"Almost every ex-gay "convert" is caught in homosexual acts again."
Almost every? Should be ALL. And sex is addictive lol. Those converts were probably by religious folks I bet, and they told em to stop having sex, not have sex with females, so there just going to go back to guys..
Im not listening but I am concerned. What does that mean Asherlee?
But anyway, unless you've been down that road or are attentitive on both sides which I presume your not if your against it, you have no idea the struggles and forced places you'd be found in if you were gay or even have a gay friend.
If you don't look on both sides then what is the point of arguing.
zerato there is nothing to break. There is no reason that gays should have to be changed. and I'm not even sure that has ever worked before, all of the shock treatments and the hypnotism and the medication, it's all done nothing but make people crazy.
If you don't look on both sides then what is the point of arguing.
That's a very interesting point, J4son and at first I liked it, but now that I'm thinking more about me, it's hitting me a bit differently. The argument here is from a very theoretical point of view, and with this normative approach, I don't think someone has to understand what's it's like necessarily to be gay or even care about a gay person's feelings in order to argue the point (just look at a lot of evangelical christians' assessment of the gay community). For many people, it's like arguing for the death penalty or prison reform. These inmates undergo hardships, but they put themselves in that position, just like a homosexual would put themselves in the position of allowing themselves to be with a person of the same sex. Arguments that I've heard against homosexuality have come from a very cold place, where the normal rebuttal of "You can't help who you're attracted to" is countered with "You can't help wanting to kill people, but you either ignore that feeling or you don't and then you go to jail." There is a parallel between these examples to those who want to argue this way. Both a predisposition to killing people and being attracted to someone of the same sex are something that it is generally accepted that you're born with. Using a normative approach that having sex with someone of the same gender as you is wrong, then the conclusion and implied parallel are quite clear. This is why we have to approach the normative aspect of the question and nothing else. Until this "wrongness" or "rightness" is solved, the application of whatever maxim would be impossible to determine.
"You can't help who you're attracted to" is countered with "You can't help wanting to kill people, but you either ignore that feeling or you don't and then you go to jail."
So are you saying that murderers are neurologically wired to take pleasure in killing? I am not sure that we can parallel that with homosexual urges.
Using a normative approach that having sex with someone of the same gender as you is wrong
To answer that question we would have to define what is morally right and wrong.
So are you saying that murderers are neurologically wired to take pleasure in killing? I am not sure that we can parallel that with homosexual urges.
I am merely presenting a fairly common argument that proposes this parallel. However, serial killers and rapists, as well as people with certain psychoses do, in fact, derive pleasure from their actions and this would all be "wired" so to speak to achieve this biochemical response from these actions. Really, sexual attraction is nothing more than a biochemical response to another person, whether they are the same sex or not.
To answer that question we would have to define what is morally right and wrong.
I think my sentence was a bit awkward there. What I was trying to say is that presupposing the wrongness of homosexual action does lead to this conclusion and imply the parallel I was giving (if you accept the premises, of course). When I say that we have to approach the normative aspect of this and nothing else, I mean that we must assess the morality of homosexuality, which is exactly what you're also suggesting.
"You can't help who you're attracted to" is countered with "You can't help wanting to kill people, but you either ignore that feeling or you don't and then you go to jail."
"Kill people" can be replaced with x. Where X is something that makes sense. Figure out the equation and you can figure it out yourself.
His point is that homosexuals can ignore that feeling or they will get the consequence.
I don't see the parallel between killers and homosexuals. Yes, many killers are pleasured by killing. And gays are obviously pleasured by having sex with someone of the same gender. But there is a huge difference. One is a crime. One ruins lives. One ends a life.
And so what if someone finds homosexuality disgusting. There are sex acts that consenting straight adults do that are disgusting. But no one tries to ban these acts. Why? If you answered 'because they are straight,' then it is obviously a case of homophobia and a hatred towards gays. It's not religious convictions, it's hatred.
For a very very long time sodomy was banned in many states. I know that in Alabama, this law wasn't repealed until like the 90's.
thelistman, I think the parallel you are describing is not the one I was trying to demonstrate. I'm not talking about consequentialism, only the predetermination, or biological and chemical propensity to act in a certain way. Also, I don't hold this particular view or agree with the parallel, I was just using the example to counter something else, but now I have forgotten what it was
Thank you thelistman. I would classify an action as morally wrong when it hurts a person. Sex isn't hurting anyone unless it isn't consensual. Therefore homosexuals shouldn't be classified as wrong or immoral. Murderers on the other hand do just that, they ruin others' lives and that is morally wrong. I understand what you are saying Moe, but there really isn't a legal consequence or penalty for having sex. So the exampled parallel doesn't quite fit.
Again, I'm not talking about consequentialism. I realize the outcomes of sex and murder are very different. This is an argument from cause, and it must presuppose that homosexuality is morally wrong. Again, I do NOT think that homosexuality is wrong, I am merely presenting an argument that does.
Well hormones are still changed there, but I'm not sure that it can totally change your tastes in either men or women. I believe it only really changes your, "arts," and gives you estrogen, and other hormonal things.
