Naw!

just judgin' phonies...I believe gay couples should have ALL the rights of opposite-sex.

yeah, i know....i'm just saying that i don't care if they're faking it.....actually....i kind of prefer it....

so . . . your cock doesn't care if its partner is male or female? :p

You go, boy!

it's just skin.......

I get that...it's all perspective.

(edit) I also can see that it turns guys on. It is sexy..no doubt. As a woman, I can see that it is, too. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't agree with playing games with who you are sexually to look cool, or whatever. I think it's offensive to those who are dealing with the real issues their sexuality (or any other aspect of themselves) and conflicts with what is "right" and "wrong" in society because it seems to me to be making light of something I would think those who are actually living it take very seriously.

But what do I know?

I don't really think that GGW has much to do with the acceptance of homosexuality by mainstream America. GGW has to do with slick marketing to "every man's fantasy".

Wasn't talking about the output, talking about those who are "inputting."

Please do not take my simple observation and make it an essay on a much broader subject than it was intended to be. It is merely a different aspect, angle, a tangential observation.

It all depends on the angle of the dangle - if ya know what I mean....

I don't think I was putting words in your mouth. I don't think that the participation of the females on those vids has much to do with general acceptance by society of homosexual behavior, that was my point.

Its not okay but what else can you do?

From recent votes there has not been enough support to legalize same sex marriage for now but I am saying it will be there in 20-30 years so it isn't permanent. I strongly believe that gay marriages should be legal but the opposition is too strong to do anything about it right now.

Do you really want your argument to sound like that, pierce?
Your argument is just 'wait it out'.
Justice, freedom, equality, civil rights... these things do not happen from just 'waiting it out'. Every person who fails to campaign for gay rights or any other kind of civil right is complicit in the deprivation of that right. If you actually strongly believed that gay marriage should be legal, you would go out and tell the homophobic bigots that they are wrong, and why. You would fight for equality and civil rights. You would do the right thing.

Right now, your strategy is doing nothing, and doing nothing is no better than doing the right thing.

So your waiting for people to become liberal?

Some would argue that is an extraordinarily long process.
If anything, I think that the world is becoming more nationalist, more conservative, if you take a look at recent elections around the world the right is winning more than the left.

I didn't read that Pierce was advocating any particular course of action. I thought he was remarking from a more historical perspective. :2cents:

Pierce was being realistic, maybe fatalistic, but as you mature you learn to pick your battles more carefully.

Getting all Don Quixote, especially about things that don't affect you, will do you, or the people you support, no good.
Restricting your activities to being honest about your views, is not akin to complicity.

Being gay might be morally wrong to some people, but not to me.

My morals think it's perfectly ok. If I were a prude perhaps, or staunch catholic etc, I might think it's morally wrong to be gay.

With regard to the question posed earlier, "do your morals change according to who you're with", I think that's an interesting question.

There is no doubt that our sense of propriety stops us from behaving the same way in front of our 80yr old granny than we might when we're out with friends at the pub. Does that mean our morals change or that we simply prop our morals up because we don't want to offend granny?

Hmm...I worded the last part badly.

I did not intend to be taken as "do nothing until public support switches sides" but "don't expect anything big to happen for 20-30 years when public support does switch".

The frustrating part about gay rights is that there is a large voting population that will vote against gay rights no matter how good of an argument or how deserving these rights are. I will always continue to support gay rights but I will not expect change to happen quickly and neither should you. You should obviously continue to fight for the rights you deserve but do not expect change overnight or, even worse, become completely cynical with this issue.

Change can and will happen, it will just take longer than it should. I'm sorry if this posts gets you angry, and it should, but I am merely pointing out what I see through historical trends with respect to these types of issues. Civil Rights should have happened a long time before the 60s but it would never have had the support to pass before then. Gay rights should have happened a long time ago as well but right now it doesn't have the support to pass. Both those are true sentences but also idealistic. I do not want to have to wait it out either but sometimes there is no other option.


It depends on what aspect you are talking about. I am fairly certain that the recent push towards the right on a whole is just a trend but it seems to me, I might also be wrong, that civil rights have been slowly moving left for a while now.

Wow complete indecision within me, I was going to take this line originally then I thought I was full of shit, and took a different line, and then I thought that that was shite too, and back to this one.

Anway...

I think its more the case that we prop up our morals in situations with our granny, I don't think that swearing and burping round a table is wrong per say, I don't do said acts because others round the table think that it is wrong.

however, doesn't that just make a situation of your morals, "burping and swearing are a ok, except when my granny is here"

So really after all my confusion, I have to say that really the bolstering
of my morals just comes under that on an absolute level, in my moral laws I have a moral which says that I should take into account other peoples morals, so really I would say that my moral code is more accommodating than changing, but none the less it is changing.

In short, morals do change!

(post script-Well if you read all that extremely messy post of indecisivenesses, congratulations, if you understood it as well your a better man than I am. Also if you want an analogy to how my moral laws work, just think of Nietzsche attacking Freud, and Freud retaliating by more or less encapsulating Nietzsche's attack. I describe it poorly but none the less if you have no idea what I am vainly trying to get at, you will just have take my word for it. - Also the smart ones amongst you would have noted that this a post script at all since at the time of writing of the post script, the original article hasn't been posted, this is just merely a mechanism for me to add additional material on the end of my post without calling it a note and therefore seeming utterly up my own arse, which would have been surely spotted and commented on, even if i had not mentioned thus.)

There's a difference between morals and decorum. It is not wrong to fart and swear, but it is rude. There are people with whom I can be rude, and people with whom I prefer not to be, but I'm pretty sure none of those people think it's wrong either, just impolite.

My morals do not change depending on whom I'm with, only the extent to which I am willing to discuss them. I can keep my mouth shut when it is advisable to do so, but I can't think of a situation where I would say or do something that I wouldn't have otherwise.

How can what consenting adults do with each other, short of perhaps homicide, be immoral?

Morality varies by individual, by society, by religion, and probably by a zillion other factors. There are very few moral absolutes.

Read Clockwork Orange for one interesting POV on Right and Wrong.

If you're having more fun than I am, what you're doing is immoral... and if I have my way, also illegal.

3 people think...or thought that being gay is morally wrong. all 3 of them were too timid or not sure enough about their opinion to post a comment to that effect. fear of being persecuted for their belief? ironic?


the login anonymous ...password.....cockpuppet

You forgot to identify the source of that quote, George W Bush.

:lol2:

That's so wrong.....just ask my girlfriend.
:)

According to the Bible (where most issues of moral behaviour are evaluated), the Christians deduce that homosexuality is immoral. But Christians are not the only valid (did I say “valid”?) source of metaphysical conviction.

Assuming that any of the existing religious institutions are correct about the creation of life and expectations of us, as mortal beings – then we’ll only know the answer to sexual morality when we’ve reach the “after life” – maybe.

What's Awesome' last name? I may know him. lol!!!

*groan*

That's what he said! lol!!!

[quote=Kerotan;417449] I think that a philosophy section should discuss matters of such import, especially when a User named Cicero frequents this area of the forum regularly.


[/b]

Just noticed that...thank god for searching myself. :p Kero- philosophy used to be discussed here widely. Anymore...not so much.

thats a shame too!

This is, on the face of it, ridiculous and based on a logical falsehood. By this reasoning masturbation would also be wrong because if we all only masturbated then we would fail to reproduce. To make the logical error more clear, lets look at another example divorced from the issue:

Suppose a man falls out of a boat in the ocean and finds himself completely submerged. A fellow boater suggests that the man hold his breath. Kant disagrees, saying that if we universalise the axiom we would all asphyxiate. Kant is also a moron.

Personally, I am inclined to treat homosexuality as just another form of masturbation. Be it by hand, mouth, anus, whatever, any sexually satisfying act that is not reproductive in nature is masturbation. I am not stimulated by the male form so I don't partake of that particular fetish, but it is no more immoral than prophylactics.

This is an unproductive question, as the assumptions required to answer it are unlikely to be agreed upon.
Do the rich somehow have a greater supply or access to their own sexual organs? It could be argued that they have access to more *other* sexual organs I suppose, or that they have more free time, but I don't see anything about being poor that prevents being gay.

There is a line of thought that being homosexual isn't wrong, but its acting on those impulses that is.

I am inclined to feel that its not wrong, and what do I care about what someone else does in their bedroom. Unfortunately, since being homosexual has become more "right" than "wrong" over the last 2 decades, along with the loosening of morals on pre-marital sex, there seems to be a large acceptance on sexual promiscuity. More than acceptance... almost expectance. This leads me to believe its wrong, even though logically the two aren't necessarily related. Its also seemed like its more acceptable to be 'experimental' and trying to figure out your sexual preference, or acceptance for trying anything and everything. And I believe this to be immoral.

I had an issue, being Episcopal, with the appointment of the gay bishop that made news 2 or 3 years ago. But it wasn't that he was homosexual. It was because he was an adulterer. He cheated on his wife, put her health at risk, destroyed their family. It happened to be over another man. I don't believe someone that does that is in the right spritual mindset to make bishop.

Why is that immoral?

Maybe these things are occuring because western society is finally starting to realize that we've put unrealistic expectations/restrictions on our behaviours with regard to things that are natural and right.

Immanuel Kant is also from the Enlightenment Period, and highly religious. Funny you would quote him to find problems with the ghey. Why don't you go ahead and quote the pope in Rome?

Unfortunately, if we are going to disregard theories from those in positions likely to color their take on the situation we would also be forced to ignore the views of homosexuals who frequent the thread.

I think Kant was an asshole, but I respect the Pope and his opinions.

Isn't the whole point of having a religious leader so that what might otherwise be considered their opinion holds greater sway due to presumed divinity backing them up? The Pope's moral advice isn't considered on the basis of him being "a pretty swell guy" but on the presumption that he is the chosen mouthpiece of Almighty God. Thus, his "opinions" would be much more than opinions if you follow his religion, and *only* opinions if you don't.

Going from context I am assuming Cicero's issue with Kant stemmed from his religious leanings and less about his personal character, and the same would apply to the Pope. Either the Pope is speaking with religious justification (which Cicero apparently does not agree with) or he is simply "some guy" with an opinion, which is nearly worthless without logical support.

Being moral is conforming to a standard of what is right and good. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Being sexually promiscuous is not right or good in my opinon, and in the opinion of the world's major religions. And its not confined to 'western society'. If you are religious, your God has 'rules' on right and wrong behavior. For those that question the divine inspiration of religion, one factor pointed to for their creation was to keep a society in order. And order necessitates rules of right and wrong behavior.

So why would sexual promiscuity be wrong? Because it is bad for society. Why is it bad? First is the obvious chance of unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted children is a burden on the society. Second is the risk of STDs, which can be fairly harmless (warts), causing infertility (chlamydia, gonorrhea), or lead to death (Hepititis C, HIV). The second two aren't particularly good for a society that needs a healthy thriving population. As for the argument of birth control and condoms, they are not 100% effective, and a lot of people don't use them. Third is the breaking apart of family, as husbands and wives cheat on each other to do what 'feels good', giving into instant gratification, instead of doing what is right. In the end giving into temptation to do what feels good leads to pain - physical and mental. Even if the pain is not instantaneous, or felt within a week or month... at some point many people come to regret their previous behavior. Does a man want to marry a slut, and wonder when they go to dinner how many men in the restaurant she screwed? Does a woman want to marry a whore, and wonder just how many children he has running around the world? Is that something you would want to brag to your parents "hey mom, I'm marrying the biggest whore on campus, but don't worry, his/her chlamydia cleared up with antibiotics."

I don't want my son to grow up and sleep with a different person every Friday night. That's not happiness. That's instant gratification. I want him to date, and find that special someone who will make him happy for the rest of his life - not just for an hour or a night. Jumping into bed with someone on the first date complicates the dating process. Not that it means it won't work... but chances are it won't. There will always be the question "does he/she jump in bed with everyone she/he went on a date with?" One (or both) parties may feel that since they slept together, they should automatically be 'dating' whether they are compatible or not, leading to months/years of unfullfillment on a higher emotional level... instead of going on a few dates without sex and coming to the conclusion that they aren't compatible, and being able to walk away without the emotions that sex carries.

Never understood why people are so against sex with lots of different people and "instant gratification". So long as everyone involved is doing so willingly and know the risks. I like sex and like different acts with different guys.
For me, sex with "a different person every Friday night" is a slow week. ;)

How is promiscuity morally wrong, if you haven't promised someone you'll be faithful to them? How does it damage society when no agreement is being broken?

Couldn't it be said that it is damaging to society to bind couples together who are not sexually compatible and so destined to be unhappy/cheat? So marriage without premarital sex is morally wrong?

How does being gay prevent you from making and keeping a promise to be faithful to someone? I know many faithful gay couples with children. I fail to see how their behaviour fits into Aimee's justification for linking homosexuality, promiscuity and morality.

Homosexuality and promiscuity are not remotely related and blending them in this way is just an excuse for bigotry.

imo

:eyebrow: :headshake

This is the thing crusades, inquisitions, and holocausts are made of. Perhaps a good argument can be made against homosexuality, but this isn't it.

If someone is in a monogamous relationship, be it hetero or homo, I think it is fine. It happens that the 'popularization' of homosexuality coincides with society loosened its morals, which I believe are wrong. The two are not logically connected, although some may argue they are related, since the populizers of both (Hollywood) are one and the same.

What I have a problem with is people that are gay because its popular, and homosexuals that feel the need to broadcast their preference. If someone wasn't gay in 1980 when it wasn't popular, why are they gay 20 years later? Either you are or you aren't, and it shouldn't matter what celebrities are or are not gay, and who does and does not accept it. Being homosexual shouldn't be a statement, just like me being heterosexual isn't a statement. It integral to my being, but I don't need to stand on a street corner with a placard in hand "I'M STRAIGHT".

Its not the individual that deals with the consequences of the risks. Society bears the burden of unwanted children growing up in environments that are not conducive to producing productive citizens. The healthcare system bears the burden of treating STDs, fighting HIV and AIDS, and supporting those that are no longer able to work. For those insured, the insurance companies pass the cost of the treating HIV and AIDS to their other costumers.

Very few people match this description, and the problem with them isn't the gayness.Who says they weren't? Maybe you just assumed they weren't because they were hiding it? It seems like they do need to broadcast it, or people will assume they don't exist.

Broadcasting gayness helps transform passive discrimination (assuming that the minority is irrelevant) into active discrimination (attacking those uppity gays for flaunting themselves). Active discrimination starts to repulse decent people, and the rules get changed. Eventually, broadcasting is no longer necessary, as it is now part of the general assumption.

[quote=aimeecc;426579]...Society bears the burden of unwanted children growing up in environments that are not conducive to producing productive citizens...QUOTE]

I'm not sure if they explained how homosexuality works but...

If a gay couple has kids, it's pretty much because they wanted them.

Yes it is unfortunate isn't it. I read Kant and agree with some of his classifications...I would not diregard Kant in any way...I'm just pointing out the fact that he's being used here in lieu of many other moralists to gain the moral highground which is the argueable point, I believe.


The bottom line....(I am really saying it was an improper cite from Kant)
There is a veritable grab-bag out there from many periods and philosophies on Moralist topics. I think people need to be able to further their own point by using sources and proper interpretations. Nice to meet you Phage!! (we haven't met yet)
:D

With regard to the 'past/present' argument presented by aimeecc, I only ask if you actually expect society to stagnate or if you acknowledge that there are some things that have been improved by our changing society.

To me it's pretty straight forward. Things change. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes not for the good, however I wouldn't trade the good changes for the not so good, because without the good changes our society would never grow and evolve.

The statement above obviously contains a number of statments that are purely perspective based. What one person views as good is not always the same for others. The same with the bad. Fortunately for you aimeecc, our society has evolved enough to allow you to hold the views you do without discriminating against you for them. Fortunately for those who disagree with aimeecc's views, society is quite happy for you to live your life any way you see fit as long as it's not harming others.

With regard to the 'instant gratification' statement. I'm with Sheldon (or used to be). If people are happy with their lifestyle and they take whatever precautions are necessary, then it's no one else's business besides those involved. People who go around sermonising about promiscuous people need to take the blinders off and realize that the life they themselves lead is not necessarily any better. Often times it's worse. Also, these people need to realize that just because people have periods of promiscuity in their lives, it doesn't mean they don't also have periods of monogamy. People are not static. They grow and evolve just as our society does.

I wasn't planing on posting in this thread, especially not when my motivation for the post resides in the realm of the tangential.

In a little defense of Kant, I think that the axiom there would rather be, "when it is needed in oder for my own survival, I shall hold my breath, until there becomes such a time when holding my breath is not required for my survival, or such a time that I need oxygen to stay alive"

Here I was drawing an example from ancient Greece, where it was not uncommon for rich men to have same sex relationships, and as a common theme it was more a preserve of the rich, wholly because the lives of the poor are not recorded in isolation.
So it was a rather poor example, but my main focus behind the whole "what do you think" line was purely to stimulate some intellectual debate, albeit rather poorly.

And here was my motivation for the post,

I found this at the bottom of the page as I was posting and I found it rather appropriate to the topic In hand.

"A-C-L-U We defend your right to screw!
--American Civil Liberties Union slogan chanted at Chicago's 25th Annual Gay and Lesbian Pride parade"

No fair! Breathing is as much a biological imperative in the long term as sexual reproduction, so you would need to modify Kant's argument to be something like "When it is needed in order for my own wellbeing, I shall partake in homosexual relations, until there becomes such a time when homosexual relations are not required for my wellbeing, or such a time that I require sexual reproduction to pass on my bloodline." This would of course undermine his conclusion, which was the point of drawing the parallel. Kant's reasoning does not allow dipping in and out of a behavior as appropriate, it simply suggests that the behavior is *never* appropriate.

And thank you Cicero, for the welcome.

Well, in Kerotan's formulation of a theoretical Kant argument against homosexuality, I suspect that "homosexuality" is considered to be exclusive homosexuality. As in, "if it is good for this one person to never reproduce, then it must be good for nobody to reproduce. It is obviously not good for nobody to reproduce, therefore it must not be good for this one person not to reproduce. QED"

The biggest problem with the argument is that it boils down to "variation is evil". A moral system based on that is essentially the caricature of communism in right-wing nightmares.

Kant was interested in furthering his own religious propaganda. Saying that homosexuality is unnatural and against god....(furthering his calssifications) Well there needs to be proof. Kant never provided that. If anyone is willing to provide the proof of the unnaturalness of homosexuality, then I'm willing to look at it.

I'm thinking you Kant. ha ha...not funny. Sorry.
:)

Otherwise Kant is an improper cite for the question at hand. And also was cited improperly...I have my reservations about this discussion at all.

Now that I think about it, homosexual sex is more moral than heterosexual sex when done for fun because homosexual sex does not run the risk of pregnancy.

I found it funny.

And yes the problem that you going to get with theological argument over proof is the same that you get over debates of psychoanalysis, that is, that what is being tested is not open for inspection.

arguably.

If it did, the world would be filled with even more little shits. :D

I'm not so sure equating religious affiliation and sexual orientation is 100% accurate.
I've "known" I was homosexual at least since I was in 2nd grade.
I even tried (really fucking hard) to change it until I was in middle school, by flooding my brain with (what I thought were) images of beautiful women - in neon 80's spandex with fake orange tans - whenever I caught myself looking sideways at a cute boy.
I remember having the distinct impression that, if I didn't fix it now, in 2nd grade, then it'd be infinitely harder to fix it when I went through what the teachers and my parents and the TV shows referred to as "puberty."
Puberty was fun.

I know there are tons of people who are raised in religious households, but following what your parents/gods tell you is right (thus being part of the Tribe by default),
and perceiving that you are "different" from everyone, including your family, and having to hide it for most of your life, with no real way to change it, except for how people perceive you,
are two very different things, in my opinion.

To put it shortly, most Abraham-spawned religious views on homosexuality are stunted and ignorant due to ideology that is, on this particular subject, stunted and ignorant.
I know that's a matter of opinion, but, well, we don't live in the Bronze Age anymore, much less the Middle Ages, much less with our heads shoved up our asses. Excuses are getting thinner and thinner.

Most hetro religious people commenting on sexuality are doing so from a set of values that they've been spoon-fed.
Even if they are new believers, it is a set of values that someone else gave them, someone else worked out, someone else set up.
[It is assumed that] They aren't homosexual themselves.
Why take someone's opinion to heart when they're rather ignorant of what they're forming an opinion on?

Speaking from personal experience as someone who went to a bumfuck baptist-ridden high school in Georgia just before gays suddenly became flashy pop culture anti-heroes (in bumfuck baptist terms, this was the late 90's),
most gay people have to come to terms with their value systems on their own, and decide how they feel about the fact that they are homosexual on their own, without having some ingrained/established religious structure that tells them how they should feel about it.

I don't think anyone's opinion should be completely disregarded, but, on this particular subject, I'd say that the cookie-cutter view of homosexuality that most religious people hold, should not be held on the same level as the opinion of homosexual people,
a.k.a. people who know a hell of a lot more about homosexuality than any Biblegod-fearing Joe that bases his opinions around words written by homophobic dead men 2000+ years ago, most of whom were trying to keep their people alive and organized and breeding in the fucking desert, since babies had a tendency of dying off rather easily.


- Equating homosexuality with promiscuity is also ignorant, in my humble opinion.
I'm a good looking guy, but I haven't bumped uglies in a year.
I'm just not wired like that when it comes to sex.
I don't roll with people just because they are gay; I roll with my friends. I can't stand sheepish people in any guise, including the rainbow-toting glitter princesses that would float away if they weren't securly handcuffed to the pleasure swing.
It makes it a chore to meet a gay person in a normal (not-club) setting that I can vibe with.
Nothing wrong with promiscuity; I just don't swing that way.
People are people.
It's the most vague fucking statement ever, but it's still true.


Personally, I hold the belief that sexuality is a spectrum, rather than a rigid set of categories. Everybody falls somewhere on it. Sure, some fall on the very edge of it, but there are way more people that fall somewhere in between the two extremes.
It's like everything else in the entire world.
I happen to be hetro-curious, but it's easy for me to say that in this society, since that what's considered normal.
I still see a villain from a science fiction movie every time I look at the female genitalia.
I see pretty much the same thing when I look at male genitalia, but it's not scary, and I want to make out with it.



On a lighter note, but probably more interesting,
here's a video.
Same sex sexy sex is as natural as popping out babies.
Just not nearly as draining on your wallet.


Disclaimer - This was a snub-nosed rant, not intended for or aimed at any specific person in particular.

You had me on your side up until this line. It's called diversity. If you don't gays like that, that's your right. But don't dismiss them just because you don't swing that way. It was the glitter that got us noticed and made it possible to at least get the straight world to laugh WITH us instead of at us, so we could then start to speak out.
I may not be one, but I thank Gods for them making it easier for me to be who i am. Hate comes in all packages. Even good-looking chaste gay men.

Good point.
Yeah, I guess I'm kind of an arrogant ass sometimes...sorry.
I was letting the coffee get away with me.

Thanks. Forgiven. :-)

I think you'd hit on an important point, Sheldon.
Laughing at Nathan Lane, or the Dorothys, while developing empathy in the subconscious, with the realization they are real human beings.

Thanks Bruce. BTW, Nathan Lane is an A-Typical secret crush of mine. :-)
Makes me laugh all the time.