Politics of homosexuality

[Craig234]

LOL, my response isn't for you, it's for others. Even this simple mechanic of a forum you fail to understand.

"We comprehend what you are saying": a statement for Routan.

"We comprehend what Routan is saying": a statement for others about Routan.

 

[Theb]

We are aware that some people like to indulge in other forms of sexual behavior, such as engaging with the animal species. Do AT members think that at some point in the future, such "deviant" behavior would also be considered acceptable?

Why do you ask? Have your eye on a special sheep?

 

[Craig234]

The debate is only about mutual consent when you arbitrarily deem it so. It really ain't.

No, the debate was discussing mutual consent as a reason to oppose sex with animals, it wasn't that I 'arbitrarily deemed' something.

You're actually supporting my - and even Routan's - points when saying the issue isn't about that, as I pointed out the limits of how much that's really the issue.

A human being's age of consent is set by the State arbitrary. We were never evolved to be children until Age 18. No, evolutionarily, we become adults at age 13 when we can fuck and bear children.

You have arbitrarily deemed the definition of 'adult'. Others, including me, differ.

So does science, insofar as recognizing great limitations in brains that age.

With THAT in mind, the argument for allowing gays to um... have sex with each other... is not based on ability to give mutual consent, it is more like freedom to do whatever the fuck we want with each other (for the most part), if both parties are in agreement. Just like anything else we do, you know, like talking, eating, or seeing a movie together.

That's one aspect of it, but there's more to it. The 'right to do that if you want' is one issue - but one that would apply if homosexual behavior had no biological basis.

So, who cares? Well, many people wrong are supporting discrimination against gays because they have that wrong view of homosexuality, and think it's 'immoral'.

Now, you can argue all day why they're wrong on the basis of 'but they have the right to that freedom', but you won't convince a lot of those people on that basis.

And so, their wrong understanding of homosexuality - which leads to their voting against gay equal rights - is quite relevant to correct.

With a better understanding of homosexuality, that reason for supporting discrimination - however wrong you think it is for other reasons - is removed.

As for the Animals, we are actually very consistent. At its core, the issue is "humanity".

Humanity means that the cuter the animal and more closer we mutually provide for the animals as pets and humanize the animals, the less tolerant we are for any sort violence towards them.

Domesticated animals are not cute, thus we differentiate them and are able to eat them. In order to remain "Humane", we treat them in a uncruel fashion. Whether the industry or people in general fight for greater regulations or not is rather irrelevant - the fact that we as a people don't make a real stint about Chickens is that we - aren't - that - humane. Or we're just ignorant.

Again that's one factor, but there is clearly a lot more cruelty against animals in the industrial food industry than the 'cute' - in another way - cow to its 'lover'.

And again you are supporting the point I made about the cultural relativism. It's not just about 'you', either. Tell the fan of dog fights, who doesn't view it as wrong.

Consent doesn't play into it. Animals are not humans. Viruses and Bacteria are not humans. We do not require consent from non-humans to ensure the survival of our species.

Most people view animals like dogs as having a 'moral issue' about how they're treated that's not at all like the issues with lower forms of animal like bacteria.

Where it really matters is where Vegetarians believe that Animals like Chickens are somehow on the same level as Humans in the divine order of all that is holy.

That's fine and all, and they are probably holier than us, but sorry mang, the human mammal was evolved by God (or not, whatever), to be OMNIvores.

So, why not eat dogs - allow the freedom to those who want to, since they are 'naturally' a food for humans, in that they can be eaten and provide nutrition?

Some vegetarians have a more extreme position, but others have concerns simply about why the animal food industry is immoral, not saying animals are 'equal' to humans.

 

[jhu]

Maybe I'm really missing the boat here, but, again, I fail to see how sticking your dick in a goat is anything like raising and killing a goat. For me, the distinction is clear: One action is taken for survival, the other for pleasure.

Eating meat is no longer a matter of survival in this and other industrialized nations. The amino acids that our bodies don't produce can be easily obtained in a vegetarian diet. Eating meat is now a matter of taste, not survival. Thus, eating meat is also for pleasure.

 

[BeauJangles]

Eating meat is no longer a matter of survival in this and other industrialized nations. The amino acids that our bodies don't produce can be easily obtained in a vegetarian diet. Eating meat is now a matter of taste, not survival. Thus, eating meat is also for pleasure.

You can choose to look at it that way, but meat is still food. Sexing animals was never necessary to our survival.

 

[woolfe9999]

woolfe9999, this was not meant to be a religious debate. I was not surprised that some members took the thread down that road because of my open display of being Muslim. However, I am surprised you are taking it down that road.

As to your comments, I am not "drawing" any line. If you disagree that homosexuality was not considered deviant behavior not long ago, please elaborate. I took this as a baseline because the prevailing thought about homosexuals turned in my lifetime. No other behavior in the same category has turned in public perception.

The interesting thing to observe in this thread is how people are jumping into the gay-bash bandwagon. I made it distinctly clear that I was inquiring about future moral acceptance by a society.

I'm afraid you have not responded to my points. You have selected some words and phrases out of my post and gone on a tangent about them instead. For example, I didn't really get around to the religious issue until the end of my post, using it as an example of drawing arbitrary moral boundaries.

To be concise: there is a slippery slope argument implicit in the "question" you asked. You have now reiterated it with your reference to "future moral acceptance." Your argument is that acceptance of one form of sexual behavior leads to acceptance of another. I have debunked that argument as a) unproven and b) based on arbitrary moral reasoning. If you are prepared to counter-argue your position, please do so.

- wolf

 

[MJinZ]

Eating meat is no longer a matter of survival in this and other industrialized nations. The amino acids that our bodies don't produce can be easily obtained in a vegetarian diet. Eating meat is now a matter of taste, not survival. Thus, eating meat is also for pleasure.

Not "easily". It's possible. With plenty of supplements and other stuff made by Pharmaceutical companies.

 

[jhu]

You can choose to look at it that way, but meat is still food. Sexing animals was never necessary to our survival.

While food is necessary for survival, eating meat is not, just as eating a Snickers candy bar is not necessary for survival. If it is no longer necessary for survival, then it must be for pleasure.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, but I don't buy that we need permission to kill and eat animals. It's part of our survival. Banging them isn't (not say that people haven't had sex with animals with regularity throughout history).

Putting aside the fact it's not needed for survival (but is 'consistent' with what's 'natural', just as eating dogs or horses is), the cruelty of industrial animals is not.

There's absolutely nothing needed about allowing the worse treatment in those parks compared to more human ranching, except the convenience of cutting costs.

The convenience of paying less for the food isn't really a stronger 'need' than the desire some people have for sexual gratification.

'I want to save $5 on the cost of dinner'. ' I want to get sexual gratification'.

Maybe I'm really missing the boat here, but, again, I fail to see how sticking your dick in a goat is anything like raising and killing a goat. For me, the distinction is clear: One action is taken for survival, the other for pleasure.

I think we haven't quite communicated on the issue of food versus sex.

Let's say you're a rancher who humanely raises cows and pigs and eats them.

I'm noting that some people would raise a moral issue with that - but that I'm saying, let's say for the sake of discussion, that's just fine.

I think you can certainly make that case, as can I.

The discussion was about using the 'harm to the animal' as the basis for opposing someone having sex with one of your more seductive cows, not compared to your eating the cow, but compared to how inconsistent we are when it comes to the higher level of suffering of animals in industrial industry for animals, where suddenly it isn't a reason to not do it.

When it comes to that, we say, 'oh, really cheap food, I like that - well, let's ignore the suffering of the animals that makes it cheaper - to a degree.'

That's all - it's saying that the 'cruel to the animals' argument is used more because it's convenient when we have no sympathy for the lonely guy who has a more highly developed appreciation of the bovine attributes, than because it's a principle we actually are consistent about when it comes to something like animal farming that we agree with more - mmm cheap bacon.

Our objection to the animal sex is based more on our 'ew' reaction than on the issue of the animal suffering, really, was what I was saying.

If animal sex was a really popular desire among people, I think we'd see a whole different set of laws and arguments for it.

I'm not saying you have to view animal sex as anything other than a 'desire' by some people, or that you have to put all eating of animals equal to or below it 'morally'.

 

[jhu]

Not "easily". It's possible. With plenty of supplements and other stuff made by Pharmaceutical companies.

That is not really necessary. Consider the extreme (to me at leas and probably most peoplet) diet of the Jain, and they still live healthy lives.

 

[routan]

I'm afraid you have not responded to my points. You have selected some words and phrases out of my post and gone on a tangent about them instead. For example, I didn't really get around to the religious issue until the end of my post, using it as an example of drawing arbitrary moral boundaries.

To be concise: there is a slippery slope argument implicit in the "question" you asked. You have now reiterated it with your reference to "future moral acceptance." Your argument is that acceptance of one form of sexual behavior leads to acceptance of another. I have debunked that argument as a) unproven and b) based on arbitrary moral reasoning. If you are prepared to counter-argue your position, please do so.

- wolf

woolfe9999, I responded to some of your points. In my opinion, others didnt warrant a response. But I'll address them for your benefit.

My question inquired about the possibility of society accepting other forms of behavior considered deviant in the past. I did not make a judgment that it will become acceptable. On the contrary, I asked if it is a distinct possibility that another behavior may become acceptable.

Whether the correlation exists on homosexuality becoming acceptable with other forms of sexual behavior is a different question. The fact is that homosexuality WAS considered bad in the past. It is not so now (atleast not as widespread). Other behaviors are considered bad now.

Also please note I am not equating homosexuality with other deviant behaviors. That is not the point I am making at all. I simply presented homosexuality as an example of society's evolving morals. Example.

 

[woolfe9999]

woolfe9999, I responded to some of your points. In my opinion, others didnt warrant a response. But I'll address them for your benefit.

My question inquired about the possibility of society accepting other forms of behavior considered deviant in the past. I did not make a judgment that it will become acceptable. On the contrary, I asked if it is a distinct possibility that another behavior may become acceptable.

Whether the correlation exists on homosexuality becoming acceptable with other forms of sexual behavior is a different question. The fact is that homosexuality WAS considered bad in the past. It is not so now (atleast not as widespread). Other behaviors are considered bad now.

Also please note I am not equating homosexuality with other deviant behaviors. That is not the point I am making at all. I simply presented homosexuality as an example of society's evolving morals. Example.

I'll respond to your last paragraph first. It's irrelevant, because I didn't characterize your position as equating homosexual behavior with other forms of sexual behavior. I wasn't responding to that as an assumed point. I was responding to the point I believed, and still believe, was implicit in your post: that acceptance of one leads to acceptance of another. Your reasoning is plain - one day homosexuality is considered deviant. Today it is OK. Today beastiality is deviant. Tomorrow it is OK.

I am familiar with the technique of embedding a statement into the form of question. It is a way of hiding the ball and avoiding any refutation of the statement by disavowing any affirmative position and claiming you're only asking questions. Yet you quite obviously DO have a viewpoint here. Best that it be addressed.

If you really want to know if it will lead to acceptance of this or that other sexual behavior, the answer is of course: maybe yes, maybe no. In the case of bestiality, I highly doubt it. There are animal cruelty issues involved, and not very many people practice this kind of behavior and there isn't any way to have effective political advocacy for such a tiny group. Yet the answer still remains a "maybe" because no one can predict the future.

However, that point isn't terribly important unless or until we address where we OUGHT to draw the line. If no line should be drawn anywhere, then it doesn't matter if it will lead to acceptance of another behavior or not, right? So the real question is: where should we draw the line?

I maintain that traditional systems of morality, be they cultural or religious, be they passed down from parent, peer, media or scripture, are generally just arbitrary. You are told "this is the line." You are not told why the line is there and not somewhere else. You are not asked to think for youself where the line should be. Of course you aren't, because the fact is the line given to you is arbitrary and hence there is no reason and nothing to think about. Guess what, I've decided its OK to eat mangos but not OK to eat oranges, and I'm going to pass that down to my kids. It's arbitrary. But add this fact to the hypothetical: scientists have discovered that oranges are highly toxic. Now the boundary has become rational and non-arbitrary. I have a reason for drawing the line there, and I will explain this reason to my kids.

I suggest that the only way to draw a line rationally is to look for logical, non-arbitrary criteria. Consent and adulthood. Those are my lines and I can explain quite clearly why I choose those lines and not something narrower or broader. What are yours and why? Don't hide your position. Just tell us.

- wolf

 

[routan]

I'll respond to your last paragraph first. It's irrelevant, because I didn't characterize your position as equating homosexual behavior with other forms of sexual behavior. I wasn't responding to that as an assumed point. I was responding to the point I believed, and still believe, was implicit in your post: that acceptance of one leads to acceptance of another. Your reasoning is plain - one day homosexuality is considered deviant. Today it is OK. Today beastiality is deviant. Tomorrow it is OK.

I am familiar with the technique of embedding a statement into the form of question. It is a way of hiding the ball and avoiding any refutation of the statement by disavowing any affirmative position and claiming you're only asking questions. Yet you quite obviously DO have a viewpoint here. Best that it be addressed.

If you really want to know if it will lead to acceptance of this or that other sexual behavior, the answer is of course: maybe yes, maybe no. In the case of bestiality, I highly doubt it. There are animal cruelty issues involved, and not very many people practice this kind of behavior and there isn't any way to have effective political advocacy for such a tiny group. Yet the answer still remains a "maybe" because no one can predict the future.

However, that point isn't terribly important unless or until we address where we OUGHT to draw the line. If no line should be drawn anywhere, then it doesn't matter if it will lead to acceptance of another behavior or not, right? So the real question is: where should we draw the line?

I maintain that traditional systems of morality, be they cultural or religious, be they passed down from parent, peer, media or scripture, are generally just arbitrary. You are told "this is the line." You are not told why the line is there and not somewhere else. You are not asked to think for youself where the line should be. Of course you aren't, because the fact is the line given to you is arbitrary and hence there is no reason and nothing to think about. Guess what, I've decided its OK to eat mangos but not OK to eat oranges, and I'm going to pass that down to my kids. It's arbitrary. But add this fact to the hypothetical: scientists have discovered that oranges are highly toxic. Now the boundary has become rational and non-arbitrary. I have a reason for drawing the line there, and I will explain this reason to my kids.

I suggest that the only way to draw a line rationally is to look for logical, non-arbitrary criteria. Consent and adulthood. Those are my lines and I can explain quite clearly why I choose those lines and not something narrower or broader. What are yours and why? Don't hide your position. Just tell us.

- wolf

woolfe9999, I believe you read too much into my post. I too am aware of "embedded" statements in questions. However, I am not a practitioner of such and have been more or less quite plain spoken in my discussions.

As with all members, I too have an opinion, and both of us can agree there is nothing wrong holding an opinion.

With respect to future acceptance of currently accepted deviant behavior, I have stated my opinion. I think with time, the proportion of people finding behavior currently considered bad will decrease.

From a rational perspective, prevailing morals have been passed down over time by the methods you describe. However, I do not believe they are arbitrary. What is acceptable and not acceptable is an acquired trait over generations and generations of knowledge passed down. The initial reasoning might be lost, but that does not make, what you call, the "line" arbitrary.

A very loose example of this can be marriage between blood lines. We may say "ew" to this in the present times, but such was practiced hundreds of years ago. The acquired trait of finding this unnatural (again loosely speaking) is now backed by a rationale. Other traits have lost their initial reasoning, and no equivalent rationale would be considered.

Another example would be fornication. This would be a good example when considering morality. Fornication was heavily discouraged but society (as well as religion). I can still form many rationales why it is immoral to indulge in fornication (though I cannot say I would not practice fornication) - diseases, unwanted offsprings, etc. But with morals changing, fornication is no longer considered a "bad" thing, and these rationales are dismissed entirely.

As for my own personal line, I have much to learn, before I can say I am able to draw a line. I firmly believe there should be some set of absolute rules for all mankind to follow. I am not however, the person to put together such rules. With respect to only beastality, I think that should absolutely be included in those rules.

 

[bfdd]

There is homosexuality in animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
If you ever had bison burgers, you might have been getting a taste of some gay loins.

I honestly believe most animals don't know better and just want to fuck something to procreate. You can't really asked a bull if they're attracted to another bull to find out, we just see them fuck and assume they're just like our homosexuals. Instead of wondering if that bull just needed to release and without the use of our incredibly evolved hands, he can't jack himself off so he busts a nut in the closest hole.


routan, homosexuality used to be socially acceptable, then it became not-socially acceptable, now it's socially acceptable again(in most 1st world nations). who the fuck cares, it's not your life.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

Routon, I'm just curious why would even post this question, yet alone with something so off the beaten track. You were obviously looking to create chaos.

Unless you really sit around at home with your wife and wife and discuss these things. The question you pose is actually very offensive as it like someone says it relates the two.

You should educate yourself a bit more about human sexuality before you pose questions like these because any educated would not even think twice about a question like this.

 

[routan]

Routon, I'm just curious why would even post this question, yet alone with something so off the beaten track. You were obviously looking to create chaos.

Unless you really sit around at home with your wife and wife and discuss these things. The question you pose is actually very offensive as it like someone says it relates the two.

You should educate yourself a bit more about human sexuality before you pose questions like these because any educated would not even think twice about a question like this.

onlyCOpunk, my apologies if you took any offense. That was not my intention. I have repeatedly stated what I asked, why I asked, and how I was only using homosexuality as an example. Please read prior posts.

 

[bfdd]

GodlessAstronomer, I have to admit, that was as tin foil hat as anything I have ever read here :biggrin:

So someone(you) who has silly personal beliefs that a man in the sky controls all finds it "crazy" that someone else believes something weird about eternal souls? How come no one pointed this out yet?

 

[routan]

So someone(you) who has silly personal beliefs that a man in the sky controls all finds it "crazy" that someone else believes something weird about eternal souls? How come no one pointed this out yet?

bfdd, because others recognize valid belief systems?

 

[onlyCOpunk]

I did read your prior post I've sat here and read all the posts, and I do understand the question you are asking.

There are much better examples you could have used, but clearly you chose a hot button topic.

You have taken something that is a natural behavior and compared and equated it with something unnatural. Humans are not born with a desire to have sex with animals, nor are they born with a desire to have sex with dead things thus neither will ever be accepted. You are confusing instincts with desire.

Evolution proves acceptance of natural behaviors, just look at history.

More to the point do accept evolution and the fact that the world and all of her inhabitants evolve day by day?

 

[routan]

I did read your prior post I've sat here and read all the posts, and I do understand the question you are asking.

There are much better examples you could have used, but clearly you chose a hot button topic.

You have taken something that is a natural behavior and compared and equated it with something unnatural. Humans are not born with a desire to have sex with animals, nor are they born with a desire to have sex with dead things thus neither will ever be accepted. You are confusing instincts with desire.

Evolution proves acceptance of natural behaviors, just look at history.

More to the point do accept evolution and the fact that the world and all of her inhabitants evolve day by day?

onlyCOpunk, I have also explained why I chose this as an example. Again, I apologize for any offense.

As to the point of homosexuality being a natural behavior, I am not in entire agreement. I accept that biological tendencies do motivate this behavior but I do not agree that evolution has made sodomy a natural act.

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, because others recognize valid belief systems?

what makes your belief system any more valid than his? because more people were convinced to believe in it? that's a stupid justification. people believe all sorts of stupid shit, if it can't be proven then it gets to stay in the "all sorts of stupid shit" bin along with everything else. stones in glass houses routan, they're for decoration not throwing.

 

[routan]

what makes your belief system any more valid than his? because more people were convinced to believe in it? that's a stupid justification. people believe all sorts of stupid shit, if it can't be proven then it gets to stay in the "all sorts of stupid shit" bin along with everything else. stones in glass houses routan, they're for decoration not throwing.

bfdd, yes because more people are convinced to believe in it is a valid reason. You are laughing at my belief systems, I have not objected to it. Why are you trying to stifle my laughter?

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, yes because more people are convinced to believe in it is a valid reason. You are laughing at my belief systems, I have not objected to it. Why are you trying to stifle my laughter?

I'm not laughing at your belief system, I'm laughing at you. There's a difference. I didn't say "Muslims shouldn't throw stones" I said "routan you shouldn't throw stones" see the difference?

 

[Brigandier]

I accept that biological tendencies do motivate this behavior but I do not agree that evolution has made sodomy a natural act.

Heterosexuals also crave sodomy.

 

[routan]

I'm not laughing at your belief system, I'm laughing at you. There's a difference. I didn't say "Muslims shouldn't throw stones" I said "routan you shouldn't throw stones" see the difference?

bfdd, I stand corrected then. I laughed at the poster. Not his belief system. Are we square now or are you going to pick more boogers out of this half-assed discussion point?