NationStates Jolt Archive

Leaving out moral issues of the bible, is it possible to definitively state that homosexuality is morally wrong?
Remember, morality may often be linked to religion, but you can argue it without bringing up the bible.
Citing religion as a RESULT of a society's moral codes is allowed; citing religion as BASIS for these moral codes is not... though that rule may be up for discussion as well.
Discuss, please.

No.

Homosexuality is no more immoral or moral than heterosexuality.

The actions of both forms of sexuality can be considered moral, amoral or immoral based on societal codes. Sexual perversion is immoral whether you are gay or not, but, expressing yourself to your loved one is perfectly normal regardless of orientation. It's all relative.

So, how is a slutty heterosexual girl any less of a whore than a slutty homosexual girl? It's the same thing - it's just who they screw around with his different.

of course people can argue that homosexuality is "immoral" without using religion; morality is purely subjective, so people can make up whatever morality they like. the really issue is if the rest of a society should be expected to care.

Well, that was a shockingly prompt response. Care to elaborate? As far as it goes:
I'm gay, though not in practice. I'm practicing Chrisitian, but I feel homosexuality is ok.
I guess I can kinda see both sides to the argument, but my belief that it's ok is strong.

Pious, I believe that if the hole fits, use it. Between consenting adults, it's not wrong.

You'll have to pick a frame of reference for "wrong" and "natural". Killing, by carnivores, to eat food, is natural. So is killing wrong? If so, we'd better do something about the lions and spiders.

You'll have to pick a frame of reference for "wrong" and "natural". Killing, by carnivores, to eat food, is natural. So is killing wrong? If so, we'd better do something about the lions and spiders.

Thats exactly what I'm hoping someone will do. There is a fine line between subjective relativism and universal moral code. Morality lies somewhere in the middle. I'm hoping some people who think it's wrong might try to explain some of their views here.

Thats exactly what I'm hoping someone will do. There is a fine line between subjective relativism and universal moral code. Morality lies somewhere in the middle. I'm hoping some people who think it's wrong might try to explain some of their views here.

I'm probably not the person to ask, as I have been accused by people on the Left of this forum and the Right of this forum of being amoral.

I believe homosexual acts to be wrong because of theological reasons - but I don't see any non-theological reasons. None at all.

Ok, I am not gay but I see if people choose to be homosexual then that is their choice. It is not our choice to make, it is theirs.

I think it's hard to defend something as "morally wrong" when it's a condition of birth.

I do think it's unnatural, but I have absolutely no problem with it.

Tis completely unnatural and is caused by biochemical misfiring of neurons in the brain, which cause neuronal brain damage. Hence homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by trauma early in life, or by genetic disorders which are caused by something the mother has done before she got pregnant. (such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, or sleeping around, or committing adultry.)

Is whatever mental disorder you have caused the same way, Rudolf?

Is whatever mental disorder you have caused the same way, Rudolf?
Just the ones you have.

Tis completely unnatural and is caused by biochemical misfiring of neurons in the brain, which cause neuronal brain damage. Hence homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by trauma early in life, or by genetic disorders which are caused by something the mother has done before she got pregnant. (such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, or sleeping around, or committing adultry.)

I'm going to assume you are either making this up or entirely uninformed.

Which would it be?

Nay, all the facts point to homosexuality being a mental disease.

I'm going to assume you are either making this up or entirely uninformed.

Which would it be?

If you haven't tried being boned in the ass, then you're in no position to say it's a bad thing.

If you haven't tried being boned in the ass, then you're in no position to say it's a bad thing.
If you have, then you belong in a mental asylum.

Tis completely unnatural and is caused by biochemical misfiring of neurons in the brain, which cause neuronal brain damage. Hence homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by trauma early in life, or by genetic disorders which are caused by something the mother has done before she got pregnant. (such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, or sleeping around, or committing adultry.)

"Timmy, your mother was a slut. I'm sorry to tell you, you've got the gay."



There's nothing wrong with being gay. I can't think of any reasoning to the contrary other than crazy-talk or religious reasons. I'll let you make the joke on your own, there.

Tis completely unnatural and is caused by biochemical misfiring of neurons in the brain, which cause neuronal brain damage. Hence homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by trauma early in life, or by genetic disorders which are caused by something the mother has done before she got pregnant. (such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, or sleeping around, or committing adultry.)

how does committing adultry yield gentic mutations ? arn't there gays who weren't abused, whose monthers didn't do drugs or drink, or smoke, who are still gay ?

Though i do think it is as unnatural as a muation maybe considered unatural.. i can't think of any speices of animal that engages in homosexual tendeices.. since there is no natural purpose to it (homosexual activity dosn't propogate the spread of genetic information).

So is it wrong in a scientific sense.. yes and no.. it dosn't follow the natural drive given to animals to propogate the species.. It would be one of those attributes that in any other spieces would have died of centruies ago since the genetic trait of homosexuality genetically is weaker in a survival of the fittest world. But mutation happens all the time in nature, so we cannot say muation is wrong.. becuase hell, having white skin is actually a mutation. White skin is a ressesive trait.

is it controlable.. no .. since all of our sexual desires are driven by how our bodies accept pheramones. But as in all things.. people take what is obviously a gray issue.. and turn it into black and white.. right and wrong

(and anyone who belives homosexuality is a choice is a real laugh.. how many of u when were 16 or 17 really made the concious choice to be heterosexual.. u looked at a guy and said I could have sex with him.. but i would rather have sex with a girl)

Nay, all the facts point to homosexuality being a mental disease.
Nay all the facts dont point that way

Just the ones you choose to see

Nay, all the facts point to homosexuality being a mental disease.

If you think this, then you obviously have not looked into psychology, biology, sociology, anthropology, or any other science really for *over 30 years*.

Though i do think it is as unnatural as a muation maybe considered unatural.. i can't think of any speices of animal that engages in homosexual tendeices.. since there is no natural purpose to it (homosexual activity dosn't propogate the spread of genetic information).

You can't think of any? You haven't researched. Let's see, just off the top of my head:

Dogs
Cats (including big cats)
Every species of primate that has been studied in depth
Rats
Mice
Guineau pigs
Hummingbirds
Geese
Swans
Bighorn sheep
Elephants
Dolphins
Whales
Walruses
Giraffes
Penguins
Ducks
Woodpeckers
Cattle

And that is just off the top of my head.

So is it wrong in a scientific sense.. yes and no.. it dosn't follow the natural drive given to animals to propogate the species.. It would be one of those attributes that in any other spieces would have died of centruies ago since the genetic trait of homosexuality genetically is weaker in a survival of the fittest world.

Perhaps before you start talking out of your ass, you should research the topic?

Homosexuality can benefit the species in social animals - as non-breeding members that still bring in resources *aid* the survival of the offspring of the pack/pride/etc.

On top of that, many animals in homosexual pairings in the wild (especially in birds) will either do a one-time mating or steal eggs from another nest. If the eggs are raised by a male-male couple, they have a *better* chance of survival, as the males are more aggressive, generally have more territory, etc.

"Timmy, your mother was a slut. I'm sorry to tell you, you've got the gay."

BEST.
QUOTE.
EVER.

ACtually homosexuality is more likely caused by a mutation in pheramone receptors which would not concsitute a mental disorder. People's sexual preference can't be identified to any one cause, because your body takes in countless peices of infomration like smell and sight and touch and you do not control how your body interperets these peices of information.It is a pysical disorder.. homosexuality hasn't be thought of as a mental disorder in over 30 years.. take a psychology course for gods sake

Homosexuality is neither "right" nor "wrong." It just IS.

ACtually homosexuality is more likely caused by a mutation in pheramone receptors which would not concsitute a mental disorder. People's sexual preference can't be identified to any one cause, because your body takes in countless peices of infomration like smell and sight and touch and you do not control how your body interperets these peices of information.It is a pysical disorder.. homosexuality hasn't be thought of as a mental disorder in over 30 years.. take a psychology course for gods sake

Nor has it been thought of as *any* type of disorder (scientifically at least) for over 20.

I think all forms of sex are deeply inmoral. Especially abstinence, that's the worst.

I think all forms of sex are deeply inmoral. Especially abstinence, that's the worst.
Lets lobby to make a law to ban abstinence!

I think all forms of sex are deeply inmoral. Especially abstinence, that's the worst.
Warning! Warning! RAM overload! Statement does not compute! ;)

Nor has it been thought of as *any* type of disorder (scientifically at least) for over 20.
Only because the dumb liberals have politicized science and medicine.

Well maybe i shoudn't have used disorder more like mutation.. i would just say disorder as much as a mutation is a disorder.. (and some muations are considered disorders) .. I would actualy call pale skin a disorder since its a recessive trait.. i didn't mean to make it sound like a mental disorder.

(think of how sickel celled animia is a blood disorder)

and actually Dempublicents honestly i didn't know that at all ^_^ .. all those idiot sexuality professors i had should be fired! i mean.. i knew u coudl find instances of it.. but as a general trend.. not in significant numbers like the i think it is 10% we have in this country. Just because in an evolutionary world one my assume a sexual preference which yeilds no offspring would be a trait eventually lost in genetics.. and it would make sense why humans still have it.. since we've all but stoped evolving

While it has been found in nature, what they did in reality was this:
They found 2 male rabbits going at it, and said "o this means 80 percent of rabbits are naturally gay."
The science in such cases is highly suspect, and politically biased to twist the evidence to prove a political point.

While it has been found in nature, what they did in reality was this:
They found 2 male rabbits going at it, and said "o this means 80 percent of rabbits are naturally gay."
The science in such cases is highly suspect, and politically biased to twist the evidence to prove a political point.

Ugh, stop pulling stuff out of your ass. If you see facts you don't like, you say it's just a liberal conspiracy somehow. Take your bigotry somewhere else, you ignorant slob.

Rudonlfensia.. unless u could find a non bias source saying what u suggest.. dont u think its a litlte convient to just dismiss what was scientifcally researched.. ?

Rudonlfensia.. unless u could find a non bias source saying what u suggest.. dont u think its a litlte convient to just dismiss what was scientifcally researched.. ?
The behavior of two rabbits can not be extrapolated to the entire global rabbit population let alone all of life on earth.

The behavior of two rabbits can not be extrapolated to the entire global rabbit population let alone all of life on earth.
Correct not sufficent sample size

The behavior of two rabbits can not be extrapolated to the entire global rabbit population let alone all of life on earth.

No shit, Sherlock. No scientist, much less one worth a damn, has ever said that because some rabbits are gay, all animals are gay. Homosexuality has been observed in MANY animals. Quit trying to prop up your hate with logical fallacies and false information.

Correct not sufficent sample size
exactly my point.

The behavior of two rabbits can not be extrapolated to the entire global rabbit population let alone all of life on earth.

Which is why *none* of these reports with actual numbers are based on two animals.

No shit, Sherlock. No scientist, much less one worth a damn, has ever said that because some rabbits are gay, all animals are gay. Homosexuality has been observed in MANY animals. Quit trying to prop up your hate with logical fallacies and false information.
That is false, it has not been observed in very many animals.

That is false, it has not been observed in very many animals.

Oh, really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animalswiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

But I'm sure this encyclopedia article and the book by a qualified biologist it references are just all part of the big liberal conspiracy, right?

Rudolph, I'm sure that if you've been lucky enough, you've had a woman suck you off. And the question that I asked myself (and found the answer to in my youth) was can you really tell the difference, other than the stubble? Is there really a reason to deny yourself twice the chance to get laid on a Friday night?

And the answer is No.

And I went on to marry a fine woman and have children who aren't f-ked up, and I own guns, and go to church, and have a nice job, and am a pillar of the community. Even though deep inside, I'm bisexual.

I bet that really twists your lid. Then again, I bet you have never had great sex. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

and actually Dempublicents honestly i didn't know that at all ^_^ .. all those idiot sexuality professors i had should be fired! i mean.. i knew u coudl find instances of it.. but as a general trend.. not in significant numbers like the i think it is 10% we have in this country.

There is more homosexual activity in bighorn sheep than there is heterosexual (as the males get it on year-round, but the females only allow themselves to be mounted during mating season). Interestingly enough, there are males that travel with the female herd and act in every way like a female - right down to not allowing themselves to be mounted except during mating season.

In Bonobos chimps (our closest neighboors), there is all sorts of sexual activity, heterosexual, homosexual, masturbation - you name it. And they all seem to serve a purpose.

Just because in an evolutionary world one my assume a sexual preference which yeilds no offspring would be a trait eventually lost in genetics.. and it would make sense why humans still have it.. since we've all but stoped evolving

(a) The idea that a single gene controls sexuality and thus it could be due to a mutation is ludicrous. Much like skin color, sexuality exists across a spectrum and is most likely influenced by a number of genes, as well as some environmental factors (also just like skin color).

(b) The fact that "alternate" sexuality exists across nearly every mammalian species we have studied, as well as numerous bird species, suggests that it *does* have an evolutionary purpose, or simply is not detrimental. My last post pointed out some of the evolutionary purposes that are possible.

That is false, it has not been observed in very many animals.

The list I posted is a just a small number of the various animals in which it has observed, so you are wrong.

(such as smoking, drinking, doing drugs, or sleeping around, or committing adultry.)
Looks like he just pulled out a list of all the "evil/corrupt" things he could think of.

still for all intensive purposes, within the scientific community, its widely accepted that pale skin tone is infact a mutation in the form of a recessive trait weather it be among a single gene or mulitple genes working together.. and i still feel the phenomina of homosexuality is a product of a muation in the way pheremone receptors function.. it seems the most logical explanation. escpeically since phereamone functions are so complex.

still for all intensive purposes, within the scientific community, its widely accepted that pale skin tone is infact a mutation in the form of a recessive trait weather it be among a single gene or mulitple genes working together.. and i still feel the phenomina of homosexuality is a product of a muation in the way pheremone receptors function.. it seems the most logical explanation. escpeically since phereamone functions are so complex.

Then it can't be "wrong". It's like saying brown eyes are "wrong".

I still think that he's never had great sex.

still for all intensive purposes, within the scientific community, its widely accepted that pale skin tone is infact a mutation in the form of a recessive trait weather it be among a single gene or mulitple genes working together.. and i still feel the phenomina of homosexuality is a product of a muation in the way pheremone receptors function.. it seems the most logical explanation. escpeically since phereamone functions are so complex.

And yet the evidence doesn't really seem to back you up - especially since pheremones are a *very* small part of sexuality in humans.

Studies link to a possible genetic difference, as well as hormone balances in the womb. There is some evidence that the entire brain structure of a homosexual man is closer to that of a woman than most men, and vice versa. It is entirely too complex to say "I'm going to think it is pheremones. The end."

Only because the dumb liberals have politicized science and medicine.
Actually, Bush has made being anti-science into a hallmark of his party's values.

While it has been found in nature, what they did in reality was this:
They found 2 male rabbits going at it, and said "o this means 80 percent of rabbits are naturally gay."
The science in such cases is highly suspect, and politically biased to twist the evidence to prove a political point.
Who ever said anything about 80%?

Actually, Bush has made being anti-science into a hallmark of his party's values.

Yes, and many scientists, even *gasp* Republicans who were in the public sector under Bush Sr. and those who have served as advisors to both Dem and Rep presidents have said that Bush had done so to an absolutely unprecedented degree.

Dem, I've found that the people who have the biggest attitude against homosexuals haven't had good sex in their lives - not even good heterosexual sex.

I think it's made me a much better lover to have been both ways. My wife agrees.

I've had her screaming so loud and so long that the neighbors called the police and they showed up.

Is having it that good because you're free to do what you want a bad thing? Or are there more happy people now because of it?

Dem, I've found that the people who have the biggest attitude against homosexuals haven't had good sex in their lives - not even good heterosexual sex.

I would certainly believe that.

I think it's made me a much better lover to have been both ways. My wife agrees.

Good for you. Bisexuality is probably the best sexuality to be born with. I myself am *somewhat* bisexual, but very rarely attracted to girls. I don't really mind though, my boyfriend is quite good at what he does, even without having been both ways. =)

Is having it that good because you're free to do what you want a bad thing? Or are there more happy people now because of it?

Personally, I don't think *anyone* should be asked to repress their sexuality. You ended up with a female, but your best match *could* have been someone who was male. Why shouldn't you have then explored all avenues? Although, I suppose it's a good thing you didn't tell the military about your "experimentation." =)

I would certainly believe that.
Personally, I don't think *anyone* should be asked to repress their sexuality. You ended up with a female, but your best match *could* have been someone who was male. Why shouldn't you have then explored all avenues? Although, I suppose it's a good thing you didn't tell the military about your "experimentation." =)

The time of experimentation was in the military. And it's a time honored tradition (just ask the Japanese samurai).

Interestingly, no one cared if you were gay as long as you could do your job. The witch hunts began after Clinton took office, which is why I hate him so much. Until his order for "don't ask don't tell", it was up to the individual command whether or not it was a problem. Just like being overweight, or an alcoholic, or just not fitting in to the Army, a commander could decide that it wasn't a problem - and you stayed in.

After Clinton's order, commanders had NO leeway. They find out - you're gone - no exceptions.

More gays and lesbians were kicked out after Clinton took office than have been thrown out in time between 1945 and the time he took office.

The time of experimentation was in the military. And it's a time honored tradition (just ask the Japanese samurai).

Interestingly, no one cared if you were gay as long as you could do your job. The witch hunts began after Clinton took office, which is why I hate him so much. Until his order for "don't ask don't tell", it was up to the individual command whether or not it was a problem. Just like being overweight, or an alcoholic, or just not fitting in to the Army, a commander could decide that it wasn't a problem - and you stayed in.

After Clinton's order, commanders had NO leeway. They find out - you're gone - no exceptions.

More gays and lesbians were kicked out after Clinton took office than have been thrown out in time between 1945 and the time he took office.

I have never heard that POV. It was always my understanding that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was enacted in response to mounting anti-homosexual pressures.

I do know one person who was kicked out (post-Desert Storm) for being homosexual. He didn't really talk about it, but everyone in his regiment (or whatever) knew. No one really cared, except his CO. For whatever reason, it bothered his CO, who didn't do anything for a while, but eventually filed to have him removed. He was handed a dishonorable discharge with the reason listed as "admitted homosexual" and has since had quite a bit of trouble finding a job.

The problem stemmed from Clinton's misunderstanding of the Army.
There's an old saying "there's always an exception to policy, but never an exception to orders."

Clinton gave orders. There was already a policy, but when the Commander in Chief says something, it's an order, not policy.

So he bound their hands. And most of the people I knew who had been in service for quite some time either got out early (as I did) or were thrown out.

It's hard to find anyone today who will admit they are gay (unless they are really hetero and just don't want to go to Iraq).

It's hard to find anyone today who will admit they are gay (unless they are really hetero and just don't want to go to Iraq).
I've always thought that if there actually is a draft, the number of self-described homosexuals will rapidly increase.

Would be easier than trying to get into Canada nowadays.

The problem stemmed from Clinton's misunderstanding of the Army.
There's an old saying "there's always an exception to policy, but never an exception to orders."

Clinton gave orders. There was already a policy, but when the Commander in Chief says something, it's an order, not policy.

So he bound their hands. And most of the people I knew who had been in service for quite some time either got out early (as I did) or were thrown out.

It's hard to find anyone today who will admit they are gay (unless they are really hetero and just don't want to go to Iraq).
I can see how that could be


Old way:

CO found out you were gay … you were either out if the CO was so inclined or there was a possibility that they wouldn’t care


Now with don’t ask don’t tell he/she find out … you are out no matter what

No chance for the leniency or personal decision making

Though were they (before don’t ask don’t tell) able to ASK the person if they were gay?
(if so maybe that was the part that needed the “order” just don’t ask)

Once again, my opinion on the matter is the correct one, and everyone who disagrees with me is just plain wrong.:)

Anyways, I personally think people would be a lot happier if they all fully explored their sexuality. Burying your sexuality will drive you insane, unless you have the willpower of a celibate monk. Sex is good. :)

I think all forms of sex are deeply inmoral. Especially abstinence, that's the worst.
Ha ha...ha? :confused:

I think it's hard to defend something as "morally wrong" when it's a condition of birth.

Hmm this argument can be made for infidelity and murder amougst other things. Whilst a hetreosexual and christian i have no problem with homosexuality.

Hmm this argument can be made for infidelity and murder amougst other things. Whilst a hetreosexual and christian i have no problem with homosexuality.
I tend to argue that something is only immoral if it hurts someone. Of course, that is my relative morality, but its logical.

Usually, the people who have the biggest problems with gay people are the people who are insecure with their own sexuality, in my experience.

I don't care if anyone thinks being gay is moral or not; I'm still going to be gay. Who are you to say I shouldn't be? A doctor? A priest? Guess what? I don't give a crap.

I know this topic is trying keep itself seperate from the Bible, but people often forget the parts that talk bad about being gay talk bad about a lot of other stuff, too. Shrimp, anyone? NO DON'T EAT IT; YOU'LL BE CAST INTO HELL!

The Bible calls marriage a sin, too. Marriage is just there for people who can't control their sexual urges. Maybe we should all live in celebecy because I think it's morally wrong to destroy the planet, so maybe we should all just die off...

The gays are saving the world...

The gays are saving the world...

I know it was meant as a joke, but...
One of the MAJOR reasons homosexuality was condemned in the bible was because it was not behavior that directly promoted the survival of the Jews, wandering in the desert.
Now that the world is overpopulated, bordering on dangerously, it is actually beneficial to practice sex that does not lead to childbirth.

Rudolph, I'm sure that if you've been lucky enough, you've had a woman suck you off. And the question that I asked myself (and found the answer to in my youth) was can you really tell the difference, other than the stubble? Is there really a reason to deny yourself twice the chance to get laid on a Friday night?

And the answer is No.

And I went on to marry a fine woman and have children who aren't f-ked up, and I own guns, and go to church, and have a nice job, and am a pillar of the community. Even though deep inside, I'm bisexual.

I bet that really twists your lid. Then again, I bet you have never had great sex. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.
yep, your going to hell for being blasphemizing heretic.

yep, your going to hell for being blasphemizing heretic.

Better then being stuck with YOU

Whether homosexuality is right or wrong, I don't see why it's anyone else's businesses. If homosexuality is a sin, let God judge it- not me. Who someone else sleeps with is their business, not mine.

yep, your going to hell for being blasphemizing heretic.
if Heaven is populated with your sort, Hell sounds quite nice by comparison...you might want to try to find some other way to "insult" people, since right now the best you are throwing at them is the "insult" that they aren't worthy to spend eternity with you. :)