This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
I recently commented a bit in a couple threads that dealt with the legal aspects of gay marriage. I would like to try to get a moral discussion about homosexuality in. I have a feeling it might be hard due to the fact that when it comes right down too it, it's a question of religion in most cases. But since there was a bit of interest off-topic in another thread I figured it couldn't hurt.
I would like to start of by responding to this post by MyTie in the other thread:
I wouldn't treat a homosexual any different than I would anyone else who was imperfect. I'd love to sit down to lunch with you and have a great debate. I think you'd find my words are a lot harsher than my tone.
Here's what I want to stress. Any straight person who is married or have a sweetheart, how much do you love that person? To what lengths are you willing to go to be with that person? What does that person mean to you? Whatever you answer to those questions I too answer about the people I've loved, people who happen to be of the same sex as me. Now what would you say to someone who called that love for your significant other an imperfection? Wouldn't you just laugh and hold him or her all the tighter? When you give your whole self to another person, that is a very special thing. It becomes who you are. It's not something you can just deny, like you can deny yourself another bowl of ice cream. Even if you drive yourself completely away from the person, that feeling and connection will never disappear.
So I ask, why should I believe that this love I have is wrong? What specifically is imperfect about it? If I'm not attracted to men, and I don't fall in love with any, and the same is true for my significant other, what are we upsetting by being together? Is love a good thing? Is this love a good thing? Why does an attraction for the same sex even exist if it is such a sin?
Specifically to your post, I'm not really concerned with how you treat me. You can be a nice enough person, but you'll still believe that something I hold sacred is in fact an imperfection. If I were to be nice to you but treated your religiousness as an imperfection, wouldn't you feel like I was still somehow a stranger?
So that's just all the metaphysics of it, but what about the mechanics? I can't not fall in love with certain people. So at what time would my homosexuality become a sin or a falling? Could I still be friends with that person. Could I be the equivalent of a chaste spouse? Or is the very fact that I fall in love a sin? If I forced myself to marry a man I didn't love so I wouldn't be tempted to be with a woman I did love, would that be a good thing?
I could probably continue adding questions all night, but I'll leave it there.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
donnymurph
Being in love with someone of the same sex isn't wrong, morally. It isn't even "abnormal", IMO. You are attracted to who you are attracted to. However, it curbs your ability to reproduce; therefore from an evolutionary point of view, it is a flaw. I consider it Darwinism at work to be honest.
^ Atheist opinion.
Post by
Jubilee
By the very same argument (and I've heard actual scientists say this, I don't know where though) you could say that because the planet is at or coming to having the highest sustainable level of humans possible, that in fact biologically speaking, homosexuality is an improvement on the species as a whole.
But all in all I don't really like strict biological arguments. Because when it comes down to it, there is no right or wrong in biology, there is only is or isn't. Homosexuality happened, if it becomes unsustainable it'll die out. Otherwise it's just another fact on the long list of biological facts that make use who we are.
Post by
donnymurph
You make a good point. A very good point.
My ammunition in this thread is spent; I have no desire to discuss morals with anyone, particularly not with the theists who will be here any minute. Embrace your homosexuality and #$%^ the haters.
Post by
138638
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'll try to address each question individually.Any straight person who is married or have a sweetheart, how much do you love that person?I love my wife as if she were my own flesh.To what lengths are you willing to go to be with that person?I'm willing to go through great lengths. I would say that there are some things that I am unwilling to sacrifice to be with her, if some of those things were to come up. Her health comes to mind. What does that person mean to you?A lot.Whatever you answer to those questions I too answer about the people I've loved, people who happen to be of the same sex as me. Now what would you say to someone who called that love for your significant other an imperfection?I'd ask them why they thought that. I'd more than likely disagree with them.Wouldn't you just laugh and hold him or her all the tighter?Probably.When you give your whole self to another person, that is a very special thing. It becomes who you are. It's not something you can just deny, like you can deny yourself another bowl of ice cream. Even if you drive yourself completely away from the person, that feeling and connection will never disappear.I agree with this.So I ask, why should I believe that this love I have is wrong? What specifically is imperfect about it? If I'm not attracted to men, and I don't fall in love with any, and the same is true for my significant other, what are we upsetting by being together?The difference between us lies in these questions. There is only one being I hold in higher esteem than my wife, and that is my God. If God were to direct me to do anything (read
ANYTHING
), I would do it. I know my God. He is a loving God. There are some things that God is incapable of doing or commanding me to do. This is why I am ok with God.Is love a good thing?YesIs this love a good thing?Romantic involvement is described by a different word than the love you feel for your friends. The greek word Eros is for romantic love, and Agape is for a more universal love. We are commanded to Agape everybody, but only to Eros in specific circumstances. One reason prefer the Greek language to English is because in English love is love, but in Greek Eros is not Agape.Why does an attraction for the same sex even exist if it is such a sin?Why does the desire to murder exist if murdering is a sin? Why do any desires exist if they are a sin? Because we need to have the free will to not follow God in order to choose to follow God. Love cannot be forced. More than anything, God wants to be loved (he actually says that, numerous times).Specifically to your post, I'm not really concerned with how you treat me. You can be a nice enough person, but you'll still believe that something I hold sacred is in fact an imperfection. If I were to be nice to you but treated your religiousness as an imperfection, wouldn't you feel like I was still somehow a stranger?This really wouldn't affect me. I wouldn't think any less of you or more of you based on how you thought of my religion. How you act as a person toward me is quite a bit more important to me. I would encourage you to grow interpersonal relationships in the soil of disagreements. They produced friendships are quite a bit stronger.So that's just all the metaphysics of it, but what about the mechanics? I can't not fall in love with certain people. So at what time would my homosexuality become a sin or a falling?You and I use a different measuring system to define right and wrong. I look objectively, using God as my measure. You look subjectively, using your feelings as a measure.Could I still be friends with that person.Agape everyone.Could I be the equivalent of a chaste spouse?I don't know how this fits into the discussion.Or is the very fact that I fall in love a sin?Eros is not the same thing as romantic attraction. Romantic attraction is felt walking past someone in the grocery store. Eros is a lot of work.If I forced myself to marry a man I didn't love so I wouldn't be tempted to be with a woman I did love, would that be a good thing?No, and marrying someone wouldn't change anything as far as I know.
Post by
Atik
Just gonna hit all my points here, save time.
1. Just to get this out of the way; I, personnally, am homophobic. I don't know what it is, but knowing that the person near me is gay... it just freaks me out...
2. Marriage is not an expression of love. If anything, it is a base for people to feel comfortable beginning a family at best. It is a chain of untrust at worst. Rather than simply trustig the person you love to remain faithful, you are FORCING them to. How is that love?
3. Gay people want to fall in love and be together? I'm okay with that. However, I do not support gay marriage because two gay people cannot concieve a child. I suppose, through adoption and such, they can begin a family. But, if you are comfortable enough to do that, you really don't need the base of marriage to help...
4. Gay or straght, ANYONE who gets married solely for the benefits is a fairly large scumbag.
Post by
Perkocet
Just gonna hit all my points here, save time.
1. Just to get this out of the way; I, personnally, am homophobic. I don't know what it is, but knowing that the person near me is gay... it just freaks me out...
2. Marriage is not an expression of love. If anything, it is a base for people to feel comfortable beginning a family at best. It is a chain of untrust at worst. Rather than simply trustig the person you love to remain faithful, you are FORCING them to. How is that love?
3. Gay people want to fall in love and be together? I'm okay with that. However, I do not support gay marriage because two gay people cannot concieve a child. I suppose, through adoption and such, they can begin a family. But, if you are comfortable enough to do that, you really don't need the base of marriage to help...
4. Gay or straght, ANYONE who gets married solely for the benefits is a fairly large scumbag.
So all of the people that get married and never have children are wrong too, and their rights to marriage should be
stolen
removed from them?
Post by
Atik
Yes, as they are using it as a chain rather than a base.
Post by
Perkocet
Yes, as they are using it as a chain rather than a base.
I don't understand.
Post by
Atik
Marriage can be used two ways:
It can be a base, used like the foundation of a house. Except, instead of a house, you use it to build a family. It is completely optional though, and a family can be made without marriage just as easily.
Or, it can be a chain. Rather than trusting whoever you are with to simply stay with you fo life, as they might, you FORCE them to stay with you by chaining them with marriage. There is no implication of family or love, merely obsession.
Post by
Perkocet
Marriage can be used two ways:
It can be a base, used like the foundation of a house. Except, instead of a house, you use it to build a family. It is completely optional though, and a family can be made without marriage just as easily.
Or, it can be a chain. Rather than trusting whoever you are with to simply stay with you fo life, as they might, you FORCE them to stay with you by chaining them with marriage. There is no implication of family or love, merely obsession.
So you're against marriage as a whole, not just gay marriage?
Post by
Atik
Only when being used as a chain. I understand some people may not feel comfortable starting a family without it.
Post by
Jubilee
I was expecting a lot of the answers above, some especially from you, so I'll just respond to the ones I see as major points.
The difference between us lies in these questions. There is only one being I hold in higher esteem than my wife, and that is my God. If God were to direct me to do anything (read
ANYTHING
), I would do it. I know my God. He is a loving God. There are some things that God is incapable of doing or commanding me to do. This is why I am ok with God.
Abraham's son, essentially (though I assume you weren't given the same mystical direct like with God that he was)?
That's something I've never ever been able to accept. It's especially mind-boggling to me when you get Christians saying that we have natural law within us that tells us what is morally wrong, and murder is one of them. I just can't reconcile that in my mind. If I had some sort of mystical experience telling me to kill someone, my heart and conscience would tell me that that mystical experience could not be God.
But of course that's just me, and I can't argue just me against just you. But what I will say is that it's quite unfortunate and a bit mind-boggling too that God would give us a moral compass and then screw with it (or let it be screwed with as the case may be). My moral compass tells me that murder is wrong and love (eros) towards anybody is okay, and that's all I have to go on.
Why does the desire to murder exist if murdering is a sin? Why do any desires exist if they are a sin? Because we need to have the free will to not follow God in order to choose to follow God. Love cannot be forced. More than anything, God wants to be loved (he actually says that, numerous times).
This is another thing I can't accept or understand. I understand that we would have free will, and that freely choosing God is better than being mindlessly force to "love" (or whatever it would be called) him. But giving us free will didn't also require him to give us desires and longings that resonate stronger in my soul than any words from any scripture ever have (and that's all I have from him at this point).
You and I use a different measuring system to define right and wrong. I look objectively, using God as my measure. You look subjectively, using your feelings as a measure. That's exactly why I'm asking where the line is. Objectively.
Could I be the equivalent of a chaste spouse?I don't know how this fits into the discussion.
As I understand it, a large section of the religious community is not against homosexuality itself, but against homosexual activity. If I were to love someone so much that I wanted to spend my life with them as a spouse (or equivalent) but also did not partake in any homosexual activity, by keeping the physical aspects of the relationship completely platonic, would that be wrong? This question essentially gets to the point of what precisely part of homosexuality is wrong.
Eros is not the same thing as romantic attraction. Romantic attraction is felt walking past someone in the grocery store. Eros is a lot of work.
A lot of work to maintain, maybe I might agree with that. But I've found it comes quite easily. And I know it's not romantic attraction. I'm romantically attracted to half the people I watch on tv. What I feel and have felt for a few specific people is something much more.
Post by
Squishalot
I'm
romantically
sexually attracted to half the people I watch on tv.
Fixed, unless there is something quite incredibly disturbing within you.
Post by
Jubilee
I'm
romantically
sexually attracted to half the people I watch on tv.
Fixed, unless there is something quite incredibly disturbing within you.
I'm using MyTie's words. Take issue with him if you don't like the word choice.
Post by
Squishalot
I still think it's something a bit different. Having said that, you can't arguably say that
eros
comes
easily
, and refer to what you felt for
a few specific people
.
Anyway, with your last post, I feel that you're driving towards another religion vs non-religion argument, rather than the ethics of homosexuality. Although the two (in this case) are somewhat interlinked, the issue isn't so much a question of the ethics of homosexuality, but ethics of unwavering faith in God's rule. Perhaps you can consider changing the thread title accordingly?
Post by
Jubilee
I still think it's something a bit different. Having said that, you can't arguably say that
eros
comes
easily
, and refer to what you felt for
a few specific people
.
Why not? Ease of access isn't the same ease of use. I never claimed that finding your one true love is easy. But falling in love with that person sure is in my experience.
Anyway, with your last post, I feel that you're driving towards another religion vs non-religion argument, rather than the ethics of homosexuality. Although the two (in this case) are somewhat interlinked, the issue isn't so much a question of the ethics of homosexuality, but ethics of unwavering faith in God's rule. Perhaps you can consider changing the thread title accordingly?
But I am perfectly happy to discuss the ethics of it. I'm kind of the defender here though, so I really am kind of wait for people to bring in their own points. That MyTie chooses to go the religious route is great, but I don't want to necessarily just talk about that.
Post by
Squishalot
But I am perfectly happy to discuss the ethics of it. I'm kind of the defender here though, so I really am kind of wait for people to bring in their own points. That MyTie chooses to go the religious route is great, but I don't want to necessarily just talk about that.
Your opening post is a direct address at MyTie. And in any event, knowing this forum, this sort of topic is religious flame-bait anyway. If morals are subjective, then this topic doesn't serve any purpose. If they're objective, then what we're really disagreeing about is the context of our objectivity.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.