How can homosexuality not be a perversion?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Mac-7, Sep 16, 2019.

  1. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Homosexual relationship can occur without a government.
    Responsible procreation cannot. That is why marriage has nothing to do with homosexuality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2019
    Bluesguy likes this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we have to assume that our direction is for people to be living happy, well adjusted lives here in America.

    And, that has to go beyond survival stories.

    Our Declaration of Independencs states that, for example. America could certainly survive as a colony of the UK. But, America has never seen mere survival as sufficient. We believe in equality, representation, pursuit of happiness, freedom including personal freedoms, etc.

    I'm not sure what you are after anymore, but I would suggest that it is not OK for the government to be inserting itself in the relations between consenting adults.
     
    Colombine likes this.
  3. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marriage is all about love, commitment and security. That crosses the boundaries of heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It applies to adopted children every bit as much as natural kids.

    You can stomp your feet like a child all day long, doesn’t change the FACT that marriage applies to gay unions.
     
    CourtJester likes this.
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Marriage solved issues of heredity - who are the legal parents, who inherits wealth at death, etc. It confered sexual monopoly rights of the spouses. It included economic rights (like who controls wealth that the spouse inherits or had before marriage, or acquires during marriage). It had political significance when government succession was heriditary.

    Discrimination against same sex couples was justified by religion, not whether they could procreate. Today, nobody can come up with a reason for denying marriage rights to same sex couples that ISN'T based in religion. Suggesting it is based in something else (like procreation) is nonsense as shown by the records of our courts.

    In Lawarence v Texas, Scalia's dissent is based on his believe that once same sex behavior became legal, thre would be NO reason to deny same sex marriage.

    Marriage today is about a mutual support commitment enforced by the state. Parental support for children (regardless of how they are acquired) is required. Support of one spouse by another is required. And, objections raised purely on the basis of religion are not accepted. Besides, not even Chrstians have a uniformity of opinion on this issue.
     
  5. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Survival stories? Evidently you're not aware that the vast majority of male mammals spend the vast majority of their lives not getting laid. In fact, the vast majority of HUMAN lives are spent not having sex. Many people never have sex .. not even once. Celibacy does no harm whatsoever. The harm comes from the idea that sex is an entitlement, or a necessity for survival. That's what causes people to respond badly to its lack - it's not the lack itself.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  6. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Show me the law that requires me to be married to the women who will mother my child, in order for me to procreate. For marriage to be a regulatory mechanism of procreation, the the law would have to state that marriage is required for procreation to be legal.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is invalid logic.

    The fact that some don't have sex does NOT give government the right to make moves against sexual activity based on nothing more than religion.

    What is an entitlement is that the consensual relations between two people are not within the government's right to control.
     
  8. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The idea that people cannot be responsible without the government is a fallacy in and of itself. That said, you have still not shown anything in law that requires marriage for procreation nor procreation necessary for marriage.
     
    CourtJester likes this.
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what you mean regarding "responsible procreation" or by government affecting that.

    - Marriage does not change the fact that individuals may acquire children through any of a number of methods that are fully legal.

    - NONE of those methods of acquiring children requires marriage.

    You just haven't thought this through. Marriage is independent of sexuality. You almost got that in your last sentence!!
     
  10. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,320
    Likes Received:
    38,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not as a species. Is there a point in there somewhere?
     
  11. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, and my only point is that it would be wildly unfair cosmically, legally and morally if acting on homosexuality were somehow worse than heterosexuality.
     
  12. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we both know (admitted or not) that if there were a better argument than "lol", "you are so wrong", or "you can't understand" that it would happily be stated. But, this question has been pondered for a very long time, and nobody in the history of very smart people has ever submitted an actual reasonable defense of evil. Simply because it's impossible.

    You admit yourself that god cannot be all-powerful, which is the most defensible position (or the position that god is evil). But there is no good explanation of what exactly is all powerful, and where that came from. If the answer is that it came from nowhere, then that explanation is at least equally well if not much much better applied to something like a multiverse.

    A common question that is often posed is if god can command something immoral, and does that then make that thing moral. We know the answer if you believe that discrimination against homosexuals is commanded by god. It is still immoral, commanded by god or not, and if commanded by god, we have a stronger grasp of morals than a god does since we recognize the immorality.
    Assertions I argue that you did not pose are my attempts to steel-man your arguments. Because you don't offer any defense of your viewpoints, I pose defenses that could plausibly be offered, as well as the reasons they fail.

    Just about everything we know is a gap that science has filled. At some point in history, eclipses, disease, reproduction, and many other things were not understood, and therefore evidence of a god or gods. As science grew to understand how these things really work, god was pushed further and further into the corners of our understanding and is left now with very few footholds. Another phrase for this is 'argument from ignorance.' It is the same as walking into a room and seeing a broken glass on the floor. You don't know how it was broken, so you immediately jump to whatever your favorite supernatural thing is: It was ghosts, it was aliens, it was a god. And while you don't know for sure that it wasn't any of those things, there is no reason to think that it is, and it is much more likely something pedestrian like a cat or the wind.
     
  13. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More accurately, it has been stated, which is why you feel the need to misrepresent it at every opportunity.
    No, they are your attempts to substitute arguments you think you can refute for arguments you cannot refute.
    And to this day, there is not a single physical phenomenon that is fully understood. This is perfectly clear to those of us who have given more than a moment's consideration to the relevant implications of Quantum Mechanics - which is why you will likely never do any such thing.
     
  14. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please embarrass me by telling me what I have missed, and what your argument is.
    So, first of all, you don't know what I have and haven't given consideration to, but let's be honest, when it comes to quantum mechanics, I think it's safe to say you are no expert. Second of all, even if we had no idea how anything worked, that still wouldn't be an argument for anything else. Not a god, not aliens, or ghosts or anything at all. Moreover, throughout history, as we have figured out how almost everything works, there has never one single time been any hint of anything close to aliens or gods or ghosts. Thirdly, while scientific rigor and discovery have figured out how 99.999% of everything works, the god hypothesis has explained exactly 0%. And, in fact cannot even exist as an explanatory hypothesis for anything that is not perfect because that is logically impossible. In other words, it is not even consistent with itself, so to use it as an excuse to marginalize, discriminate against, or disparage a group of people, even if they chose to be who they are, is not only bad reasoning and illogical, it is highly immoral. In fact, the usage of that belief system to fuel such bigotry is sufficient reason to not only avoid taking part in it, but to actively work against it.
     
  15. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please, I'm not nearly idiotic enough to waste the effort involved in repeating myself, knowing you would only take it as yet another opportunity to stultify the PF readership.
    What I said is perfectly accurate, no question about it.
    Which might be interesting if it had anything to do with your asinine claim that any gaps have been filled.
    lol
     
  16. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol, I have to admit that a part of me was kind of wondering if you actually had made some arguments that I was forgetting or missed. Silly concern I know. Just for fun lol, why don't you tell me something about quantum mechanics? I'm curious and would like you to educate me.

    So, there are a couple possibilities here:

    You are just a troll- In which case oh well.

    You are a true believer- In which case, hopefully you at least think about all of this and ask yourself some of these questions we brought up: "Why can't I come up with any reasonable way in which a god could be perfect and it's creation so imperfect?" "If a god is needed to create the laws of physics, but laws of physics perfectly tailored for human consciousness already exists and are more powerful than god, who created those?" "Why do I have such confidence in things I can't really defend?" "Why is my entire epistemological philosophy based on nothing other than 'that's just how it is'?" "Do I really believe these things?" And by far the most important "How can I really defend discriminating, insulting, and otherwise having a bigoted attitude towards a minority group when my only reason for doing so is based on a philosophy I can't defend?" Just things to mull over.
     
  17. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Please, you'd rather be dead.
    :yawn:
     
  18. Etbauer

    Etbauer Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2011
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1,058
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol, yeah, I might actually die of shock.
    Lol, look, I'm not saying do it for me. We've both been here through the whole discussion. I don't know if you think you're fooling me, but I promise you that you aren't. I have and do think these things through. Even though you can't answer these questions now, think them through later, on the road, or lying in bed, just see if you can answer them for yourself. See if you can come to an answer without resorting 'that's just obviously how it is', or 'we can't understand'. If you ever do think of something, get back to me.
     
  19. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pilgrim, you were fooled before you ever heard of me, by the biggest con in human history; and now you're trying to do to others what was done to you.
     
  20. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,936
    Likes Received:
    15,595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct, I am not bigoted towards any of those you listed.
     
  21. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hasn't that already been achieved?
     
  22. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And of course the same logic. ( and the term is used with a certain hilarity) can be used against birth control, sex education, marriage, laws against underage sex, spilling seed, etc, etc, etc,
     
    Maquiscat likes this.
  23. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact that there has been thousands of religions and gods proves that the odds are overwhelming that any particular religion is a con.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I only understand why you said birth control, (because it isn't natural) but why the rest?
     
  25. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seeing that places that are taxpayer funded can deny same sex couples from adoption, education, employment and that medical treatment can be denied based on sexual orientation I would say no. Do you feel that is equal?
     
    chris155au likes this.

Share This Page