| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2008 02:40:14 PM · #1176 |
| It's his one big word!!!! Just kidding Jeb But hey I wish they would make the bigmac illegal it taste like cardboard covered in thousand Island dressing. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 02:41:49 PM · #1177 |
I think I'm just going to end my conversation with you Shannon. You know you push my buttons (probably not on purpose) and I'm trying my best to be on good behavior. I do, naturally, disagree with many of your assertions in your post but I won't get into them.
Mousie: I won't quote your whole post because it was long. I appreciate where you are coming from, but we're doing two things. 1) We're assuming that I don't agree with you that all the heterosexual activity you mention is wrong. I do. That doesn't make it right for homosexuals. Frankly one sign that we live in a hypersexualized culture is that the vast majority of the populace has gotten into what I would consider unhealthy patterns. 2) We're talking hypotheticals. If we could meet a gay man that was a virgin before he met his first partner and remained monogamous to him for his life, it would be somewhat of a different conversation. I could still point to other harms, but there would obviously be less than the man who has sex with three hundred partners over the course of his life.
Where does my personal morality come from? My own morality comes from my faith, although I can logically present the arguments otherwise. Ultimately though all morality is based on something by assumption. For the sake of this argument, I would say the moral axiom is "actions which cause harm to individuals are wrong". What is the moral idea "Murder is wrong" based on ultimately?
Also try to keep the two conversations concerning gay marriage and why I think homosexuality is wrong separate. You asked me to present my reasoning as to why I don't agree with homosexuality without the bible and I did. We can go back to debating gay marriage if you want but again I'm not staunchly against it. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 02:44:58 PM · #1178 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few I can think of
1) Healthwise, anal sex is a much higher risk for STDs and other complications.
2) All surveys I have seen (and I do realize the highly difficult nature of accurate sexual surveys) show the typical homosexual has many more partners than the typical heterosexual. Multiple partners raises your risk for 1) above, but also does the same insidious harm to one's psyche that multiple partners does for heterosexuals.
3) Repeated homosexual sex continues to reinforce patterns which the typical brain is not designed or evolved to have. As a more obvious analogy, a shoe fetishist, by indulging his fantasy, makes it more and more difficult to have normal sexual experiences without shoes. In other words, we see a further progression away from the norm.
Some of the above can be avoided somewhat by choices made, but not completely. Heterosexuals are also at risk for some of the above, but that doesn't mean the potential for harm does not exist in the homosexual lifestyle. |
These arguments are about risk reductuion.
Take something else I've done: skydiving. Skydiving is terribly risky (and perfectly legal). Does this make skydiving MORALLY wrong? As an adult I am responsible for the risks I take, and I should have the right to take them in 'pursuit of happiness' as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.
I think seat belt laws are stupid, but not as stupid as not wearing a seatbelt. I think anti-gay laws are stupid, but I DON'T think being gay is stupid. I have decided for myself the level of risk I can accept, as is appropriate.
Not wearing a seatbelt is not wrong, it's just dumb and lazy. Skydiving is not wrong, it's just incredibly, incredibly dangerous. Likewise, any increase in absolute risk that comes from being gay or expressing homosexual behavior is not wrong, it is merely risk.
Risk reduction is not a valid rationale in my opinion. Should a black man feel a moral imperative to stay out of inbred crackerville because he will be more at risk of confrontation or assult than he would be in his own home? No. he should go where he pleases, and those who would deprive him of his rights should be punished when they do so. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 02:50:02 PM · #1179 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do, naturally, disagree with many of your assertions in your post... |
I am, naturally, disappointed. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 02:52:32 PM · #1180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where does my personal morality come from? My own morality comes from my faith, (...) What is the moral idea "Murder is wrong" based on ultimately? |
Didn't we already have that conversation wherein you defended Biblical genocide? |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 02:58:38 PM · #1181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we could meet a gay man that was a virgin before he met his first partner and remained monogamous to him for his life, it would be somewhat of a different conversation. |
The general manager at that restaurant I worked at has been with his partner for 31 years. They met in college; both were virgins, and neither has had sex with anyone but the other. (Both are socially conservative, incidentally, and last time I talked to him, he was "against" gay marriage, without really explaining why except to say that it seemed silly to him. Indeed a product of his environment.)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I could still point to other harms... |
Such as...?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My own morality comes from my faith, although I can logically present the arguments [against homosexuality, I assume] otherwise. |
I don't think you can. I think it's fairly obvious that your arguments against homosexuality are rooted in your faith. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:04:55 PM · #1182 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do, naturally, disagree with many of your assertions in your post... |
I am, naturally, disappointed. |
I know you wanted to play. Does it make you feel better if I say that your first point seems to concern HIV only? I'm talking all STDs as well as other issues like mucosal tears etc? Even your HIV data is partly wrong. If we are talking caucasians, then being gay is clearly the highest risk factor for HIV. This is not necessarily true for africans however. The thought is there may be ethnic polymorphisms in the receptor needed for viral entry to the T-cell (I believe CCR5 or CXCR4) or the viral clade (think type) is different in sub-sahara Africa. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:07:37 PM · #1183 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I could still point to other harms... |
Such as...? |
See #3 in my response to Shannon.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My own morality comes from my faith, although I can logically present the arguments [against homosexuality, I assume] otherwise. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't think you can. I think it's fairly obvious that your arguments against homosexuality are rooted in your faith. |
I just did above to Mousie. I never mentioned the Bible and I made a coherent, rational argument. You may disagree with it, but it is a complete argument. Later I posted the axiom for such a morality "actions which harm an individual are morally wrong". One can hold this morality without having a particular faith.
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:08:06. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:08:55 PM · #1184 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We're assuming that I don't agree with you that all the heterosexual activity you mention is wrong. I do. That doesn't make it right for homosexuals.
Where does my personal morality come from? My own morality comes from my faith, although I can logically present the arguments otherwise. Ultimately though all morality is based on something by assumption. For the sake of this argument, I would say the moral axiom is "actions which cause harm to individuals are wrong". What is the moral idea "Murder is wrong" based on ultimately? |
Three points.
I am not assuming that you feel the sexual behaviors we've discussed are acceptable for heterosexuals. In fact, I think it is a misapplication of this belief that they are wrong that motivates you to discriminate against homosexuals. You are applying an argument about apples to a debate about oranges.
Secondly, You did not address this most important point:
"A homosexual can't have ANY gay sex without it being a problem, even if they've NEVER had sex with a woman. How is this nuanced, fair, or equitable?"
Why is it unaccetpable for a gay man to have ANY sex, even in a committed partnership, when this is not true for heterosexuals? It is a double standard, making it unfair and, in my opinion, illegal when implemented by the government. Why do you support a double standard? Gays are romantic, and court, and steal cute pecks on the cheek when nobody's looking too, you know. Gay relationships can (and do) mirror everything found in heterosexual relationships but the specifics of sexual coupling. They are the same. Why two standards?
Finally, you say that "actions which cause harm to individuals are wrong". This is overbroad and would make every last one of us into moral failures. We, as humans, constantly do small harms to ourselves for the greater, long-term gain, or even no gain. We harm our bodies with sun, we harm our bodies for fun. Tennis elbow, anyone? We harm ourselves to wear jewelry. Harm is inherent in living life.
Is tennis elbow immoral?
I would propose a slightly more nuanced moral basis, "actions which cause harm to others unless they are meant to prevent harm to oneself are wrong", but even this falls apart when you look at the edge cases. All moral systems do. That is why philosophy is still debated, and in the absence of any moral absolutes (those not simply abdicated to a higher power) I find it incredibly difficult living under a system that seeks to restrict my public and private life with morality as the underlying justification.
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:20:13. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:17:36 PM · #1185 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I just did above to Mousie. I never mentioned the Bible and I made a coherent, rational argument. You may disagree with it, but it is a complete argument. Later I posted the axiom for such a morality "actions which harm an individual are morally wrong". One can hold this morality without having a particular faith. |
Your arument served only to separate the source of your beleif from the implementation of that belief, even though it did in fact avoid specificaly mentioning the Bible.
You basicaly posit that "Hypersexuality is wrong, gays are hypersexual, so they're wrong."
Given that I live in a society where taking risk itself is not illegal or immoral and is in fact guaranteed as the 'pursuit of happiness', and that the only other reason you've proposed besides faith is risk avoidance, I'm suggesting that your real position is "My faith tells me that hypersexuality is wrong, gays are hypersexual, so they're wrong".
You can not divorce the underlying justification for a belief from the belief itself.
Your argument is incomplete.
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:21:13. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:19:36 PM · #1186 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
See #3 in my response to Shannon. -- Repeated homosexual sex continues to reinforce patterns which the typical brain is not designed or evolved to have. |
It would be virtually impossible for you to point to a harmful "brain pattern" arising from homosexual sex. If you're suggesting that brains weren't evolved to process the input generated during homosexual sex, neither do you have proof of that, nor is it demonstrably deleterious to people's mental health to engage in gay sex.
In any event, by this line of thought, you can just as easily argue that brains weren't evolved to or designed to handle input from patterns that are reinforced while driving, operating a computer, puzzling out a particularly difficult math problem, or any number of unnatural acts.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My own morality comes from my faith, although I can logically present the arguments [against homosexuality, I assume] otherwise. |
Originally posted by Louis:
I don't think you can. I think it's fairly obvious that your arguments against homosexuality are rooted in your faith. |
I just did above to Mousie. I never mentioned the Bible and I made a coherent, rational argument. You may disagree with it, but it is a complete argument. Later I posted the axiom for such a morality "actions which harm an individual are morally wrong". One can hold this morality without having a particular faith. |
Liberalism generally arises from reasoned empathy, a condition difficult to achieve in the dogmatically religious. I would think you would agree it's impossible for you to separate your personal values from your religious beliefs. Are you being completely honest in suggesting that your opposition to homosexual behaviour is completely based on pragmatic concerns, not moral issues?
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:23:01. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:20:27 PM · #1187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does it make you feel better if I say that your first point seems to concern HIV only? |
Nope. You're regurgitating propaganda, and appear to be concerned with gay MEN only. Little wonder that the top result for a Google search of "'gay couples' STDs" is an article entitled "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" on catholiceducation.org. Can you say 'vested interest'? |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:21:02 PM · #1188 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Three points.
I am not assuming that you feel the sexual behaviors we've discussed are acceptable for heterosexuals. In fact, I think it is a misapplication of this belief that they are wrong that motivates you to discriminate against homosexuals.
Secondly, You did not address this most important point:
"A homosexual can't have ANY gay sex without it being a problem, even if they've NEVER had sex with a woman. How is this nuanced, fair, or equitable?"
Why is it unaccetpable for a gay man to have ANY sex, even in a committed partnership, when this is not true for heterosexuals? It is a double standard, making it unfair and, in my opinion, illegal when implemented by the government. Why do you support a double standard? Gays are romantic, and court, and steal cute pecks on the cheek when nobody's looking too, you know. Gay relationships can (and do) mirror everything found in heterosexual relationships but the specifics of sexual coupling. They are the same. Why two standards?
Finally, you say that "actions which cause harm to individuals are wrong". This is overbroad and would make every last one of us into moral failures. We, as humans, constantly do small harms to ourselves for the greater, long-term gain, or even no gain. We harm our bodies with sun, we harm our bodies for fun. Tennis elbow, anyone? We harm ourselves to wear jewelry. Harm is inherent in living life.
Is tennis elbow immoral?
I would propose a slightly more nuanced moral basis, "actions which cause harm to others unless they are meant to prevent harm to oneself are wrong", but even this falls apart when you look at the edge cases. All moral systems do. That is why philosophy is still debated, and in the absence of any moral absolutes (those not simply abdicated to a higher power) I find it incredibly difficult living under a system that seeks to restrict my public and private life with morality as the underlying justification. |
OK, yes, sorry to not hit that main point. Yes, I feel that ANY gay sex is wrong. Ultimately monogamous gay sex is less wrong than promiscuous gay sex, but it is still wrong because it is harmful to the individual. I didnt' say it was nuanced or equitable or fair. It isn't. It isn't fair that the gambling addict can't enjoy a bit of fun at the track while the rest of us can, but it's true.
I'd pretty well say we are ALL moral failures no matter what moral system is employed. That is an easily evident truth. It doesn't mean we should employ no moral systems.
I'm starting to feel like I have multiple balls to keep in the air with multiple people and the expectation is that for me to have ANY point be valid, ALL my points need to be valid. That's a tough requirement and one I may simply not be up to. I'm just trying to be honest and straightforward.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:24:39 PM · #1189 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm starting to feel like I have multiple balls to keep in the air with multiple people and the expectation is that for me to have ANY point be valid, ALL my points need to be valid. That's a tough requirement and one I may simply not be up to. I'm just trying to be honest and straightforward. |
I would certainly hope that the points you are trying to make are valid in your own eyes. Perhaps now you know what it can feel like for me on a daily basis, simply trying to justify my own existence.
As I said before, I don't think harm reduction (as much as I take issue with you suggesting that I am somehow damaging myself) alone is a valid basis for restriciting my rights.
And you know what? A gambling addict CAN go to the track. They do all the time.
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:34:35. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:33:39 PM · #1190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It isn't fair that the gambling addict can't enjoy a bit of fun at the track while the rest of us can, but it's true. |
Where is it required that gambling addicts register with the state, so they can be prohibited entry at a racetrack?
As long as it causes no harm to others, where do you get the right to determine what level of risk others are willing to assume? Do you get to actually forbid your patients from eating unhealthy foods? Can you have them arrested for staying up too late?
Even the US Supreme Court has ruled (reluctantly, I'm sure) that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of the government's business. Somewhat to my surprise, I've begun to see signs of actual principled conservatism emerging from the neo-con morass we've been swamped by, and first and foremost of those is no government interference in people's private affairs.
Opposing gay marriage and demonizing a class of people for the way in which they express their sexuality causes physical, psychological, and economic harm to any number of individuals ... what would Hippocrates do? |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:35:27 PM · #1191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ultimately monogamous gay sex is less wrong than promiscuous gay sex, but it is still wrong because it is harmful to the individual. |
You're backing yourself into a corner now. Given a scenario of monogamous gay sex, you've removed the increased risks of multiple partners and STDs. With women at least, there's no greater risk of ANYTHING vs. a monogamous heterosexual couple (actually LESS, considering the risks associated with pregnancy), yet you claim it's still harmful to the individual. Why? Your point #3 was only a claim that it might encourage someone to continue behavior that, in this case, carries no inherent physical risk, so what's the problem? |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:35:46 PM · #1192 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does it make you feel better if I say that your first point seems to concern HIV only? |
Nope. You're regurgitating propaganda, and appear to be concerned with gay MEN only. Little wonder that the top result for a Google search of "'gay couples' STDs" is an article entitled "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" on catholiceducation.org. Can you say 'vested interest'? |
Ummmm, I'm not positive to what you are referring. The plain truth is that the mucosal tissues of the rectum are far thinner and more tearable than the mucosal tissue of the vagina. This leads to a higher risk of tears which leads to a higher risk of blood borne infection. I didn't hit any website to know that. I got it in medical school. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:38:10 PM · #1193 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Perhaps now you know what it can feel like for me on a daily basis, simply trying to justify my own existence. |
This is a very interesting point and one that I was noticing myself. This thread illustrates a somewhat opposite viewpoint than I experience on a daily basis. Normally, it is the gays attempting to justify their beliefs. Here, we see the idea that same sex marriage is acceptable as is sex between consenting gays and we see those opposed having to justify their belief instead.
The real question is whether or not the tone of this thread is in line with popular feelings on the matter. If so, it appears that the biggest hurdle facing homosexuals is simply getting the laws changed as public opinion would naturally disagree with the current laws. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's nearly so simple for them.
I don't want to change the topic of the thread as it has progressed along a singular topic quite nicely. However, I can't help but notice that in this thread, it seems people are just as likely to strongly disagree with those individuals having strong Biblical beliefs as they are to disagree with homosexuality in the real world. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:38:44 PM · #1194 |
Let's see if we can ALL jump on me at once. Please. Let's do it. I had been civilly asked to state how I felt about homosexuality. I did so. Now I'm being grilled for every nuance by four or five people who weren't even part of the discussion between Mousie and myself.
The fun is over. I'm leaving in four hours to a long weekend in BC and I'm sure this thread will be 100 posts longer with lots and lots of bombast and verve by the time I get back. Me quitting four hours earlier isn't going to hurt anything.
Thanks for the civil retorts. Not. (Mousie, I did enjoy our conversation, but by the end here it sounds like you (and others) are simply telling me "nope, your argument is religion". The only logical response to the "afraid not" argument is "afraid so".)
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:42:37. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:41:38 PM · #1195 |
| Everyone was nothing but civil. Stating an opposing opinion or demanding that you support your claims is not the epitome of uncivil behaviour. I can understand how you must feel when your opinion is in the minority however (oh irony of ironies). |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:46:58 PM · #1196 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Everyone was nothing but civil. Stating an opposing opinion or demanding that you support your claims is not the epitome of uncivil behaviour. I can understand how you must feel when your opinion is in the minority however (oh irony of ironies). |
Well, you did accuse me of lying about my motives. "Are you being completely honest?" Maybe you didn't think I was lying but rather thought I was just too stupid to realize what I was saying.
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 15:48:09. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:49:16 PM · #1197 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The plain truth is that the mucosal tissues of the rectum are far thinner and more tearable than the mucosal tissue of the vagina... I got it in medical school. |
While you were there, did you happen to hear anything about eclampsia or ectopic pregnancy... risks that lesbians tend to avoid? Married heterosexual couples ain't limited to vaginal intercourse either. Once again, you seem to be fixated purely on sexual acts between men (which don't even occur in every relationship) as the focus of your justification attempts. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:49:22 PM · #1198 |
| You're right, best if you take a break. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:49:28 PM · #1199 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Ummmm, I'm not positive to what you are referring. The plain truth is that the mucosal tissues of the rectum are far thinner and more tearable than the mucosal tissue of the vagina. This leads to a higher risk of tears which leads to a higher risk of blood borne infection. I didn't hit any website to know that. I got it in medical school. |
Oh man, here I was in the shower chuckling over a tiny point in the midst of so many others, and I come back to find this.
Won't somebody please protect my precious mucosal membranes??? When will the madness end???
Save the membranes!
Message edited by author 2008-07-10 16:35:20. |
|
|
|
07/10/2008 03:57:16 PM · #1200 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Won't somebody please protect my precious mucosal membranes??? When will the madness end???
Save the membranes! |
You know, walking around Los Angeles without a respirator must damage the mucosal membranes of the respiratory tract somethng awful. |
|
