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.