You CAN'T justify anti-homosexual views.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Divv
naah. Adoption is very nice thing to do. I mean, I admire people who can raise a child that isnt their
Adoption is incredibly admirable.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Great so...nobody can be in a valid relationship until they reproduce 
that is the logical conclusion of your "justification". The funny part is you still haven't explained why reproduction is necessary or rather why not having children is necessary. Until you do that the justification is flawed.
Posted from TSR Mobile
that is the logical conclusion of your "justification". The funny part is you still haven't explained why reproduction is necessary or rather why not having children is necessary. Until you do that the justification is flawed. Posted from TSR Mobile
because thats the MAIN point of having sex. Nowadays with all contraception methods people tend to forget about it, but I believe that we were all made to pass our genes on and, deep inside, everybody want that
Original post by Venomilys
From a rational perspective, you CAN'T justify anti-homosexual views. It's an IMPOSSIBLE task.
Sure you're going to be against homosexuality if your religion tells you to be, but that's where the argument ends. You can't begin to rationalize your beliefs, you have to simply believe it because your Lord told you to do so.
In the Quran God didn't give a logical reason to be against homosexuality, I'm not sure about Christianity.
Common arguments are:
-In a homosexual relationship the couples cannot reproduce, therefore it goes against human nature - by that logic asexuality is also a sin.
-Anal sex is dirty, painful and can spread diseases - Not all male homosexuals engage in sodomy, some engage in fellacio (penis in mouth), kissing and touching only.
Fact of the matter is, homosexual relationships are perfectly fine if they stay safe (use lube if going from the backside) and use condoms.
If you're homophobic and not religious, this is the crux of your argument: "Ew he wants to stick it up my backside".
If you're homophobic and religious, this is the crux of your argument: "It says so here in this book".
Sure you're going to be against homosexuality if your religion tells you to be, but that's where the argument ends. You can't begin to rationalize your beliefs, you have to simply believe it because your Lord told you to do so.
In the Quran God didn't give a logical reason to be against homosexuality, I'm not sure about Christianity.
Common arguments are:
-In a homosexual relationship the couples cannot reproduce, therefore it goes against human nature - by that logic asexuality is also a sin.
-Anal sex is dirty, painful and can spread diseases - Not all male homosexuals engage in sodomy, some engage in fellacio (penis in mouth), kissing and touching only.
Fact of the matter is, homosexual relationships are perfectly fine if they stay safe (use lube if going from the backside) and use condoms.
If you're homophobic and not religious, this is the crux of your argument: "Ew he wants to stick it up my backside".
If you're homophobic and religious, this is the crux of your argument: "It says so here in this book".
Basic Biology and evolutionary theory tells us that sex is for reproduction and that the aim of life is to survive and reproduce and there has been a lot of scientific evidence proving that gay men have female brains which seems to prove that it is a defect, where the brain thinks its a different sex than what it actually is making it think that it can produce children with the same sex, thats what sexual attraction is the brain subconsciously thinking that that person has good genes to pass on to your offspring.The fact that homosexuality occurs in other animals isn't any evidence to show it isn't a defect so does many other illnesses.I understand that homosexuality isn't a choice and it would be hard to ignore your feelings but I believe it should be classed as a disorder because it impairs a persons ability to reproduce.I often don't understand why homosexuality is so accepted by scientists when it goes against basic biology- you can also add in the much increased rates of HIV as well.
Original post by Divv
because thats the MAIN point of having sex. Nowadays with all contraception methods people tend to forget about it, but I believe that we were all made to pass our genes on and, deep inside, everybody want that
I'm pretty sure basic knowledge I people will disprove your theory that everybody wants to reproduce.
As far as the "main" purpose of sex....who are you to determine that?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I'm pretty sure basic knowledge I people will disprove your theory that everybody wants to reproduce.
As far as the "main" purpose of sex....who are you to determine that?
Posted from TSR Mobile
As far as the "main" purpose of sex....who are you to determine that?
Posted from TSR Mobile
sex is there for reproduction, you cant disagree with that. It is pleasurable but thats not the main point of it
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I'm pretty sure basic knowledge I people will disprove your theory that everybody wants to reproduce.
As far as the "main" purpose of sex....who are you to determine that?
Posted from TSR Mobile
As far as the "main" purpose of sex....who are you to determine that?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well the reason sex exists from a biological point of view is for reproduction...so that is its 'main' purpose.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Divv
sex is there for reproduction, you cant disagree with that. It is pleasurable but thats not the main point of it
Sex is there for reproduction according to whom? Who gets to decide what sex is "for" other than the people who are engaging in it? Just because sex can lead to reproduction does not mean that that is the only or "main" purpose.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Sex is there for reproduction according to whom? Who gets to decide what sex is "for" other than the people who are engaging in it? Just because sex can lead to reproduction does not mean that that is the only or "main" purpose.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
okay. In general, its the main purpose.
The argument regarding reproduction is truly a ridiculous one. With a burgeoning population of about 7,200,000,000 people, surely having no offspring should be encouraged? Moreover, many straight people use contraception to avoid reproduction. They have sex for pleasure, not to reproduce. If pleasure is the main objective in most sexual endeavours, as it is, then surely the purpose of sex should be primarily thought as to gain gratification, not to reproduce. This begs the question, if straight people can have 'no strings attached' pleasure seeking sex without the prospect of reproducing, why is it wrong when homosexual people do exactly the same thing?
Original post by Marcum
The argument regarding reproduction is truly a ridiculous one. With a burgeoning population of about 7,200,000,000 people, surely having no offspring should be encouraged? Moreover, many straight people use contraception to avoid reproduction. They have sex for pleasure, not to reproduce. If pleasure is the main objective in most sexual endeavours, as it is, then surely the purpose of sex should be primarily thought as to gain gratification, not to reproduce. This begs the question, if straight people can have 'no strings attached' pleasure seeking sex without the prospect of reproducing, why is it wrong when homosexual people do exactly the same thing?
I think you will find that many people who think homosexual sex is wrong think so strings attached sex is wrong too.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LightBlueSoldier
I think you will find that many people who think homosexual sex is wrong think so strings attached sex is wrong too.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
They're fine finding things wrong, but should they really expect to hold others to their personal moral standards? If they want to practice missionary, for example, all their life then they are fine doing that, but why should other people be restricted from doing as they like, within the law, because a minority find it 'wrong'? I don't think the debate should be about absolute imposition of beliefs, rather adult tolerance of diversity.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Divv
okay. In general, its the main purpose.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LightBlueSoldier
Well the reason sex exists from a biological point of view is for reproduction...so that is its 'main' purpose.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Does it follow that any sexual act that doesn't lend itself to procreation is immoral?
Likewise, the purpose of a fork is to eat food. But if I use it to unclog a toaster, is that immoral too?
Original post by Lotus_Eater
Does it follow that any sexual act that doesn't lend itself to procreation is immoral?
Likewise, the purpose of a fork is to eat food. But if I use it to unclog a toaster, is that immoral too?
Likewise, the purpose of a fork is to eat food. But if I use it to unclog a toaster, is that immoral too?
whats the point n=in buying a fork to uclog a toaster only? You can do it with your fork but you use it for eating too. Same with sex. For example, oral sex. Many people do it even though you can't get anyone pregnant with that. But besides oral, they usually do *normal* sex too and this once, can led to procreation.
Original post by NYU2012
The point being made was that:
(1) If you ban homosexual couples because they cannot have children, for the sake of logical consistency (without such consistency your argument is meaningless) you would also have to ban the coupling of infertile heterosexual couples or heterosexual couples whom did not want children.
(2) Homosexual couples can have biological children related to one of them their formal or informal surrogacy arrangements. The same with an infertile heterosexual couple where only one of the partners was infertile.
(3) All arrangements of couples can adopt, so even if they are biologically precluded from having children, then they could adopt.
Quite obviously, no one bans marriages or couplings of infertile heterosexual couples or heterosexual couples who don't want children - why? Because it's an infringement on autonomy and privacy. Intuitively, people don't want to ban such heterosexual couplings because they don't want to infringe too greatly into someone else's life.
Since they don't want to ban such couplings, we know that the only reason they want to ban homosexual couplings is because they're homophobic and applying unfair double standards to homosexuals. Such inequality is not logically consistent nor desirable in politics or law.
Thereby, you cannot rationally and principally defend homophobia on any convincing grounds. The OP's post is, indeed, correct.
(1) If you ban homosexual couples because they cannot have children, for the sake of logical consistency (without such consistency your argument is meaningless) you would also have to ban the coupling of infertile heterosexual couples or heterosexual couples whom did not want children.
(2) Homosexual couples can have biological children related to one of them their formal or informal surrogacy arrangements. The same with an infertile heterosexual couple where only one of the partners was infertile.
(3) All arrangements of couples can adopt, so even if they are biologically precluded from having children, then they could adopt.
Quite obviously, no one bans marriages or couplings of infertile heterosexual couples or heterosexual couples who don't want children - why? Because it's an infringement on autonomy and privacy. Intuitively, people don't want to ban such heterosexual couplings because they don't want to infringe too greatly into someone else's life.
Since they don't want to ban such couplings, we know that the only reason they want to ban homosexual couplings is because they're homophobic and applying unfair double standards to homosexuals. Such inequality is not logically consistent nor desirable in politics or law.
Thereby, you cannot rationally and principally defend homophobia on any convincing grounds. The OP's post is, indeed, correct.
noone wants to ban homosexual couples. We (or at least I) are discussing the issue of homophobia and as I stated before, you can be hompohobic and against infertile people at the same time.
Original post by NYU2012
Sex cannot have a 'purpose' beyond what 'purpose' we give it. The biological 'purpose' of something is an unintelligible statement - if you haven't studied philosophy, you likely won't understand this, but I shall try anyway.
For something to have a purpose independent of whatever purpose our minds assign to it, that thing must have its own mind or been created by a mind which gave it an immutable purpose. So, we cannot say 'from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is reproduction'. This statement is unintelligible because it implicitly claims that evolution is a sentient process with a mind capable of intentionality.
Evolution is merely a process, mutation happens coincidentally and without purpose. Some mutations are advantageous but they did not evolve for a particular purpose, such a claim would implicitly be claiming that 'evolution made that particular thing for that purpose.' That would be silly because it's not like evolution sat down one day and said to itself 'I'm going to take a few hundred thousand years to make this X into a Y'. Evolution just happens, it has no intentionality.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
For something to have a purpose independent of whatever purpose our minds assign to it, that thing must have its own mind or been created by a mind which gave it an immutable purpose. So, we cannot say 'from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is reproduction'. This statement is unintelligible because it implicitly claims that evolution is a sentient process with a mind capable of intentionality.
Evolution is merely a process, mutation happens coincidentally and without purpose. Some mutations are advantageous but they did not evolve for a particular purpose, such a claim would implicitly be claiming that 'evolution made that particular thing for that purpose.' That would be silly because it's not like evolution sat down one day and said to itself 'I'm going to take a few hundred thousand years to make this X into a Y'. Evolution just happens, it has no intentionality.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
I do study philosophy actually but I don't really like this subject.
Besides that, if religion isnt rational argument than philosophy can't be used as one too.
Original post by NYU2012
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
Great point.
Original post by NYU2012
Sex cannot have a 'purpose' beyond what 'purpose' we give it. The biological 'purpose' of something is an unintelligible statement - if you haven't studied philosophy, you likely won't understand this, but I shall try anyway.
For something to have a purpose independent of whatever purpose our minds assign to it, that thing must have its own mind or been created by a mind which gave it an immutable purpose. So, we cannot say 'from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is reproduction'. This statement is unintelligible because it implicitly claims that evolution is a sentient process with a mind capable of intentionality.
Evolution is merely a process, mutation happens coincidentally and without purpose. Some mutations are advantageous but they did not evolve for a particular purpose, such a claim would implicitly be claiming that 'evolution made that particular thing for that purpose.' That would be silly because it's not like evolution sat down one day and said to itself 'I'm going to take a few hundred thousand years to make this X into a Y'. Evolution just happens, it has no intentionality.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
For something to have a purpose independent of whatever purpose our minds assign to it, that thing must have its own mind or been created by a mind which gave it an immutable purpose. So, we cannot say 'from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is reproduction'. This statement is unintelligible because it implicitly claims that evolution is a sentient process with a mind capable of intentionality.
Evolution is merely a process, mutation happens coincidentally and without purpose. Some mutations are advantageous but they did not evolve for a particular purpose, such a claim would implicitly be claiming that 'evolution made that particular thing for that purpose.' That would be silly because it's not like evolution sat down one day and said to itself 'I'm going to take a few hundred thousand years to make this X into a Y'. Evolution just happens, it has no intentionality.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
This is semantics and philosophical bull****. It's like saying 'the purpose of the eye is not necessarily to see'. The main purpose of sex is reproduction. That is the reason it exists.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LightBlueSoldier
This is semantics and philosophical bull****. It's like saying 'the purpose of the eye is not necessarily to see'. The main purpose of sex is reproduction. That is the reason it exists.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Like I've said, it you hold the view that reproduction is 'meant' only for reproduction and therefore homosexuality is wrong then you have to have many other beliefs that tail off if you are to remain intellectually honest, such as:
-asexuality is wrong
-celibacy is wrong
etc. If you don't hold these views and you try to use the reproduction argument then you are a joke, not to be taken seriously.
Original post by LightBlueSoldier
This is semantics and philosophical bull****. It's like saying 'the purpose of the eye is not necessarily to see'. The main purpose of sex is reproduction. That is the reason it exists.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Who cares if reproduction is a use? Your definition of purpose is merely whatever sex can be used to accomplish. Using that same vein its purpose is for social control, and social behavior, and *gasp* pleasure and intimacy.
Who are you to decide which 'purpose' is the main one? Who are you to decide which supercedes?
As someone else pointed out just because something came to be with a particular use in mind (ie a fork to eat) doesn't mean using it a different way is 'wrong' or 'bad' or that the original purpose is somehow more important/valuable.
Original post by Venomilys
Like I've said, it you hold the view that reproduction is 'meant' only for reproduction and therefore homosexuality is wrong then you have to have many other beliefs that tail off if you are to remain intellectually honest, such as:
-asexuality is wrong
-celibacy is wrong
etc. If you don't hold these views and you try to use the reproduction argument then you are a joke, not to be taken seriously.
-asexuality is wrong
-celibacy is wrong
etc. If you don't hold these views and you try to use the reproduction argument then you are a joke, not to be taken seriously.
I personally do not hold that view, nor do I have anything against homosexuality. However, I do think that the premise of this thread is stupid and that its proponents have made some very foolish and disingenuous arguments.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by NYU2012
Sex cannot have a 'purpose' beyond what 'purpose' we give it. The biological 'purpose' of something is an unintelligible statement - if you haven't studied philosophy, you likely won't understand this, but I shall try anyway.
For something to have a purpose independent of whatever purpose our minds assign to it, that thing must have its own mind or been created by a mind which gave it an immutable purpose. So, we cannot say 'from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is reproduction'. This statement is unintelligible because it implicitly claims that evolution is a sentient process with a mind capable of intentionality.
Evolution is merely a process, mutation happens coincidentally and without purpose. Some mutations are advantageous but they did not evolve for a particular purpose, such a claim would implicitly be claiming that 'evolution made that particular thing for that purpose.' That would be silly because it's not like evolution sat down one day and said to itself 'I'm going to take a few hundred thousand years to make this X into a Y'. Evolution just happens, it has no intentionality.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
For something to have a purpose independent of whatever purpose our minds assign to it, that thing must have its own mind or been created by a mind which gave it an immutable purpose. So, we cannot say 'from an evolutionary perspective the purpose of sex is reproduction'. This statement is unintelligible because it implicitly claims that evolution is a sentient process with a mind capable of intentionality.
Evolution is merely a process, mutation happens coincidentally and without purpose. Some mutations are advantageous but they did not evolve for a particular purpose, such a claim would implicitly be claiming that 'evolution made that particular thing for that purpose.' That would be silly because it's not like evolution sat down one day and said to itself 'I'm going to take a few hundred thousand years to make this X into a Y'. Evolution just happens, it has no intentionality.
Sex cannot have a purpose because evolution has no intentionally. Sex can produce children, but that is not the purpose of sexual intercourse. The 'purpose' of it can be whatever purpose we, as minds with intentionality, may assign to it - but it has no intrinsic purpose.
That's a bit condescending, I've never studied philosophy and I understood what you said just fine, it wasn't exactly high concept
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
