Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Sexuality

521 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#451

Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:51 AM

The unfortunate thing is the UKIP holds that belief and is an extreme party over there. Here in the US the GOP holds that belief and is the other mainstream party...

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#452

Posted 07 January 2013 - 06:20 PM

Something I've been thinking about: does the whole "gay rights" movement sorely fail to undermine heteronormativism? A lot of responses in this topic say "I'm straight but I support gay rights." What this suggests to me is, that people view complementary gender roles and the accompanying heterosexuality as the "correct" way to be, where as gays are people born with an affliction- essentially "men trapped in women's bodies" or some variance of that- rather than individuals who are completely within their rights to be with whomever they please. Because of this prevailing view, gays are treated as a minority ("they're born that way, they can't help it!") who should be given a concession, a special "deviation pass" while bisexuality is ignored and marginalised and the idea that people shouldn't be constrained by monosexuality of either variety is rendered a fringe view, even in LGBT dialogue. So does treating the issue like one of civil rights for minorities rather than one of people being coerced into gender roles by society, not serve to legitimise and strengthen heteronormativism? Should we not make any distinction at all between heterosexuality and homosexuality as identities, shouldn't those terms just be adjectives describing actions?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#453

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

I disagree. It's like saying you support equal rights for women or minorities- you are distinguishing yourself from them by indicating you don't share a characteristic, but nothing about the statement normalises one or t'other.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#454

Posted 07 January 2013 - 07:36 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 05:12)
I disagree. It's like saying you support equal rights for women or minorities- you are distinguishing yourself from them by indicating you don't share a characteristic, but nothing about the statement normalises one or t'other.

But if we want to contribute to social justice-driven dialogue, we bear a huge responsibility to make sure nothing we say is at all harmful. For instance "I disagree with discrimination against same-sex couples" or "I support same-sex marriage" would be fine but doesn't any talk that treats gay people like they are a civil minority, distinguishable from the majority, simply legitimise heterosexuality and conventional gender roles' status as the norm?

Do you understand my point that a lot of the dialogue surrounding the issue seems to come from a point of view accepts that complementary gender roles and heterosexuality are the norm, and that a concession should be made for the deviant minority, at least partly because they "can't help it"? Would it not be more helpful to advocate eliminating heteronormativism, ie, allowing people to engage in sex or relationships with people of either gender, without their status as deviants being explicitly pointed out?

Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#455

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:00 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 06:36)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 05:12)
I disagree. It's like saying you support equal rights for women or minorities- you are distinguishing yourself from them by indicating you don't share a characteristic, but nothing about the statement normalises one or t'other.

But if we want to contribute to social justice-driven dialogue, we bear a huge responsibility to make sure nothing we say is at all harmful. For instance "I disagree with discrimination against same-sex couples" or "I support same-sex marriage" would be fine but doesn't any talk that treats gay people like they are a civil minority, distinguishable from the majority, simply legitimise heterosexuality and conventional gender roles' status as the norm?

Do you understand my point that a lot of the dialogue surrounding the issue seems to come from a point of view accepts that complementary gender roles and heterosexuality are the norm, and that a concession should be made for the deviant minority, at least partly because they "can't help it"? Would it not be more helpful to advocate eliminating heteronormativism, ie, allowing people to engage in sex or relationships with people of either gender, without their status as deviants being explicitly pointed out?

I see what you're saying, and I think most people think that way when they have known a gay person for a while, for example; My Uncle is technically married (As far as a gay man can marry) and i've known him and his partner since I was born obviously. I don't look at them as gay, weird or anything like that, they're just normal people to me. But occasionally when I meet new people and they're gay I kind of think that way, the whole "Well that was an odd thing to say, but he's gay" sort of plays over my mind from time to time. But it usually disappears. I would like to think most people think similarly to how I do like that.



Bad.boy!
  • Bad.boy!

    SA modder

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2010
  • Netherlands

#456

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:38 PM

QUOTE
Would it not be more helpful to advocate eliminating heteronormativism, ie, allowing people to engage in sex or relationships with people of either gender, without their status as deviants being explicitly pointed out?

You can't just simply change the way society thinks about gays. In the Netherlands teens are taught about gays during sex education and during other "events" (12-18 old). There is even a "gay" day. Dutch gay organizations think that this will stop bullying. But this does not help in making people see gays as normal people. The gay pride in Amsterdam and the media doesn't help this either. How do you think education should be done?


I think that there should be no discrimination against gays whatsoever. But I don't see them as "normal" people and I don't think that is a bad thing. Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. We are born to be able to reproduce. but when a "gay" is born, it stops. Now you can rant about how there are to many people on earth, but they are born (or developed) like that because something DIFFERENT had happened.
I also disagree with lesbians trying to get children the scientific way. Why? Because there will be even more gays. I wouldn't call this a real bad thing, but if that happens and they get children with non gays (bisexuals), there will be a bigger chance that there are even more gays. And so on. I'm not saying in the future everyone is gay, but it will be a bigger percentage. Also it is not natural. There is (or was) natural selection for a reason.



http://www.wate.com/...n-homosexuality
http://sourcefednews...ays-scientists/

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#457

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:58 AM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 09:38)
You can't just simply change the way society thinks about gays. In the Netherlands teens are taught about gays during sex education and during other "events" (12-18 old). There is even a "gay" day. Dutch gay organizations think that this will stop bullying. But this does not help in making people see gays as normal people. The gay pride in Amsterdam and the media doesn't help this either. How do you think education should be done?

I've already explained it. By disassociating the individual from their actions (ie, make "gay" an adjective, not a noun), collectively moving away from the view that heterosexual relationships are "normal" and should be engaged in exclusively and stop purporting the issue of "gay rights" as one of civil rights for an afflicted minority.

QUOTE
Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. We are born to be able to reproduce. but when a "gay" is born, it stops. Now you can rant about how there are to many people on earth, but they are born (or developed) like that because something DIFFERENT had happened.

So this is your view, even if you don't articulate it as such: "we have a circuit that makes us like women, but gay men are afflicted with a girl's circuit, making them like other guys! poor buggers, hey come on guys, don't discriminate against them!"

QUOTE
I also disagree with lesbians trying to get children the scientific way. Why? Because there will be even more gays. I wouldn't call this a real bad thing, but if that happens and they get children with non gays (bisexuals), there will be a bigger chance that there are even more gays. And so on. I'm not saying in the future everyone is gay, but it will be a bigger percentage. Also it is not natural. There is (or was) natural selection for a reason.

what is this i don't even

Ziggy455
  • Ziggy455

    The vulgar, Irish, writer!

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 May 2007
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [Expression]

#458

Posted 08 January 2013 - 02:46 PM

QUOTE
But I don't see them as "normal" people and I don't think that is a bad thing. Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal.


What makes nature? A set of characteristics affiliated with the natural design of something. What makes you think that two guys is not natural? Instead of looking at genders and nature - Look at attraction and nature. Lots of species have same sex relationships. Dolphins have same sex relationships and there isn't an influx of homosexual dolphins floating down the coasts.

There's so many people in this world that no matter what there will be possibilities of sexual intercourse with every preference: Necrophilia, Denderphelia, Homosexuality, Celebicy. The point is you need to find the line that seperates acceptable relations (Homosexuality) as opposed to unacceptable relationships. (Pedophilia. Necrophilia.)

Bad.boy!
  • Bad.boy!

    SA modder

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2010
  • Netherlands

#459

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:52 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jan 8 2013, 04:58)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 09:38)
You can't just simply change the way society thinks about gays. In the Netherlands teens are taught about gays during sex education and during other "events" (12-18 old). There is even a "gay" day. Dutch gay organizations think that this will stop bullying. But this does not help in making people see gays as normal people. The gay pride in Amsterdam and the media doesn't help this either. How do you think education should be done?

I've already explained it. By disassociating the individual from their actions (ie, make "gay" an adjective, not a noun), collectively moving away from the view that heterosexual relationships are "normal" and should be engaged in exclusively and stop purporting the issue of "gay rights" as one of civil rights for an afflicted minority.

That's nice and all, but it's not possible to change the way people think about gays.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jan 8 2013, 04:58)
QUOTE
Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal. We are born to be able to reproduce. but when a "gay" is born, it stops. Now you can rant about how there are to many people on earth, but they are born (or developed) like that because something DIFFERENT had happened.

So this is your view, even if you don't articulate it as such: "we have a circuit that makes us like women, but gay men are afflicted with a girl's circuit, making them like other guys! poor buggers, hey come on guys, don't discriminate against them!"

I don't really follow your (or mine as you put it) circuit logic there. And I never sad that we should pity gays. I'm just saying that I disagree with "f*ck the norm, being attracted to something/nothing/multiple things is the norm now". The norm is for me what is natural and that is straight imo.

QUOTE (Ziggy455 @ Jan 8 2013, 14:46)
QUOTE
But I don't see them as "normal" people and I don't think that is a bad thing. Being attracted to the opposite gender is natural, and therefor in my eyes normal.

What makes nature? A set of characteristics affiliated with the natural design of something. What makes you think that two guys is not natural? Instead of looking at genders and nature - Look at attraction and nature. Lots of species have same sex relationships. Dolphins have same sex relationships and there isn't an influx of homosexual dolphins floating down the coasts.

QUOTE
A homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. - Levay, Simon, Queer Science: The Use and Abuse of Research into Homosexuality

Natural for me is what humans or any species is designed to do. For some reason trough natural selection it was best for humans to reproduce through sex. Now with homosexuality you have sex with the same gender, and I see that as a step backwards. Instead of moving forward. If you actually can call it a step since live ends there.

Finite
  • Finite

    Solitude

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • None
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#460

Posted 12 January 2013 - 05:35 AM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
That's nice and all, but it's not possible to change the way people think about gays.


Really ? I'd debate that twenty times over since it's something called an opinion and they're always capable of changing.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
I don't really follow your (or mine as you put it) circuit logic there. And I never sad that we should pity gays. I'm just saying that I disagree with "f*ck the norm, being attracted to something/nothing/multiple things is the norm now". The norm is for me what is natural and that is straight imo.


That's great, but you're not following the facts and the facts state that Homosexuality is natural, it's found all over nature and it's not a category that we as human beings fall exclusively into. You can think what you want about what is and isn't natural but thinking doesn't do too well when it's put up against fact.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
Natural for me is what humans or any species is designed to do. For some reason trough natural selection it was best for humans to reproduce through sex. Now with homosexuality you have sex with the same gender, and I see that as a step backwards. Instead of moving forward. If you actually can call it a step since live ends there.


nat∑u∑ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

: Present in or produced by nature - I see homosexual creatures in nearly every species of animal on this planet so I think you're going to have to change your perception of what natural means.

Bad.boy!
  • Bad.boy!

    SA modder

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2010
  • Netherlands

#461

Posted 12 January 2013 - 12:34 PM Edited by Bad.boy!, 12 January 2013 - 03:04 PM.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 05:35)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
That's nice and all, but it's not possible to change the way people think about gays.


Really ? I'd debate that twenty times over since it's something called an opinion and they're always capable of changing.

Good luck debating billions of people who don't agree with you.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 05:35)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
I don't really follow your (or mine as you put it) circuit logic there. And I never sad that we should pity gays. I'm just saying that I disagree with "f*ck the norm, being attracted to something/nothing/multiple things is the norm now". The norm is for me what is natural and that is straight imo.


That's great, but you're not following the facts and the facts state that Homosexuality is natural, it's found all over nature and it's not a category that we as human beings fall exclusively into. You can think what you want about what is and isn't natural but thinking doesn't do too well when it's put up against fact.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
Natural for me is what humans or any species is designed to do. For some reason trough natural selection it was best for humans to reproduce through sex. Now with homosexuality you have sex with the same gender, and I see that as a step backwards. Instead of moving forward. If you actually can call it a step since live ends there.


nat∑u∑ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

: Present in or produced by nature - I see homosexual creatures in nearly every species of animal on this planet so I think you're going to have to change your perception of what natural means.

I hope that you do know that natural can also be used in another context.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature. - As I stated before homosexual animals are a rarity.

Finite
  • Finite

    Solitude

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • None
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#462

Posted 12 January 2013 - 04:25 PM Edited by Lightning Strike, 12 January 2013 - 04:41 PM.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Saturday, Jan 12 2013, 12:34)
Good luck debating billions of people who don't agree with you.


First off, I doubt that the majority of people in the world would deny that being gay isn't natural. It appears in nature and comes from it therefore it's natural there's simply no debating that since it's fact.

Secondly, I think you misunderstand me, I mean that I most likely can change at least one other persons opinion on homosexuality, it's called an opinion and they are by their very nature subject to change.

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Saturday, Jan 12 2013, 12:34)
I hope that you do know that natural can also be used in another context.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature. - As I stated before homosexual animals are a rarity.


You do realize that there's really no norm in nature, it does what it wants and considering the fact that homosexuality is present in nearly every species on the planet then I'd say it fits the idea of being ordinary.

It's not a hard thing to understand, but you seem to have some difficulty with accepting that factually homosexuality is natural and there's simply no debating that.

Bad.boy!
  • Bad.boy!

    SA modder

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2010
  • Netherlands

#463

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:50 PM Edited by Bad.boy!, 13 January 2013 - 10:04 PM.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 16:25)
First off, I doubt that the majority of people in the world would deny that being gay isn't natural. It appears in nature and comes from it therefore it's natural there's simply no debating that since it's fact.

I don't want to repeat my self. So just read the next quote of me.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 16:25)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Saturday, Jan 12 2013, 12:34)
I hope that you do know that natural can also be used in another context.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature. - As I stated before homosexual animals are a rarity.

You do realize that there's really no norm in nature, it does what it wants and considering the fact that homosexuality is present in nearly every species on the planet then I'd say it fits the idea of being ordinary.

I'm not talking about a norm here, just about the word natural. And it isn't ordinary. The percentage of homosexual animals is roughly 0%.

EDIT: Well it isn't roughly 0% it's actually quiet accurate since it'll probably be 1*10^-12 % or less.

ItsOnlyAce
  • ItsOnlyAce

    مقاتل

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Feb 2012

#464

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:12 PM

I read in an article once that homosexuality genes, come from the grandparent or the great-grandparent. One of them may have had more masculine or feminine traits than the average person and it just soo happened to trickle down to the grandchildren.

AceRay
  • AceRay

    In my restless dreams, I see that town...

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2010

#465

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:13 PM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Sunday, Jan 13 2013, 01:34)
QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 05:35)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Tuesday, Jan 8 2013, 16:52)
That's nice and all, but it's not possible to change the way people think about gays.


Really ? I'd debate that twenty times over since it's something called an opinion and they're always capable of changing.

Good luck debating billions of people who don't agree with you.

I'm sorry but what about the massive shift in racist attitudes over the last 100 years? As recent as the beginning half of the 1900's, certain races being seen as better was thought as normal throughout society, such as the treatment of black people in america. (not to mention the history of slavery in America). Yet, through the Civil Rights movement saw black people in America get the same rights as white people and now its frowned upon to display racist attitudes throughout the world. How would it be different to change opinions about gay people?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#466

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:31 PM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Sunday, Jan 13 2013, 22:50)
The percentage of homosexual animals is roughly 0%.

Sorry, but this is clearly utter bollocks, as is your attempt to quantify it with some rather suspicious mathematics. Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is purely sexual action- that is, unlike in humans, animals that exhibit homosexual behaviour will also exhibit heterosexual behaviour. So, do you want to explain your 1*10^-12 comment given that homosexuality, given that in humans those classifying themselves as homosexual account for approximately 3% of the population, and those who engage in homosexual acts can account for up to 10%, dependent on gender and population? What possible mathematic wizardry have you invented to produce such a suspiciously low yet astonishingly accurate theoretical figure, and one that appears to completely contradict all accepted knowledge and understanding on sexuality?

Bad.boy!
  • Bad.boy!

    SA modder

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2010
  • Netherlands

#467

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:23 PM Edited by Bad.boy!, 13 January 2013 - 11:25 PM.

There are seven billions humans. However there are about 10^25 animals. Let's say there are 7000000 gays and 1000000 gay animals (which is much more than there is).
(8*10^8)/(10^25)*100=8,0 *10^-15. Oh dear, I was wrong. It is in fact an ever lower number.

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species", there are many more animal species.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#468

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:13 AM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Monday, Jan 14 2013, 00:23)
There are seven billions humans. However there are about 10^25 animals. Let's say there are 7000000 gays and 1000000 gay animals (which is much more than there is).
(8*10^8)/(10^25)*100=8,0 *10^-15. Oh dear, I was wrong. It is in fact an ever lower number.

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species", there are many more animal species.

You're confusing species with raw numbers. There are about 8.5 million species (both know and predicted) on earth, not 10^25. Which means if there are 1,500 species that exhibit known homosexual behaviour (likely more than that in reality) which makes 0.02% of all species on earth in which homosexual behaviour has been directly observed. Which still isn't close to the accurate figure, because, as Dr Petter BÝckman so eloquently put it in the preamble to "Against Nature?":

QUOTE (Dr. Petter BÝckman @ University of Oslo)
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

Source

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#469

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:31 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Jan 14 2013, 18:13)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Monday, Jan 14 2013, 00:23)
There are seven billions humans. However there are about 10^25 animals. Let's say there are 7000000 gays and 1000000 gay animals (which is much more than there is).
(8*10^8)/(10^25)*100=8,0 *10^-15. Oh dear, I was wrong. It is in fact an ever lower number.

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species", there are many more animal species.

You're confusing species with raw numbers. There are about 8.5 million species (both know and predicted) on earth, not 10^25. Which means if there are 1,500 species that exhibit known homosexual behaviour (likely more than that in reality) which makes 0.02% of all species on earth in which homosexual behaviour has been directly observed. Which still isn't close to the accurate figure, because, as Dr Petter BÝckman so eloquently put it in the preamble to "Against Nature?":

QUOTE (Dr. Petter BÝckman @ University of Oslo)
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

Source

I think the issue is that people, despite believing in evolution and such, refuse to accept its chaotic nature, still seeing things from the point of view of intelligent design, minus the actual designer, of course. They view nature as having "rules" and us as being the result of its "plan." This is an obvious fallacy.

Finite
  • Finite

    Solitude

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • None
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#470

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:52 PM

QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Sunday, Jan 13 2013, 21:50)
QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 16:25)
First off, I doubt that the majority of people in the world would deny that being gay isn't natural. It appears in nature and comes from it therefore it's natural there's simply no debating that since it's fact.

I don't want to repeat my self. So just read the next quote of me.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Jan 12 2013, 16:25)
QUOTE (Bad.boy! @ Saturday, Jan 12 2013, 12:34)
I hope that you do know that natural can also be used in another context.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature. - As I stated before homosexual animals are a rarity.

You do realize that there's really no norm in nature, it does what it wants and considering the fact that homosexuality is present in nearly every species on the planet then I'd say it fits the idea of being ordinary.

I'm not talking about a norm here, just about the word natural. And it isn't ordinary. The percentage of homosexual animals is roughly 0%.

EDIT: Well it isn't roughly 0% it's actually quiet accurate since it'll probably be 1*10^-12 % or less.

Norm = Normal = Natural.

You just can't accept it can you, homosexuality are both normal and natural. There is, as I've said many times before, no debating this as it's a known fact.

I'm also wondering were you pulled that rather strange piece of mathematics from, it's not right at all.

Every. Single. Known. Species. Contains. Homosexuals.

That's a fact, the only known species that do not have homosexuals in them are the ones that do not engage in sexual intercourse, but knowing you, you'd probably say that's not natural either.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#471

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:11 AM

To be honest, I dislike the concept of homosexuality completely but I would never harm or try to stop someone having that as a preference. I think it really parallels with movie discussions. Have you ever seen a movie you love yet someone arrogantly yells, "Oh, that movie sucks"? Does distaste for a particular film constitute this film to be bad, or "suck?" No. This is how I approach homosexuality.

Though, this allegory poses a flaw; couldn't one argue that a particular film can "suck" regardless whether it is preferred by others? If so, who decides this? For non-religious individuals, what argument do they have? I see that they're either too attached to their family/environmental traditions to change - i.e. culturally stubborn - or believing that homosexual acceptance is just another stepping stone to the inevitable floodgate of morally-deprived ideologies that may surface - in other words, if this group can get what they want, what's to say that anyone could?

I think that's why it's such a debate because people know they can't use religion as a premise to their argument yet who, or what, has the say in its moral right or wrong? You guys currently debate over it being natural. I'm certain that intra-species murder can be found in almost all species, even us, yet we obviously frown upon this. What, thus, dictates whether a widely spread occurrence in nature should be accepted as morally right or wrong?

You've proven that homosexuality is natural but you haven't proven it is right.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#472

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:56 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 03:11)
You've proven that homosexuality is natural but you haven't proven it is right.

Morality is subjective. Concepts of "right" and "wrong" are personal. However, as it's a natural occurrence, the onus is not on whether it can be demonstrated and evidenced to be "right". The automatic assumption is that all natural acts are morally right unless any reasonable explanation for them being otherwise is recorded. Therefore, there's no need for anyone to prove that homosexuality is "right"- that's assumed given the fact it's natural. The onus is on the individual who believes it morally wrong to demonstrate why they feel this way.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#473

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:36 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Wednesday, Jan 16 2013, 19:11)
You've proven that homosexuality is natural but you haven't proven it is right.

"right" according to who?

"right" according to what?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#474

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:58 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 12:11)
You've proven that homosexuality is natural but you haven't proven it is right.

So is all deviance from a normative standard wrong, or is there something inherently unethical about homosexuality? I'd love to hear someone explain the reasoning behind either.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#475

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:14 PM Edited by TheJonesy, 17 January 2013 - 07:29 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Jan 17 2013, 07:56)
Morality is subjective. Concepts of "right" and "wrong" are personal. However, as it's a natural occurrence, the onus is not on whether it can be demonstrated and evidenced to be "right". The automatic assumption is that all natural acts are morally right unless any reasonable explanation for them being otherwise is recorded. Therefore, there's no need for anyone to prove that homosexuality is "right"- that's assumed given the fact it's natural. The onus is on the individual who believes it morally wrong to demonstrate why they feel this way.


This theory is slightly contradictive; if right and wrong is defined at a personal level, how can you say that natural acts are automatically right? I'm sure there are numerous situations in nature that would be found rather unusual, repulsive, or straight wrong in our society.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Jan 17 2013, 08:36)
"right" according to who?

"right" according to what?


Exactly my point. Whether someone is advocating homosexuality as an all-accepted concept or heterosexuality as the only way, who decides which side is right? According to sivispacem, morality is subjective. Yet, murder is a concept not needing of an explanation. Thus, why do some concepts automatically veer right or wrong and others become bound in this moral tug-of-war (so to speak) such as homosexuality?

QUOTE (Melchior @ Jan 17 2013, 09:58)
So is all deviance from a normative standard wrong, or is there something inherently unethical about homosexuality? I'd love to hear someone explain the reasoning behind either.


Depending on one's upbringing, homosexuality could be so deviated from an individuals norm within his/her environment that its moral standing is constituted on that idea alone. Does this make the individual wrong? When questioning the morality of this concept, you're also questioning the morality of one's freedom to believe or not to believe in something. I think this clash is responsible for the uncertainty in homosexuality's morality that I stated above.

I'd like to note that I am indeed one of these individuals; someone who wasn't brought up in a homosexual-accepting environment in addition to my own personal experience. Having affection for, an ultimately sexual intimacy with, another man is a concept I can't wrap my head around because it is something I don't personally believe. Yes, this view is rather egocentric and shouldn't have a say in the overall morality of this idea, but I at least am smart enough to understand the right someone has to accommodate this preference. What I'm most puzzled by is the general issue of deciding morality in our society when religion can't be used as reasoning.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#476

Posted 17 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 20:14)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Jan 17 2013, 07:56)
Morality is subjective. Concepts of "right" and "wrong" are personal. However, as it's a natural occurrence, the onus is not on whether it can be demonstrated and evidenced to be "right". The automatic assumption is that all natural acts are morally right unless any reasonable explanation for them being otherwise is recorded. Therefore, there's no need for anyone to prove that homosexuality is "right"- that's assumed given the fact it's natural. The onus is on the individual who believes it morally wrong to demonstrate why they feel this way.


This theory is slightly contradictive; if right and wrong is defined at a personal level, how can you say that natural acts are automatically right? I'm sure there are numerous situations in nature that would be found rather unusual, repulsive, or straight wrong in our society.

Ahh, but I didn't say that natural acts are automatically right. I said they should be assumed to be unless there is a reasonable argument as to why they aren't. The difference is subtle but important- it acknowledges that some people feel that they have personal reasons to consider acts "wrong" (hence the subjective aspect), but that isn't to imply that these beliefs are "right" on a more objective level.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#477

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:08 PM Edited by TheJonesy, 17 January 2013 - 08:17 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 19:37)
QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 20:14)
QUOTE (sivispacem @  Jan 17 2013, 07:56)
Morality is subjective. Concepts of "right" and "wrong" are personal. However, as it's a natural occurrence, the onus is not on whether it can be demonstrated and evidenced to be "right". The automatic assumption is that all natural acts are morally right unless any reasonable explanation for them being otherwise is recorded. Therefore, there's no need for anyone to prove that homosexuality is "right"- that's assumed given the fact it's natural. The onus is on the individual who believes it morally wrong to demonstrate why they feel this way.


This theory is slightly contradictive; if right and wrong is defined at a personal level, how can you say that natural acts are automatically right? I'm sure there are numerous situations in nature that would be found rather unusual, repulsive, or straight wrong in our society.

Ahh, but I didn't say that natural acts are automatically right. I said they should be assumed to be unless there is a reasonable argument as to why they aren't. The difference is subtle but important- it acknowledges that some people feel that they have personal reasons to consider acts "wrong" (hence the subjective aspect), but that isn't to imply that these beliefs are "right" on a more objective level.

Okay, I saw my misreading with your theory. And it seems that you believe someone's mere belief of homosexuality being wrong due to their upbringing isn't a viable enough reasoning to actually declare it as truly wrong. If morality is indeed subjective, then a conclusion cannot properly be made to declare its moral standing as right or wrong, so, according to this model, the lack of providing any reason would thus make homosexuality right.

Though, this model seems too weighted on the fact that if something cannot be proven wrong, then it is right. I read over some responses in this topic and someone introduced the idea of beastiality. How does this play into your theory? It's rather difficult to address how exactly this concept is wrong because it just seems intrinsically unethical. Even if you examine something as ridiculous as public indecency; I know clothing can help protect us from the environment due to the large lack of hair us humans have as compared to any other mammal but all animals exist without clothing, yet when it isn't needed, public nudity is frowned upon and its difficult to explain why. It's just a principle ingrained so deeply in our society.

It may not be the best example, but the idea is that some things cannot properly be explained regarding morality. Assuming your model is correct, a plethora of concepts within our society deemed wrong would have to be questioned. Since there's a possibility that no viable reason could be provided, that would then make it right. With this idea, does it not seem that there are aspects of human culture that can change against the tide of overall animal behavior? Is there a possibility that homosexuality could be one of these exceptions?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#478

Posted 17 January 2013 - 08:37 PM Edited by sivispacem, 17 January 2013 - 08:39 PM.

Bestiality is harmful based on the premise of willing consent. Animals are not cognitive beings in the same way that humans are, and cannot give consent for actions to be done to them. If for the sake of argument we assume a utilitarian take on ethics, and that the rights of the individual in regard to sexual pleasure are equivalent to the rights of another living being to avoid treatment to which it does not and cannot consent, then morally it's a zero-sum game. The greatest possible good- or the least possible harm, using a more flexible interpretation- for the greatest number of individuals is not achieved. The same principle can be applied to public nudity or other forms of indecency- the question arises whether the actions of the individual involved in public indecency bring a greater quantity of happiness- or a lesser quantity of harm- than had they not been involved. If one applies the same reasoning to sexuality- well, homosexuality itself is not intrinsically harmful to anyone- certainly not in a way that can be measured and quantified (people are offended by homosexual acts, but then again there's no requirement for them to witness these acts so it's largely irrelevant). Yet it does bring happiness to people whose sexual attraction is for their own gender.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#479

Posted 17 January 2013 - 09:21 PM

Regardless of willingness to witness, homosexuality may seem uncomfortable, or in some cases disgusting, to a portion of the public. Not seeing homosexual acts in public shouldn't trump the fact that it still exists and is disliked by some. Though, there's no deciding factor to constitute whether those who support homosexuality are in the right and those who don't are selfish or if homosexuality really is wrong and those practicing it are, for a lack of better words, inept. I brought forward the idea that homosexuality is a debate of morality, and due to your theory, it seems to have stumbled on the fact that homosexuality could be right.

(If you'd like me to blatantly state it: yes, you're theory has proven itself and I currently can't find a reasonable rebuttal to it.)

Though, I'd like to view homosexuality in terms outside of the debate of morality. In that concept, it seems that right and wrong is too tied to the amount of harm given or saved by such an action. In addition, homosexuality is much more of an identity rather than a mere action. In essence, I want to bring up the once-accepted theory that homosexuality is actually a mental disorder. As a psychology student myself, I recognize the decision to remove it since disorders are only defined by abnormal behaviors that create harm to the individual or others. As of today, there are homosexuals who do not fit this criteria.

Yet, I still believe in the possibility that it's an abnormal mental state. Even with this concept, it would thus make homosexuality right in the aspect of morality but wrong in the aspect of normative cognition. As condescending and extreme as this may sound, look at it like Down Syndrome; this mental state may not necessarily be harmful to the individual or others - and could be harmful much like homosexuality could be as well: the parent's are frustrated, people may make fun of them, etc. What are your views on this concept?

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#480

Posted 17 January 2013 - 10:57 PM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 12:14)
Exactly my point. Whether someone is advocating homosexuality as an all-accepted concept or heterosexuality as the only way, who decides which side is right? According to sivispacem, morality is subjective. Yet, murder is a concept not needing of an explanation. Thus, why do some concepts automatically veer right or wrong and others become bound in this moral tug-of-war (so to speak) such as homosexuality?

ah...

so you agree that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality sly.gif




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users