless you're caught having sex, and that applies to heterosexuals as well. It's just that few women ever join, so the topic has more events being caused by homosexual couples.

Tsk; no one was yelling for pete's sake, I didn't say they had to serve but it is part of the American culture, at least while I was growing up, that young men register and serve. I never said it was mandatory. Also, I fear, you are incorrect, that it requires being caught having sex.

Here is the text of "Don't Ask Don't Tell":
"Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender. – quoted in "The Pentagon's New Policy Guidelines on Homosexuals in the Military", The New York Times (July 201993), p.A14."

So, as you (or anyone) can see, homosexuals (and bisexuals, btw) must either lie to join the military, and thus live in fear of their deep dark secret getting out, or not be able to join at all.

I never said anyone here can change that; a single person can't make a change, but they can join with others and lend a voice to it. I merely wanted to point out that saying it's the "only" things rather, to me, belittles it, as those 2 things are generally very important (at least to Americans, I can't speak for other countries seeing as I am not a part of them).

[Kafriel]

I can't speak for other countries seeing as I am not a part of them)

Same goes for me, different rules apply in different countries...glad we don't have a pentagon here

[Zu Ra]

One of my good friends is a queer I got through college thanks to his notes and guidance . So yeah I spent lot of time with him and came to know his various partners . And from what I observed in terms of masculinity garness manliness most queers, can give all the straight guys a run for money . If anything the media is to be blamed to portrayal/misrepresentation all queers as Fairies . Leaving Will and Grace/ Few other shows all media portrayal of Queers are taken straight out of a Gay Pride Parade .

This brings another important issue and coming from me must be truth I hate military machinery . But Military played a very important role in race relations and ending segregation . The saying went if they can die with us they sure hell can eat with us . With the Liberation of Afghanistan and Invasion of Iraq . Many Queers have bled and died for there nation with heterosexual people . So I would expect same mindset will be followed by Armed forces as they did with African American Community in the near future .


And I really don't think Queers join the army to make it More Fabulous . I don't know where this is coming from but seems like a bad gay porno . They join the army with the same resolve as everyone Serve the Nation .

[TinyRedLeaf]

Hmm... I've received only one negrep so far! Apparently, I've not been trying hard enough to rile up the discussion.



Thanks for all the patience, everyone, and for at least attempting to engage in fruitful debate.

Originally Posted by Zaseka

I agree that there are all kinda "natural laws" that are harmful, but seriously..how can homosexuality relate to murder or even something like natural selection? Please, don't word out such extremist thoughts that sound very similar to a well known regime. Homosexuality is in no way endangering you in any other way than indirectly in a financial. (if the said couples don't have children) But it's the same with unmarried straight adults who don't have a child, and I believe the number of such people is awfully rising too. Btw are such people immoral too? I can't believe what I'm saying...

On the contrary, I am not attempting to conflate "murder" or "natural selection" with "homosexuality". On the other hand, I am trying to show that the same logic, the same assumptions, used to justify homosexuality and same-sex unions could also be applied to different situations, leading to the same agonising clash of values.

If we say that we must allow same-sex marriage because it is "normal" for two people in love to join hands in "marriage", then to what extent can we deny the same privilege to polygamous people, presuming that they are also in a "loving" relationship?

Can we honestly say there is complete consensus over polygamy? Some people instinctively feel that polygamy is wrong, because they feel strongly that "marriage" necessarily implies total commitment to just one partner. They also fear, rightly so, that in some polygamous relationships, one party — usually the woman — would suffer because of the difficulty of ensuring "equal" treatment for all spouses.

What then? Well, we could put the matter to a vote, and people will decide based on their own sense of what is morally "right" or "wrong". We may end up hating the majority result if it goes against us but, then, do we not have to respect the democratic process?

Or are you going to say: To hell with the majority; they are all wrong, according to me! It is time for a revolution, to destroy an injust system and start anew. And, if I prove stronger, then I win the right to re-create society based on my ethics.

Tell me: Is that necessarily "democratic"? Is that "justice"?

So, again and again: Examine your own assumptions. On what basis, truly, are we arguing for the rights of homosexuals? Out of a sense of "fairness"? But, then, what about "fairness" for those who wish for polygamy?

What is "fairness"? A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye? Or is there more to it, more to what defines "justice"?

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

You still haven't proven that homosexuality causes harm.

It's wrong because... ... ... because what? Help me out here.

It looks like you're repeating the same thing most anti-gay types bleat.

Based on what I understand from some of those who oppose homosexual behaviour (not all of whom are religious "nutjobs", a favourite ad hominem of those who wish to silence all anti-gay views), it comes down to this: It "harms" the "dignity" of a human being.

Tada... does that sound familiar?

That is why I asked earlier for a definition of "dignity". We oppose necrophilia, because we feel that it harms the "dignity" of a corpse which — if we want to be totally objective — is really no more than an over-glorified inanimate object.

A common mistake that many pro-gay debators make is to assume that all people who oppose homosexual behaviour do so simply because "sky daddy" tells them to. As it turns out, one doesn't even have to be very religious to feel that there is something "naturally" "wrong" about homosexual sex.

There is the simple belief that — even if humans use sex for more than just this purpose — intercourse is inherently "supposed" to be for procreation. On this basis alone, homosexual sex is supposed to be "biologically" "wrong", because it cannot lead to children.

Another problem that some people have is this assumption that "science has proven homosexuality to be genetic". Has this truly happened? Since we say that human behaviour is something highly complex, based on more than just a "few genes", can we truly say we fully understand sexual orientation, let alone "proved" that it is hard-wired?

And, if it is hard-wired, what then of the study that james0246 highlighted a few pages back? Why are people so unsure about their orientation? To what extent can we truly say we are being "forced" into a certain kind of behaviour by our genes? Or are we simply making a decision, albeit a very thoroughly considered one?

And so what even if our "genes" predispose us towards a certain behaviour? It doesn't excuse us from exercising our "free will", from our duty towards other people. Let's say we have an individual who is a diagnosed kleptomaniac — he can't "help" but steal. It's "wired" into his personality. Are we supposed to say: Poor thing, let him be; he can't help being who he is?

So, you see, regardless whether or not you consider a certain kind of behaviour to be perfectly "natural", it doesn't exempt that behaviour from moral judgment. And, as we unfortunately know, different moral/ethical standards will come to different conclusions over this matter.

To what extent, then, can we say that those who oppose us are "all wrong", and I'm going to fight until they accept I am "right"?

Are they necessarily being "irrational", "emotional" "bigots"? Or do they, perhaps, have valid reasons for believing what they do? Have we seriously considered the limits of our own assumptions?

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Can we honestly say there is complete consensus over polygamy? Some people instinctively feel that polygamy is wrong, because they feel strongly that "marriage" necessarily implies total commitment to just one partner. They also fear, rightly so, that in some polygamous relationships, one party — usually the woman — would suffer because of the difficulty of ensuring "equal" treatment for all spouses.

What then? Well, we could put the matter to a vote, and people will decide based on their own sense of what is morally "right" or "wrong". We may end up hating the majority result if it goes against us but, then, do we not have to respect the democratic process?

Or are you going to say: To hell with the majority; they are all wrong, according to me! It is time for a revolution, to destroy an injust system and start anew. And, if I prove stronger, then I win the right to re-create society based on my ethics.

Tell me: Is that necessarily "democratic"? Is that "justice"?

So, again and again: Examine your own assumptions. On what basis, truly, are we arguing for the rights of homosexuals? Out of a sense of "fairness"? But, then, what about "fairness" for those who wish for polygamy?

This discussion isn't about polygamy per say (that could have its own topic, tbh)
, and there can never be a complete consensus on polygamy, especially not now that polyamourism is becoming more supported/out of the closet, so to speak.
Polygamy has gotten a bad rap, some justified, some not.

In fact, to heck with this, I'll start its own topic, since it keeps coming up time and again LOL

[synaesthetic]

My sexual orientation harms your dignity?

I don't know how things work in your country but in America the government does not exist to keep your feelings from being hurt.

I'll tell you something about myself. *dons negrep-proof underpants*

You know, I believe religion, especially Christianity, to be a very dangerous behavior that has caused the human race significant harm ever since its inception.

I believe that many senseless wars, genocides and slaughters were started over this idea, this belief. I can point to dozens upon dozens of historical examples that back up my claims.

In my opinion, organized religion is a thought virus that retards progress, punishes thinking for oneself, champions stagnation and places entirely too much power in too few hands.

But does that mean I think religion should be outlawed?

No.

I understand that my opinion is my opinion, and I am entitled to that opinion, but I am not entitled to forcibly impose my will upon other people else I would be violating their basic human rights.

So yeah. If someone hates me because I'm gay, that's fine. They're free to hate me for whatever reason they want to hate me for. I will fight to the death to defend their right to freely hate me because I have sex with other women. But that cannot be made into law, or else it would be violating my own rights.

[james0246]

Sorry for the lateness of my reply...time zones can certainly kill conversations/discussions .

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Are you absolutely sure that bigamy or polygamy "naturally" suppresses women? Or is that just your unspoken assumption talking? What if the parties involved in a polygamous relationship have all consented to such an arrangement? Where then is the "harm"?

I acknowledge that, due to the illegality of the act in America (as well as most other Western nations), there has been no real case study that has shown a "positive" polygamous relationship (in which all the individuals enter the union with full knowledge of what is entitled, what such a relationship will result in, and the ability to adequetly provide consent for such a situation). Rather, all known (to me at least ) case study polygamous relationships have been based around the suppresion of women to their husbands based on a specific belief system (wheather religious or other). Is it possible for a "positive" polygamous relationship to exist? I honestly do not know. Nature provides no real answer considering that the head of a polygyny or a polyandry naturally "uses" their mates, consequently a clear dominance is found in nature that society would not want (both morally and legally).

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

What business, then, is it of the State to prohibit such a marriage relationship, if it is the decision of mutually consenting adults? After all, where there is "consent", presumably there is no "harm" being caused, is there?

While the consent in the issue of a "positive" polygamy may be a case of Volenti non fit injuria, it is ultimately unknown just what "good" can result from polygamy, since only "harm" is known. Consequently, consent is hard to ascertain in this situation (i.e. the most well known examples of polygamy are all based around coerision, etc, so only harm is currently known to be involved in a polygamous relationship).

That being said, willing consent is all that is needed, and if I knew that the individuals in question fully understood what they were entering into (and they knew that they did not need to enter such a relationship), then I would be more than willing to say that there is no "harm" in such a relationship.

Same-sex marriage follows similar lines of thought, but unlike polygamy, there is no real "negative" (in regards to the relationship, not how it is viewed by society) in same-sex marriage, or at least any "negative" present would be similar to what is found and accepted in heterosexual marriage.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Now, consider suicide. Why do most, if not all, legal systems regard suicide as a crime? What "harm" is being caused? Is the person attempting suicide "harming" other people? His act of taking his own life "harms" no one but himself. He makes a conscious choice to take his own life, for reasons only he would fully comprehend. Why then should the State step in to prevent this act of "free will"?

What "harm" is being caused to third parties through the act of suicide? There is the trauma inflicted on the individual's family and friends, but why should their emotions and feelings override the desire of the individual to end his own life?

In the end, you are positing a "victimless crime" (which, uncoincidentally, was one of the main arguments used to repeal many sodomy and homosexuality laws ), in which no harm is shown to be inflicted on others, and I completely agree with you. As long as a harm is personal and does not physically involve others, then the state should have very little say in the matter.

Homosexuality, as well as the subsequent same-sex marriage, could also be said to be a victimless crime...

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

So, again and again: Define "harm". To those who would argue for homosexual relationships and same-sex unions, of course you would see no "harm" in such arrangements. But to those who fervently believe that the very concept of "marriage" defines only the union of a man with a woman, they see "damage" being inflicted on a "sacred" cultural institution. Can they therefore sit idly by while such change is being called for in the name of "progress"? "Progress" for whom?

Harm is an action whose sole intent is to unnecessarily restrict civil liberties (religion, speech, property...marriage ) or human rights (life, etc). Law, then, is the necessary restriction of personal liberties so as to attain societal self-protection (simplified example: we sacrifice, to the state, our ability to carry a gun everywhere, and the state vowes to protect us so that we do not need to carry a gun everywhere - so we sacrifice some of our ability of self-protection to the state, and the state, in turn, agrees to protect us). So, the basic harm that Law enacts against the individual (by resticting some rights and liberties) is accepted when they are, in turn, given something that benefits the individual, or makes up for the loss of liberties. Laws that offer no real benefit, then, become unnecessarily harmful, since the individual receives nothing for their sacrifice.

Consequently, since no real (known) personal harm is found in a homosexual marriage, and the state restricting the marriage creates more harm (there is actual harm inflicted on those denied the marriage, whereas there is only potential harm (not even really potential harm, since the state is not forcing the various religions/etc to actually perform said marriage) inflicted on the belief systems of some) , there is no sufficient reason to deny same-sex marriages.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by james0246

simplified example: we sacrifice, to the state, our ability to carry a gun everywhere, and the state vowes to protect us so that we do not need to carry a gun everywhere - so we sacrifice some of our ability of self-protection to the state, and the state, in turn, agrees to protect us.

I'm terribly sorry for you, but that's a whole other can of worms. ^^;

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by james0246

Consequently, since no real (known) personal harm is found in a homosexual marriage, and the state restricting the marriage creates more harm (there is actual harm inflicted on those denied the marriage, whereas there is only potential harm (not even really potential harm, since the state is not forcing the various religions/etc to actually perform said marriage) inflicted on the belief systems of some) , there is no sufficient reason to deny same-sex marriages.

Just what I said. It's nothing more than perceived harm, it's not even real. People are offended by homosexual marriage because they want to be offended. Nothing more.

[Nogitsune]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

If we say that we must allow same-sex marriage because it is "normal" for two people in love to join hands in "marriage", then to what extent can we deny the same privilege to polygamous people, presuming that they are also in a "loving" relationship?

To the extent where there is a morally relevant difference. As long as I remain consistent in my views, I can condemn one action and encourage the other.
However, if no one can explain to me why polygamy is inherently wrong, I am indeed ready to support those who want to live polygamous in the same way I will support those who want to live in a homosexual relationship.

They also fear, rightly so, that in some polygamous relationships, one party — usually the woman — would suffer because of the difficulty of ensuring "equal" treatment for all spouses.

This would be a morally relevant difference - a concern that applies to polygamy, but not to a homosexual relationship; at least not any more than to a heterosexual one.

Or are you going to say: To hell with the majority; they are all wrong, according to me! It is time for a revolution, to destroy an injust system and start anew. And, if I prove stronger, then I win the right to re-create society based on my ethics.

If I could do that, and could do so so without causing bloodshed and thus more suffering than I think I am preventing, I would indeed do so under the right circumstances.
If you lived in a society that has slavery, strong racial discrimation and treats those it deems less "worthy" like dirt, would you leave it that way if you had the power to change it - or would you do something against it, even if all those people think they are right?
I would.

Tell me: Is that necessarily "democratic"? Is that "justice"?

Democratic? No.
Just? I think so, yes.
Those suffering from a system as the one described above have much more to lose than those supporting it. If I treat them equally and weight both interests against each other, I will arrive at the conclusion that those currently suffering have vital interests at stake, while those treating them with cruelty will lose much less if things change.

What is "fairness"? A tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye?

That's revenge, and I don't really see how that fits here.

That is why I asked earlier for a definition of "dignity". We oppose necrophilia, because we feel that it harms the "dignity" of a corpse which — if we want to be totally objective — is really no more than an over-glorified inanimate object.

Many might also feel that SM harms the dignity of the sub. Still, the sub doesn't think so, and thus, most people accept that it is none of their business.
The sub can consent. A homosexual can consent. A corpse can't. There is a morally relevant difference.
I can cling to my believe without being morally inconsitent.
Can someone who opposes homosexuality on the grounds of "dignity" do the same? Only by opposing everything else they, personally, would feel to be degrading. Maybe SM? Anal sex? Certain kinds of role play? Usually, there will be something they would feel humiliated by but condone as long as they don't have to participate.
And then the only argument they can come up with is, "but it feels different to me!"
Well, yes, and maybe it feels different for country X to enslave blacks instead of whites. They are still wrong in doing so.

There is the simple belief that — even if humans use sex for more than just this purpose — intercourse is inherently "supposed" to be for procreation. On this basis alone, homosexual sex is supposed to be "biologically" "wrong", because it cannot lead to children.

In this case, the same would be true for having sex with a partner incapable of producing children (someone who is infertile or past a certain age), and for anal sex in general.
Protection? That would also be morally wrong.

So, you see, regardless whether or not you consider a certain kind of behaviour to be perfectly "natural", it doesn't exempt that behaviour from moral judgment.

Except if you really can't help behaving in that way, which, I will admit, is usually not the case when it comes to a sexual preference.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

My sexual orientation harms your dignity?

No. It harms 1) your "dignity", that is, the person committing the homosexual act; 2) the "dignity" of the idea of sexual intercourse which, to many people, is supposed to be for the purpose of procreation.

And let's not get personal. Remember, I am only the messenger. I do not necessarily accept or support the message.

Now, consider pornography, specifically the commerce of media images of women in various stages of undress and fornication. Why do we instinctively feel that there is something morally "wrong" about pornography? After all, many if not all of the women consciously agree to a commercial arrangement where they would "sell" their bodies for money. The buyers/consumers of pornography are not physically committing an act of adultery or any kind of sexual deviance — they were merely voyeurs, as it were, viewers of sexual activity and getting a thrill out of watching it.

Where is the "harm" in this case? If the women are not being forced into pornography, can we still say they are being harmed? If so, by whom? By the buyers and consumers of pornography? We can't establish "harm" so easily in this case, because we have a contractual, buyer-seller relationship here, perfectly fair and perfectly legal (in some jurisdictions at least).

Yet there still remains that persistent feeling that something is wrong. What is it?

What is "wrong" here is the perceived, and valid, feeling that pornography "harms" the "dignity" of women, by reducing them to mere objects of lust. It is, to a very great extent, a transaction that dehumanises women.

==========

Now, to those who oppose homosexual sex on the basis of it harming the "dignity" of a human being, they make the assumption that the only kind of "natural" sex is one between a man and a woman, and very specifically one that involves only coitus.

Are they "right" in making this assumption? No, not necessarily. Are they "wrong"? Again, no, not necessarily. It depends on how they derive that assumption. On the basis that only coitus can lead to pregnancy and childbirth (disregarding artificial insemination which, by definition, is not natural), it seems therefore to be the only kind of "natural" sex.

Of course, since humans are creatures of "free will", they have the freedom to choose whatever other kinds of sexual behaviour they enjoy. But, then, to many people, these other kinds of sexual behaviour would, by definition, be "unnatural", a deviation from what human beings are "supposed" to achieve out of sex.

So, in that sense, many people find homosexual sex somehow "harmful" to the "dignity" of a healthy human being — because it is an indulgence in an "unnatural" form of sex, purely for pleasure.

This is a valid ethical position which, like any other ethical position, is of course open to debate. But just because it is debatable doesn't mean people can't believe in it. Just as much as people are free to believe that homosexuality is "normal" even when that opinion can be questioned.

There are people, religious or otherwise, who do sincerely believe that by objecting to homosexual behaviour and same-sex unions, they are fulfilling a moral duty to save such people from themselves. Of course, this greatly offends homosexuals, because they don't believe they are in need of saving.

Similarly, many suicidal people also believe they are not need in of saving. Yet many of us strongly feel we would fail in our moral duty to a fellow human being by not trying to stop the suicide. There is a very strong case to suggest that some suicidal people are not thinking through the consequences clearly, and can therefore be persuaded to change their minds.

Note, I am not equating suicide to homosexuality, but rather trying to show how a similar argument can work in both the different cases. I am trying to show that there is always a limit to how far we can take an assumption before we can no longer carry it out consistently.

[Zu Ra]

If They Can Die For Us…

By: Darrell Prows

“Gay rights” has never really been one of my issues, but it’s clear to me that we have a double standard as a society and now it’s on my radar screen. The latest news out of the military seems to place the whole issue in a particularly striking light, and it certainly does merit some mention.

If we can’t do the right thing for the right reason, I guess doing it all still beats the alternative. Gays have always been in the military, as with pretty much every place else in society I guess. It was just not something which we were mature enough to admit publicly. I don’t know if the thought was that the whole situation would go away if ignored, or what.

However, with recruiting being down and all, it’s now okay to let them open the closet door a crack and maybe even aks them to die for us on the battlefield if it happens to be their time. A fairly magnanimous gesture on our part, certainly would be to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And it makes one wonder why we can’t just grow up and put the past behind us once and for all. After all, death being the ultimate sacrifice, it seems like all of the rest of the discrimination ought to be pretty easy for us to get out of the way.

From Here

Democracy : Ya or Nay ?

Spoiler for long version:

What then? Well, we could put the matter to a vote, and people will decide based on their own sense of what is morally "right" or "wrong". We may end up hating the majority result if it goes against us but, then, do we not have to respect the democratic process? Or are you going to say: To hell with the majority; they are all wrong, according to me! It is time for a revolution, to destroy an injust system and start anew. And, if I prove stronger, then I win the right to re-create society based on my ethics .

Masses can be right or wrong depends on scenario . But in this case majority we are dealing with have been brainwashed by religious texts .

I am trying to show that the same logic, the same assumptions, used to justify homosexuality and same-sex unions could also be applied to different situations, leading to the same agonising clash of values.

Old value always make way for the New .

New doesn't necessarily mean Radical or Outrageous . Homosexuality/Bisexuality was accepted before Christianity/Islam in most parts of the world . Right from Asians to Greeks to Romans .... heck even Spartans practiced bisexuality

Values which were relevant a century ago are totally irrelevant now . If your old fashioned, good for you but kindly stop selective screening .

Practice modern values which your comfortable with and cry foul over the ones you aren't . Otherwise I suggest kindly take this moral crusade to the Dating thread also as its very relevant

People date >> Dating eventually leads to sex >>> Intercourse before marriage == Sin by religion =/

An interesting read ..

[Sazelyt]

What I find interesting is that even for pornography, it is usually the women's role that is considered as reducing the dignity of women. However, the man who take part in that does not considered to do so. I think the same thing is going on here. The private relationship between a heterosexual couple does not reduce the dignity of the people involved, however, the private relationship between a homosexual couple reduce the dignity of the people involved in that relationship. Why?

And I guess the people who claim homosexual sex as purely driven by pleasure forget about the single fact that married heterosexual couples do not give birth to ten thousand kids or more....And it usually ends up with one side satisfying only themselves. These people are usually the ones who are disgusted by the homosexual relationship the most. I guess just a coincidence...

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Now, to those who oppose homosexual sex on the basis of it harming the "dignity" of a human being, they make the assumption that the only kind of "natural" sex is one between a man and a woman, and very specifically one that involves only coitus.

Are they "right" in making this assumption? No, not necessarily. Are they "wrong"? Again, no, not necessarily. It depends on how they derive that assumption. On the basis that only coitus can lead to pregnancy and childbirth (disregarding artificial insemination which, by definition, is not natural), it seems therefore to be the only kind of "natural" sex.

Of course, since humans are creatures of "free will", they have the freedom to choose whatever other kinds of sexual behaviour they enjoy. But, then, to many people, these other kinds of sexual behaviour would, by definition, be "unnatural", a deviation from what human beings are "supposed" to achieve out of sex.

So, in that sense, many people find homosexual sex somehow "harmful" to the "dignity" of a healthy human being — because it is an indulgence in an "unnatural" form of sex, purely for pleasure.

This is a valid ethical position which, like any other ethical position, is of course open to debate. But just because it is debatable doesn't mean people can't believe in it. Just as much as people are free to believe that homosexuality is "normal" even when that opinion can be questioned.

There are people, religious or otherwise, who do sincerely believe that by objecting to homosexual behaviour and same-sex unions, they are fulfilling a moral duty to save such people from themselves. Of course, this greatly offends homosexuals, because they don't believe they are in need of saving.

Similarly, many suicidal people also believe they are not need in of saving. Yet many of us strongly feel we would fail in our moral duty to a fellow human being by not trying to stop the suicide. There is a very strong case to suggest that some suicidal people are not thinking through the consequences clearly, and can therefore be persuaded to change their minds.

Note, I am not equating suicide to homosexuality, but rather trying to show how a similar argument can work in both the different cases. I am trying to show that there is always a limit to how far we can take an assumption before we can no longer carry it out consistently.

1. There is such a thing as anal sex. That is how homosexual men take pleasure from their relationship most of the time. Men also do that to women often enough. If that can be considered natural from a straight person's point of view, then so can a man pushing it into another man's backside.

2. You define sex is unnatural between two men because the purpose of sex is to make children. But two men having sex is just for pleasure. But let me emphasize that sex is not the sole definition of love. Sex is an added bonus to a romantic relationship. Indeed, many people do not need sex to feel love from someone else. There's much more to love than that, and I seriously doubt two homosexuals would need to marry in order to have sex.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

What I find interesting is that even for pornography, it is usually the women's role that is considered as reducing the dignity of women. However, the man who take part in that does not considered to do so. I think the same thing is going on here. The private relationship between a heterosexual couple does not reduce the dignity of the people involved, however, the private relationship between a homosexual couple reduce the dignity of the people involved in that relationship. Why?

Because, by majority definition (and assumption), a heterosexual couple is practising "natural" sex. Therefore it is "dignified".

Of course, we could ask, very reasonably, how do we know the heterosexual couple isn't also indulging in anal sex, therefore reducing the "dignity" of their relationship? (Believe me, I've asked this question many a time. ) To which the inevitable reply, of course, would be that it is still "wrong" and therefore punishable.

(Oh really? I would ask. How are you going to find out? Are you going to spy on them in their marriage bed?)

Be that as it may, it is a consideration that bears thinking about, since we are concerned about what constitutes "natural" in the case of sexual intercourse, and also because a "marriage" is a legal/societal sanction for a sexual relationship.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Because, by majority definition (and assumption), a heterosexual couple is practising "natural" sex. Therefore it is "dignified".

Of course, we could ask, very reasonably, how do we know the heterosexual couple isn't also indulging in anal sex, therefore reducing the "dignity" of their relationship? (Believe me, I've asked this question many a time. ) To which the inevitable reply, of course, would be that it is still "wrong" and therefore punishable.

(Oh really? I would ask. How are you going to find out? Are you going to spy on them in their marriage bed?)

Be that as it may, it is a consideration that bears thinking about, since we are concerned about what constitutes "natural" in the case of sexual intercourse, and also because a "marriage" is a legal/societal sanction for a sexual relationship.

But like I said (and apparently ignoring me), I seriously doubt sex is the only reason a homosexual couple would want to marry. There is much more to it than that. If all homosexuals only liked people of the same sex because they took more physical pleasure from then than from the opposite sex, then what you're saying might be true. But just as sexual relationships are not the only kind that exist between heterosexual couple, the same can be said about homosexual couples. Sex does not define love. I seriously doubt a homosexual couple needs to marry to have sex.

[cheyannew]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

Sex does not define love.

Thought that needed reiterating