Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Guest]

It seems to be a recurring theme with you, Eels, that you think just because this is the internet, you are free from judgement based on what you say.

 

 

 

That in itself is quite telling of you. Just because I'm not looking at you face to face doesn't mean I can't tell that you're dumb. I've never met George Bush, but I know for a fact that man is a [bleep] moron based only on how he acts in the public forum, which is, quite literally, where you are.

 

 

 

Judgment of personality I have no problem with. In fact I've got my own judgment on a number of people on this forum, mainly of good, but the odd bad.

 

 

 

But you trying to tell me how I'd act in real-life, or what I'd do in real life, or even the type of person I am in real life, is absurd to think that you'd be able to make a credible basis over the internet. Especially with the strict rules on TIF, the most credible thing you'd be able to find out about me is what my favorite food or colour is.

[Kant]

No, your "point" is moronic. There is a big difference between raping an animal and eating an animal. First, you're entertaining the idea that eating an animal is somehow "wrong" in the first place, when it isn't.

 

 

 

This argument wasn't with you. This is the problem. Assassin defined an action as immoral because the animal couldn't consent. Using his logic, eating meat is immoral because the animal can't consent. I didn't want to argue with you, I brought up my point, assassin said it was legit when taken by itself. This isn't between you and I, it's between assassin and I and he agreed with my point. You're just being spiteful now. Using his prior definition of an immoral action, eating meat is immoral. I don't care what your beliefs are because they're completely irrelevant to mine and assassin's conversation. I obviously believe eating meat is okay, I was just pointing out a contradiction in assassin's moral system/beliefs. Is that so hard to understand? If it isn't, then why are you being spiteful and insulting me? It seems whenever you try and argue with me or anyone else in this board you resort to ad hominem attacks and it's wearing me thin.

 

 

 

Secondly, you aren't taking into account that a raped animal has to live on and remember the abuse, traumatizing it, whereas a slaughtered and eaten animal is just dead, nothing more. It's a hunk o' meat. Frankly, I don't know about you, but I'm sure most rape victims wish they were dead rather than having to remember it.

 

 

 

Right. So if someone put a gun to your head and said "choose death or rape", you'd choose death?

 

 

 

Frankly I find it sad that you've now turned this into a topic about the morality of raping a [bleep]' sheep or eating a [bleep]' sheep. That is the dumbest debate I have ever heard.

 

 

 

It was two posts between assassin and I, one that went to show that arguing from consent is inconsistent with his moral beliefs. It is relevant, you're just unable to see that. You're the one that is continuing to argue a point that assassin has already (kindly) conceded. Again, my argument is not with you.

 

 

 

Even Bible-Banging whacko's would not make such a ridiculous claim as "Beastiality and eating meat are similar moral-wise!" The Bible even says it's cool to eat meat, but not cool to rape said animal the meat came from. So now, all of a sudden, you guys are questioning God's judgement. So God knows the difference between the two, but you guys are trying to take the line away and make it the same. Sorry - not happening.

 

 

 

No, I'm not question God's judgment. I believe bestiality is wrong, and I believe eating meat is okay. I haven't been giving my personal views, I am just showing the inconsistencies in assassin's moral definition by using his logic. Again, you're completely misunderstanding the intent of my argument. So please, stop arguing with me, because you have no idea what I'm trying to argue and you're just making yourself look bad. If you've noticed, assassin hasn't been trying to argue against this because he's intelligent and humble enough to see my point, even if he does think it is irrelevant to the current topic.

[Satenza]

I think the neccessity to eat animals plays an important part when distinguishing the non-consent of that animal with beastiality. Most Humans are omnivores as in we have the ability to digest both plants and animals and most of us do, therefore it would appear to be natural do eat meat. I do not really know whether beastiality is natural or if it's just humans being bored and occupying themselves.

 

 

 

However anyway even if that was natural i do not think this relates to homosexuality. Thats between two consenting parties, there is no consent with beastiality. There is no consent with killing an animal to eat it, but it would appear to be both natural and neccessary to do so. This "you should be vegetarian" argument does not hold up for me. We have humane methods of killing animals to eat them, we do not have humane methods of having sex with animals. It's an act of non-consenting cruelty. Eating them is merley an act not requiring consent to sustain human life. It can become just as bad as beastiality i think, when the animals are not raised in the proper way (ie chickens in tiny cages, making it illegal to make animals bleed to death for certain types of meat, illegal to poach). This is why we have evergrowing animal activist groups.

 

 

 

My friend is vegetarian and i know this does not speak for all vegetarians but she almost died numerous times due to that.

[Kant]

I think the neccessity to eat animals plays an important part when distinguishing the non-consent of that animal with beastiality. Most Humans are omnivores as in we have the ability to digest both plants and animals and most of us do, therefore it would appear to be natural do eat meat.

 

 

 

Just because we have the ability to do something does not make it natural. If that were true then bestiality would be natural, as we have the ability.

 

 

 

I do not really know whether beastiality is natural or if it's just humans being bored and occupying themselves.

 

 

 

I do not know either. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not advocating bestiality in any way. I was only pointing out that both bestiality and eating meat ignore the animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s consent. Assassin was arguing that the morality of an action was defined by consent. As you can see, you are bringing necessity in, which is more than just consent, and you are no longer using the same definition of morality as Assassin. My argument is not with you. I agree, consent should not be the only thing taken into account when defining the morality of an action.

 

 

 

However anyway even if that was natural i do not think this relates to homosexuality. Thats between two consenting parties, there is no consent with beastiality. There is no consent with killing an animal to eat it, but it would appear to be both natural and neccessary to do so.

 

 

 

I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t call it necessary, and IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve addressed the natural part of it above.

 

 

 

This "you should be vegetarian" argument does not hold up for me. We have humane methods of killing animals to eat them, we do not have humane methods of having sex with animals. It's an act of non-consenting cruelty.

 

 

 

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s circular reasoning. If eating meat is immoral (which you are arguing against) then there are no humane methods of killing animals to eat them.

 

 

 

My friend is vegetarian and i know this does not speak for all vegetarians but she almost died numerous times due to that.

 

 

 

That is an overgeneralized/vague statement, and yes, it is only one case.

 

 

 

And thanks for not resorting to ad-hominem attacks.

[ltb2006]

Most of us can agree that "Man" has recked the envorment enough to say population is going to go down the drain anyways. can we facethat even if it is...That that part is the least of our problems thesedays.

 

 

 

 

 

Chalenge read the bibal, dont just say you know the facts, because you heard someone els,KIDS dont remember half the facts given, that why half of us study for finals and pass.

 

Seriously,learn to spell before you call other people kids...

[assassin_696]

I don't think it's quite right to say that gaining consent therefore makes something right, or the corollary. And I hope that's not how my ethics comes across.

 

 

 

Eating meat is a natural act that has obvious dietary advantages. Bestiality has no real advantages except pleasuring the human committing the act.

 

 

 

I think consent plays an important part when it comes to sexual acts. I didn't mean consent should play a part with relation to other ethics. But the law treats consent as an important part of sexual acts, and so do I. Hence my reasoning.

[Kant]

I don't think it's quite right to say that gaining consent therefore makes something right, or the corollary. And I hope that's not how my ethics comes across.

 

 

 

Eating meat is a natural act that has obvious dietary advantages. Bestiality has no real advantages except pleasuring the human committing the act.

 

 

 

Still an advantage :P I've been doing some research on vegetarianism, and it looks like eating enough eggs and meat supplements make up for most if not all of the nutrition lost from meat. Interesting stuff.

 

 

 

But I'm glad you don't consider consent to be the be-all and end-all.

 

 

 

I think consent plays an important part when it comes to sexual acts. I didn't mean consent should play a part with relation to other ethics. But the law treats consent as an important part of sexual acts, and so do I. Hence my reasoning.

 

 

 

Ack, don't bring the law into it. I think the law does a really bad job of outlining moral actions, unless you're a consequentialist. Even then, the law doesn't forbid things like cheating on your wife. Cheating on your wife with another partner that consents to it is lawful, and consentful, but I really wouldn't call it moral. What would you say about that situation? Duty to your wife outweighs the law and consent in this case? If so, what is your basis for that claim? How does one outweigh the other?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ack, don't bring the law into it. I think the law does a really bad job of outlining moral actions, unless you're a consequentialist. Even then, the law doesn't forbid things like cheating on your wife. Cheating on your wife with another partner that consents to it is lawful, and consentful, but I really wouldn't call it moral. What would you say about that situation? Duty to your wife outweighs the law and consent in this case? If so, what is your basis for that claim? How does one outweigh the other?

 

Actually... there are several anti-adultery legislations. In the US Military for example, it's actually a court-martiable offense, although that's got a few loopholes in it.

 

 

 

Also, as a consequentialist, I'm bound to tell you the law is farly disregardant in morals, and affects my personal judgement very little. If, for example, a couple wanted to have children, but the mother was infertile, it may be seen as perfectly acceptable for the male to commit adultery with another women, have a baby, and then adopt that baby to look after it, since the consequence outweighs the law. Now, personally, I don't agree that, but that's just an example of how consequentialists don't use law as a moral outline.

[ACoffecup2]

IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m an atheist and I think its perfectly acceptable, people have the right to judge and hate people for it. But if you ask me itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s totally fine.

[Kant]

Ack, don't bring the law into it. I think the law does a really bad job of outlining moral actions, unless you're a consequentialist. Even then, the law doesn't forbid things like cheating on your wife. Cheating on your wife with another partner that consents to it is lawful, and consentful, but I really wouldn't call it moral. What would you say about that situation? Duty to your wife outweighs the law and consent in this case? If so, what is your basis for that claim? How does one outweigh the other?

 

Actually... there are several anti-adultery legislations. In the US Military for example, it's actually a court-martiable offense, although that's got a few loopholes in it.

 

 

 

Quick research shows that in some US states you can be imprisoned for adultery. However, I couldn't find another country that did this. And as both you and I are non-American...

[assassin_696]

I think consent plays an important part when it comes to sexual acts. I didn't mean consent should play a part with relation to other ethics. But the law treats consent as an important part of sexual acts, and so do I. Hence my reasoning.

 

 

 

Ack, don't bring the law into it. I think the law does a really bad job of outlining moral actions, unless you're a consequentialist. Even then, the law doesn't forbid things like cheating on your wife. Cheating on your wife with another partner that consents to it is lawful, and consentful, but I really wouldn't call it moral. What would you say about that situation? Duty to your wife outweighs the law and consent in this case? If so, what is your basis for that claim? How does one outweigh the other?

 

 

 

I meant to say I agree with the law, not that it necessarily influences my morals or ethics.

 

 

 

In regards to the case of adultery, hopefully my statement above has cleared that up, obviously i'm against adultery, it's an immoral act. I don't really think it should be made illegal, but generally when you get married you make a verbal contract with each other that you'll remain faithful, I think the consequences of breaking that and losing the trust of your partner if found out are probably punishment enough. But anyway, I wouldn't try and defend adultery for a second based on consent.

 

 

 

Perhaps the loophole for me is that the wife (or even husband) doesn't consent to the adultery of the other partner. :P I know you're questioning my ethics, pushing them and testing them with regards to what I say, and you're doing it pretty well and making me think hard. But before you continue, i'd just like to point out that i'm still forming opinions and reasons for my views on topics, and i'm likely to squirm and/or change them as suits me. I wouldn't base all my ethics on consent, or consequentialism, or utilitarianism per se. Rather, I have my own sense of what's right and wrong, and my justifications are still being worked out. It may seem odd, but it's just how my brain functions. Perhaps my own sense of right and wrong was imposed on me at a younger age based on a specific ethical system, but the specific justifications for it are more ambiguous.

[insane]

Perhaps the loophole for me is that the wife (or even husband) doesn't consent to the adultery of the other partner. :P

 

 

 

But the wife isn't committing the act, the husband is. Of course, the loophole for THAT is if you are a Christian, the husband and wife become "one flesh" so the wife would be participating... but I don't think you want to be arguing for Christian ethics, do you now :P

[Ginger_Warrior]

Perhaps the loophole for me is that the wife (or even husband) doesn't consent to the adultery of the other partner. :P

 

 

 

But the wife isn't committing the act, the husband is. Of course, the loophole for THAT is if you are a Christian, the husband and wife become "one flesh" so the wife would be participating... but I don't think you want to be arguing for Christian ethics, do you now :P

 

Not at all just in Christianity either. Any marriage in the UK, for example, of whatever faith, is in itself a legal contract between two people to share their lives together and remain faithful to one another. If one person in that couple then commits adultery without the other person's consent, then presumably, that would be in itself breaking the contract between those two people.

 

 

 

How did we get onto adultery from homosexuality anyway? We seem to have got side-tracked from the point... :?

[guss]

Most of us can agree that "Man" has recked the envorment enough to say population is going to go down the drain anyways. can we facethat even if it is...That that part is the least of our problems thesedays.

 

 

 

 

 

Chalenge read the bibal, dont just say you know the facts, because you heard someone els,KIDS dont remember half the facts given, that why half of us study for finals and pass.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously,learn to spell before you call other people kids...

 

 

 

Well Kid, dont go off topic... And mabe ill learn...Its what i meant not what i said, or how i typed, pluss that chalenge is just as good as any other.

[guss]

 

Chalenge read the bibal, dont just say you know the facts, because you heard someone els,KIDS dont remember half the facts given, that why half of us study for finals and pass.

 

Seriously,learn to spell before you call other people kids...

 

 

 

...No offense whatsoever but arguing with certain people seems absolutely the same as carving your eyes out of your head.

 

 

 

And before telling others to read the "bibal", you might consider not everybody in the world (or USA for that matter) is a christian or is interested in any degree about christianity.

 

 

 

I mean...The bibal as being a book that is helpfull to learnfrom, I myself Unitarian Universalist know that there is manny books, (I dont own all of them, which would be relly Universalist and expencive) I mean every one who is relly into religions should read the bibal as one of their first books.

[ltb2006]

Most of us can agree that "Man" has recked the envorment enough to say population is going to go down the drain anyways. can we facethat even if it is...That that part is the least of our problems thesedays.

 

 

 

 

 

Chalenge read the bibal, dont just say you know the facts, because you heard someone els,KIDS dont remember half the facts given, that why half of us study for finals and pass.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously,learn to spell before you call other people kids...

 

 

 

Well Kid, dont go off topic... And mabe ill learn...Its what i meant not what i said, or how i typed, pluss that chalenge is just as good as any other.

 

Yes i have read the bible. Also I only understand about 50% of what your saying.It seemed to be you going off topic when you started talking about:

Most of us can agree that "Man" has recked the envorment enough to say population is going to go down the drain anyways. can we facethat even if it is...That that part is the least of our problems thesedays.

However if you have an opinion about this topic why don't you share it with me?

[alphafish]

 

 

 

also, seeing as the bible says homosexuality is a sin, I see there can be only 3 possibilities:

 

 

 

1. its a choice

 

2. its not a choice and the bible is wrong

 

3. its not a choice and the bible is right

 

 

 

I think we can rule out choice 3, cause God would have to be really stupid to create someone who is inherently sinful and can't do anything about it...

 

 

 

well duh but here is the true reason...

 

REASON NO.4 it can be in some cases people have chosen it and if you chose it and act on it it is well and truly a sin but some people inherit it and it is not a sin but if they act on it it is something god doesnt like but is willing to accept

[yomom1919]

well duh but here is the true reason...

 

REASON NO.4 it can be in some cases people have chosen it and if you chose it and act on it it is well and truly a sin but some people inherit it and it is not a sin but if they act on it it is something god doesnt like but is willing to accept

 

 

 

...It's not a choice. Thats been made more then clear...

 

 

 

And, uh, could you guys take your bestiality arguments into a new thread, I want to keep this thread homosexual.

[warri0r45]

So the argument is that homosexual acts are consentual therefore ok while beastiality is not consentual therefore not ok thus killing animals for food is not ok as it's without consent, if you look at it that way?

 

 

 

So we've established, for us meat eaters that don't want to be morally wrong, that the consentual nature of a homosexual act dosen't automatically make it right?

 

 

 

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

[kelem_ryu]

 

if they act on it it is something god doesnt like but is willing to accept

 

 

 

No. YOU don't like it, but are willing to accept it.

 

 

 

People who are too damn blind to see that their image of god is just their image of themselves make me loose all faith in humanity.

 

 

 

 

 

So the argument is that homosexual acts are consentual therefore ok while beastiality is not consentual therefore not ok thus killing animals for food is not ok as it's without consent, if you look at it that way?

 

 

 

So we've established, for us meat eaters that don't want to be morally wrong, that the consentual nature of a homosexual act dosen't automatically make it right?

 

 

 

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

Woha! I completely missed that there is an actual debate going on here.

[Kant]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

[Satenza]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

 

 

 

I do not think that really matters at this stage, at least tell us your reasoning why you think it is right or wrong.

[assassin_696]

I don't think lacking an absolute sense of where your morality comes from makes you a moral relativist anyway.

[Kant]

I don't think lacking an absolute sense of where your morality comes from makes you a moral relativist anyway.

 

 

 

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself?

[BlueTear]

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself?

Force?