Now on to one of the sub questions. Is it natural? Well, someone mentioned that it wasn't natural only for humans. Now, why this discrimination? If the Gods of various religions keep throwing and creating people who are homosexual, either a) They're bad factory operators or b) Something is fishy with whatever anti-gay talk religious conservatives swear is sacred.
What is the difference between a homosexual lifestyle and a monastic lifestyle in terms of reproduction? Neither produce any children, as monks/nuns are celibate, whilst male/male female/female couples are unable to reproduce without external aid.
As a former Protestant then Catholic, its all about the fact that two people of a same sex are in love. It doesn't make sense, because two 'friends' can live with each other their entire lives without a problem, but the minute there is any sexual contact it becomes taboo.
As a former Protestant then Catholic, its all about the fact that two people of a same sex are in love. It doesn't make sense, because two 'friends' can live with each other their entire lives without a problem, but the minute there is any sexual contact it becomes taboo.
You missed the forest for the trees there.
Let me clarify a bit.
One argument I hear from Christians is that if everyone were homosexual, humanity would die off because they don't produce children. I am turning that argument against itself with something which is considered a good/helpful/spiritual thing, monk/nun-hood. Monks and nuns are celibate. If everyone was a monk or a nun, humanity would die off. Why is homosexuality targeted for this reason, but not monks/nuns?
I was never good when I went down to the woods one day.
One argument I hear from Christians is that if everyone were homosexual, humanity would die off because they don't produce children. I am turning that argument against itself with something which is considered a good/helpful/spiritual thing, monk/nun-hood. Monks and nuns are celibate. If everyone was a monk or a nun, humanity would die off. Why is homosexuality targeted for this reason, but not monks/nuns?
Unfortunately (because I know what you're getting at) the problem is that monk and nuns are viewed very differently from everyone else. They take a vow of celibacy for a start, so they put aside their sexual sides to allow them to concentrate. Secondly they dedicate themselves to God.
For what you're asking, a homosexual (I am really beginning to dislike that term for some reason) to be treated as a monk or nun, they would first need to be celibate, and then dedicate themselves to God.
But therein lies a paradox I think. Isn't God against gay people? So how can a gay person dedicate themselves to God if God does not accept them?
Its probably a personal thing really. I know a gay couple, and both have decided that they're happy enough with their relationship without sex. So I think it's the whole sexual part. I think of them, think they don't have sex any more and automatically think without the sex, does that make them homos?
Just doesn't sit right with me for some reason. I've not been comfortable with it for a couple of months, but the past few days it has preyed on my mind. Again, don't know why.
As for a replacement, I did ask and I was told Pink Fairy, but I doubt that would be acceptable to the majority. I have absolutely no idea at all, and it is pointless asking my friends because they're just happy to take the urine because I discuss all this online.
I think of them, think they don't have sex any more and automatically think without the sex, does that make them homos?
Yeah. They're attracted to each other romanticly, so they're gay. The use of "sexual" in homo"sexual" is just sex though. Like, the gender sex. "Homo"-same. "Sexual"-sex. So they like the "same"-"sex". I'm sure you already knew this, but I thought it would help to remind yourself of it this way.
Its probably a personal thing really. I know a gay couple, and both have decided that they're happy enough with their relationship without sex. So I think it's the whole sexual part. I think of them, think they don't have sex any more and automatically think without the sex, does that make them homos?
hmmm... i honestly dont know. i mean, when you love someone its usually that you love both his personality and body. and since both boys and girls can have a really similiar personality i always thought that the difference between a streight and a homosexual is their liking to a specific body. so they like each other. obviously they like each others personalities. but dont they like each others bodies too? will it only take the same personality as the 2nd person to attract the 1st?
maybe the answer is in the question WHY dont they have sex. not sure about them.
hmmm... i honestly dont know. i mean, when you love someone its usually that you love both his personality and body. and since both boys and girls can have a really similiar personality i always thought that the difference between a streight and a homosexual is their liking to a specific body. so they like each other. obviously they like each others personalities. but dont they like each others bodies too? will it only take the same personality as the 2nd person to attract the 1st?
ok ok first off... are you saying that gays are only in the relationship beacuse of bodys cuz it was worded akwardly and i am trying to figure it out still..... secondly whos to say that its just prefrance , what if you fell in love with some one of your own gender due to their personality AND NOT due to your prefrance in body types. It has happened before and most likely is going to happen again.
anywhozles they might just not like the idea of **** or like how it feels.... i mean... do you like things up your butt? its perfectly normal to not have a sexual relation ship and therefore your awnser of a question With a question is invalid.
what if you fell in love with some one of your own gender due to their personality AND NOT due to your prefrance in body types. It has happened before and most likely is going to happen again.
Yes that can and does happen, though this usually falls apart when it comes to the sex part of the relationship, which as sexual creatures helps with pair bonding. But for whatever reason that's not a concern for the couple there shouldn't be any reason why such a relationship shouldn't work.
obviously they like each others personalities. but dont they like each others bodies too?
Yes we usually do love each other for who we are, as with any relationship that you want to work, and we are also usually attracts to each others bodies as well. I guess it's kinda like when a straight sees a "hot" girl then they are likely to talk to them and maybe fall in love. Similar thing with gay guys/girls but we have different preferences than a straight person will.
secondly whos to say that its just prefrance , what if you fell in love with some one of your own gender due to their personality AND NOT due to your prefrance in body types. It has happened before and most likely is going to happen again.
Yeah I can see this happening every once in a while. A few girls at my school do go out and they're straight. Doesn't happen as often with guys though, at least I wouldn't think so.
Kant might say that heterosexuality is a categorical imperative. The argument for this is lengthy, but the short version goes something like this:
If everyone in the world were a homosexual, our species would die out in a single generation. Whenever an action, applied universally, has a negative consequence, then it is immoral. Homosexuality is an action that, applied universally, has a negative consequence. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Now, Kant catches it pretty hard with his categorical imperatives. For example, with Kantian ethics, one must always tell the truth. A standard counterexample to this is when lying is clearly more beneficial. Usually it has something to do with telling the Nazis that you have Jews in the attic. Kant would be committed to saying that lying, even in this case, is wrong. But this counterexample doesn't work for the homosexuality argument. With the Nazi example, we can generate an instance where lying is clearly beneficial to a large number of people. I'm not sure we can make the same kind of counterexample for homosexuality. At least, I don't see one straight away. But maybe someone wants to engage?
ok ok first off... are you saying that gays are only in the relationship beacuse of bodys cuz it was worded akwardly and i am trying to figure it out still..... secondly whos to say that its just prefrance , what if you fell in love with some one of your own gender due to their personality AND NOT due to your prefrance in body types. It has happened before and most likely is going to happen again.
yes that can happen. but personality can be the same in a boy AND and a girl. what makes us different is the body. so all it takes is someone else with almost the same personality and you can fall in love all over again. and that means that you can fall in love easily or that your "eternal" love will be your first.
i believe that true love has affection and passion. and passion is something you feel for the physical body. i believe it has to exist in any reliationship. gay or streight. and this is why i found it weird. liking someones personality is definitely a must in a relationship but i think that passion is just as important.
anywhozles they might just not like the idea of **** or like how it feels.... i mean... do you like things up your butt? its perfectly normal to not have a sexual relation ship and therefore your awnser of a question With a question is invalid.
to say the truth i forgot that having a sexual relationsip doesnt mean to actually have sex. there are ways for boys to... do it without puting things in the behind. just touching eachother or anything like that. i guess it is not considered sex but for me i still think that it shows passion for the body. if they do that then i do find it completely logical.
Yeah I can see this happening every once in a while. A few girls at my school do go out and they're straight. Doesn't happen as often with guys though, at least I wouldn't think so.
something i wanted to say but didnt because i didnt know if its really logical. see? they go out with the same gender, like eachother but still arent considered lesbians. and i think that its because they dont have a passionate feeling towards each other bodies.
If everyone in the world were a homosexual, our species would die out in a single generation. Whenever an action, applied universally, has a negative consequence, then it is immoral. Homosexuality is an action that, applied universally, has a negative consequence. Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
you didnt read the last comments? if we all had 10 children each then i can easily say that being streight is immoral. and we can all be gay and still reproduce just to keep our species alive. animals always reproduce and still, they dont stay together (most of them). we can do the same and decide that every x (time factor) we reproduce to have enough children.
then we can decide which parent wants the child (in nature it is pretty much almost always the mother) and if both they can still live in the same place or be neighbours.
what i am saying is that we can all come up with ways to live in almost any situation. this looks really weird and twisted but it could be possible. not saying this is how the world should be of course but i just gave you a whole way of life to how we could survive even if we were all gay and thats the point.
in the end, this world has place for everybody and the individuals are those who can choose to ignore this fact.
if we were all from the same family we would have children that will probably have disabilities. does that make having families to be an immoral thing.
looking at the extreme results is never a way to understand anything weather its a religion, sexual preference, race or anything else
if we all had 10 children each then i can easily say that being streight is immoral.
No, at least not using Kantian ethics. You could argue that having 10 children is immoral, but not being straight. That's called a slippery slope argument.
looking at the extreme results is never a way to understand anything
Again, this is fallacious. Not having children is not an extreme result of homosexuality. It is an inevitable consequence. Having 10 children is, however, an extreme consequence of being straight.
It's very easy to make an argument for a Kantian obligation to preserve our species. And what's cool is that, in this ethical system, if a homosexual enters into an opposite-sex relationship, they are worthy of more praise than their heterosexual counterpart. You'll just have to take my word on that one, or do some really rough reading.
and we can all be gay and still reproduce just to keep our species alive.
No, no you can't. I think what you mean to say is that gay people are capable of having sex with someone of the opposite sex. But that's fairly obvious. Just because someone can stop doing an immoral act doesn't make that act any less immoral. But this is beside the point. If you want to engage Kant's argument, then you have to do so directly. You're not giving any kind of argument against Kant, you're just saying how we might avoid a matter of fact consequence of a categorical imperative. This is the philosophical equivalent of saying "nuh-uh".
