 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Who cares if homosexuality can be considered "natural" or not? It's not something they choose, so how can it be "wrong"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Um...not really. The prospect of buttsex would not be enough to lure a gay man into having sex with a woman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:35
|
|
Homosexual sex reminds me of wrestling with a few illegal holds thrown in.
I saw some in a movie and my reaction was, 'guys, cut, no, come on, you've had your fun, no illegal holds, that's going too far! Hey! no squirrel grips!"
It looked completely ridiculous to me.
There was quite a sexy single woman in the movie and I kept thinking - "you idiots! She's available!!!" Being hetero, I kept expecting one of them to work that one out.
I found it all about as arousing as a cold shower and about as interesting as watching paint dry.
And the thought of kissing a man, YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH SPEW!!!! CUT MY TONGUE OFF!!!
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 30-04-2004 at 05:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
Talking about paedophilia (I wouldn't consider the others being something forcing them, bar extenuating circumstances), No. If they can't control it, you can't say they are wrong, in a moral way, because it's not their act. If you can't control something, how can you be condemned for it? If that act is detrimental to society then they need help so they are not compelled to do it. Even possibly remove them from society for the benefit of society, to protect people. However I don't believe anything is innately wrong or right, and if someone has no choice in the matter, I don't see how their action can be viewed in a moral way.
If someone stole your body while you were asleep, went and committed a murder, then returned it before you woke, would your be responsible? If, instead of being stolen, you were sleepwalking, and unaware of what you were doing, would you be responsible? Would that act be wrong, even though you had no control over it?
I think if someone is compelled to commit a heinous crime, such as murder or rape, then they are in need of help, for their protection and the protection of society, since the thing compelling them must be removed. Their acts are still bad, in terms of a value judgement, but calling an act wrong in a moral sense implies an absolute system of morals, which I dispute exists, and also the intent to do it. If someone is forced to do something, they do not intend to do it.
If someone put a gun to your head, and told you to kill someone, would killing them be wrong? IMHO, in that situation, the person witht he gun to your head is the murderer. If the thing forcing you is not a person, that doesn't affect your responsibility, it simply means that something else is forcing you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
Most murderers, rapists and paedophiles (a sexual orientation, like homosexuality) will probably tell you thy felt compelled or forced to do what they did. So are their acts not wrong either? |
Most heterosexuals will probably tell you they felt compelled to do what they did (just look at the number of heterosexuals in this thread who say that their heterosexuality was not a choice), so by your absurd line of reasoning this would mean that heterosexuals are morally equivalent to murderers, rapists, paedophiles, and homosexuals.
For that matter, anybody who prefers vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream (or, as you would put it, who feels compelled to eat vanilla ice cream to the near-exclusion of chocolate ice cream) would be morally equivalent to heterosexuals, homosexuals, murderers, rapists, and paedophiles. Moral incompetence can lead you a merry chase.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
So I'm wondering for those who argue out of blissful ignorance that gays chose to be gay . . . . |
Duh, maybe gays choose to PRACTICE homosexual sex? Maybe straights do to (just to conform to society's views?)
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
since heterosexuality and homosexuality are both sexual orientations, one cannot be a choice and the other not -- if you insist that homosexuality is a choice, then heterosexuality must be a choice as well.
|
See above.
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
So tell us your story -- what day did you wake up one morning and decided that you would choose to be a flamboyant straight person?? |
I decided I really couldn't face giving head to an individual witha beard.
That's all men out. Sorry Mr Fun, I don't fancy you.
Your breasts are too small and you have a penis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
I think the point he was making was that the fact that you're compelled to do something doesn't mean it can't still be wrong, not that everything you're compelled to do is wrong. What he's saying is that Homosexuality, whether it is a choice or not, can still be morally wrong, as can murder, paedophillia and heterosexuality. He's not saying that's the reason it's wrong, but that that isn't a reason it's necessarily right.
IMHO, it is a reason it's not morally wrong.
I would ask PA: Is anal sex with a girl morally wrong? Oral sex? They're purely for pleasure, not reproduction. As is sex using contraception. If you believe those are wrong, as some religious people do, then it's consistent, in that you believe that sex is about reproduction, not pleasure. If you believe those are fine, but homosexual sex is wrong, then it seems quite simple that you just find the idea of two men together offensive, in which case, we have laws on sex in public. If it is, as PA claimed, the act that is wrong, then who the participants are shouldn't matter. I find it hard to believe that there can be a logical, moral difference between oral or anal sex between two men and a man and a women. I would suggest if that is the case, then it is a reaction of offense, not a logical, moral difference. And you're offense shouldn't stop other people doing things in private.
The difference with paedophillia is one of consent. If someone is old enough to consent, then it would be fine. If they're not, then it would be immoral, IMHO. Even with murder, if the victim wanted it (ie. assissted suicide) then I have no problem. That is the difference between the acts above and homosexuality or heterosexuality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Park Avenue
Caligastia
Most murderers, rapists and paedophiles (a sexual orientation, like homosexuality) will probably tell you thy felt compelled or forced to do what they did. So are their acts not wrong either? |
The big difference is that homosexuals are not hurting other people.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2004 02:02
true dat slowwhand.
|
|