What is "Wrong" with Homosexuality?

[Dragonfree]

On mattj's pedophilia thing:

Morality is not actually completely subjective. Things aren't moral or immoral simply because culture X believes them to be so. At some point we do have to come down to basic moral intuitions - people being hurt is bad, etc. - which are pretty much hardwired into the human brain (excluding sociopaths, etc.), but the system of morality built around these intuitions isn't just some random arbitrary thing we think up; there has to be moral reasoning behind it, leading down to some of those shared moral intuitions.

The actual moral argument underlying our moral objection to pedophilia is that children aren't fully developed; they don't quite have the full capacity to appreciate the consequences and repercussions of their actions. Moreover, in the case of the fifty-year-old man marrying the eleven-year-old girl, that particular situation has a massive power imbalance: it's skeevy because she's a child, still wired to (for the most part) automatically trust and obey adults. He could coerce her into things she doesn't really want simply because he has all the power in the relationship and she doesn't. This could be extremely damaging to her psyche and her future.

Hence, pedophilia is wrong. It isn't wrong because something in my gut says so or because my culture says so; it's wrong because with the knowledge and understanding of human psychology that we have today, we can draw a moral argument that concludes it to be wrong.

There is no moral argument that shows homosexuality to be wrong. No matter how many cultures believe it to be wrong anyway, it isn't wrong unless a proper moral argument can be made that it is. (Specifically, there is no moral argument in the absence of religion - if you believe in the Bible as an absolute source of morality, then, yes, you have a moral argument, but good luck convincing anybody who doesn't already believe in the Bible as an absolute source of morality that they should agree. But I already went over this in one of my previous posts.)

 

[mattj]

Mattj, as you would normally point out, no source is perfectly trustworthy, and there's a controversy about everything. That was a suspciously specific defense on your part. The reason you give for rejecting the APA, because it's partisan, because it's fallible, because it is not unanimously agreed upon, applies to every other source we can provide here, especially the Bible, which comes from the father of all biased, partisan sources and is embroiled in controversy. So what, should we stop giving sources to avoid this problem of using tainted evidence? Or would you like us all to halt the debate after realizing all of our sources are equal and subjective and there is no hope of any conclusion ever being made?

No, no. If people would realize that no source is completely infallible we could move on, not stop. This nonsense of "your Bible isn't allowed because X, Y, Z, but my source is concrete and factual and inerrant" is the problem with this thread. I have no problem with the APA (either of them), or with most any other source anyone wants to bring to the table. It's people that have problems with my source that I'm taking issue with. The whole point of everything that I've been saying for pages now is not that the APA (either of them) is a terrible organization. The point is that my Bible is just as legitimate a source as any other. You don't accept the Bible? Fine. There are people that reject your source too. If people would stop being so thick skulled as to automatically reject the Bible, have an open mind for once, and take a minute to see what it says, they might actually understand both sides of the debate at hand and we might be able to have some kind of rational dialogue. But as long as there are people who automatically say "The Bible has no place in this debate for reasons X, Y, and Z, but all of my sources are inerrant and factual", this thread will continue to be two sides butting heads and flaming each other.

I understand how anyone could disagree with a given source. But to automatically reject it without having any real clue of what it says will only lead to an impasse.

I demand the thread title changer to show themselves if they dare!

lol

[edit]
@Dragonfree:
With all due respect (and I mean that) this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes it is your opinion. It is not some fact. We're not discussing physics, math, or history here. We're talking about fuzzy intangibles. You feel there's a massive power imbalance. You feel there's something "skeevy". I understand that you have your reasons, but other people have their reasons for feeling there's no power imbalance, or anything "skeevy" about it. Can you measure the level of imbalance? On a mathematical scale, what degree of "skeeviness" do you observe? I mean this with all due respect, but until you realize that your opinions are not facts, there's no point in continuing this conversation between us.

 

[Lbsweet96]

I don't want to hear tradition, because Greeks accepted homosexuality as norm.

They accepted love between an adult man and a young boy (between ages 12-17) as norm, anything before or after that was stigmatized. Not really what we're going for here.

Same-sex, well, sex, was not untraditional or in general seen as bad by the public as a whole.

When it was between two average adult men, yes it was. In particular, the passive partner was seen as making a woman out of himself, which was obviously a problem given Greece's obsession with masculinity. Sound familiar?

Of course I agree with your general stance, but the "Greeks accepted it!" argument doesn't hold too much water, since they really didn't. Don't know much about Rome, so that point still stands until someone with more knowledge refutes it.

 

[Geekachu]

@Dragonfree:
With all due respect (and I mean that) this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes it is your opinion. It is not some fact. We're not discussing physics, math, or history here. We're talking about fuzzy intangibles. You feel there's a massive power imbalance. You feel there's something "skeevy". I understand that you have your reasons, but other people have their reasons for feeling there's no power imbalance, or anything "skeevy" about it. Can you measure the level of imbalance? On a mathematical scale, what degree of "skeeviness" do you observe? I mean this with all due respect, but until you realize that your opinions are not facts, there's no point in continuing this conversation between us.

Actually, from what I read, Dragonfree's reasoning actually wasn't so much subjective and opinionated as you perceive it to be, and the argument in question (a very good one too) actually referred to psychological and biological values, which aren't exactly so much of an opinionated pretence.

What Dragonfree referred to is that the morality of a relationship between a young child and an adult isn't one that balances on moral perception, but one which actually balances of psychological factors. Children are socially conditioned (mostly) to obey the word of adult, and the fact that they haven't fully matured both physically and mentally means that they can't speak for themselves, understand for themselves, or understand the significance of sexual relations, per se. And of course with the clause of children usually obeying adults, then it's actually a very one-sided thing we're talking about here. I mean, how could a child speak out of them self against an adult who they're conditioned to trust and obey? Let alone in a situation of the sexual variety (one which they can't even comprehend).

However, homosexuality is something of a mutual nature, where two people of the same gender both willingly accept each other. And of course, I'd hope that any mutual sexual relations are between at least partial mature people, so there's no sense of a child who's confused, and who loses their innocence to something they're completely naive about.

I think that it's in this sense as to why paedophilia isn't comparable to homosexuality. Whilst one is something where one party has no say, the latter refers to a mutual relationship, hence why it's regarded as moral in comparison (and be this morality of a subjective sense, or a psychological one)

That's what Dragonfree was saying, and no way referring to something subjective.

 

[mattj]

Actually, from what I read, Dragonfree's reasoning actually wasn't so much subjective and opinionated as you perceive it to be, and the argument in question (a very good one too) actually referred to psychological and biological values, which aren't exactly so much of an opinionated pretence.

Okay, let's see:

What Dragonfree referred to is that the morality of a relationship between a young child and an adult isn't one that balances on moral perception, but one which actually balances of psychological factors.

Sounds good.

Children are socially conditioned (mostly) to obey the word of adult,

opinion, not fact

and the fact that they haven't fully matured both physically and mentally means that they can't speak for themselves,

opinion, not fact

understand for themselves,

opinion, not fact

or understand the significance of sexual relations, per se.

opinion, not fact

And of course with the clause of children usually obeying adults, then it's actually a very one-sided thing we're talking about here.

opinion, not fact

That's what Dragonfree was saying, and no way referring to something subjective.

Listen, and I do not mean this with any disrespect. I understand that wrapping up an opinion in as factual a terminology as you can does make an argument seem stronger, but in this case, we really are talking about opinions and not facts.

It's your opinion (and mine) that these children are too young to understand and consent. There's nothing measurable. There's no "consent scale" going from 0-10. These are fuzzy intangibles. We can study it all we want, do the best double-blind surveys we can, have the most honest intentions, but at the end of the day, we have to step back, look at the data, and form an opinion of what the numbers, and mostly testimonies, mean.

 

[CSolarstorm]

No, no. If people would realize that no source is completely infallible we could move on, not stop.

We're not discussing physics, math, or history here. We're talking about fuzzy intangibles.

So, I'm glad we're both for gay marriage. I respect a guy who will defend an opinion contrary to their own!

You've said that the people telling you the Bible is irrelevant here are trolls; and indeed here they are trolls. They should be saying their piece in your Bible thread. Instead of condescending and lecturing and making funny pictures making fun of the trolls to defend yourself from their slander, why don't you...not feed them?

It would be a 100% better strategy than proclaiming that no source is completely infallible. This is correct because I just said it here, at this URL, and as a source it's not completely infallible.

Edit: The repition of 'opinion, not fact' is REALLY obnoxious. Please stop it. Just because you don't understand basic social sciences, doesn't mean they're not credible and they don't exist. They are not fuzzy intangibles. A five year old could say the same thing about a car engine, that it runs on magic, and they aren't right, they just don't understand auto mechanics. Same thing with you and the science behind the diagnostic criteria making pedophilia a disorder and not homosexuality. They had a method to their magic - they weren't 'fuzzy intangibles'.

 

[Geekachu]

It's your opinion (and mine) that these children are too young to understand and consent. There's nothing measurable. There's no "consent scale" going from 0-10. These are fuzzy intangibles. We can study it all we want, do the best double-blind surveys we can, have the most honest intentions, but at the end of the day, we have to step back, look at the data, and form an opinion of what the numbers mean.

You're right, consent, or a scale of consent, is highly based on opinion. But factors that influence that aren't. It is fact that children are mostly conditioned to trust and obey adults. Do you see many young kids who downright don't listen to adults, and take pressures upon themselves without going to 'mommy and daddy'? It is fact that children aren't physically and mentally developed enough for commited sexual relationships. C'mon, let's be rational here! Do you see many kids making such profound decisions on their own? And do you seriously think that if you were a 12 year old girl, you'd be ready enough to enter a relationship with a man 4 times your age?

I understand that the labelling of opinion and fact is subjective, and even the labelling of opinion and fact can be subjective. But be rational here mattj. Please just use some common sense, because I really don't think that it's healthy if you think a young, pre-teen child is mature enough for a sexual relationship, and one with an adult partner.

But anyway, this is digressing a bit from the OP. Just clearing things up.

 

[mattj]

Oh! Lol! Please don't get me wrong! I completely agree with you that pedophilia is harmful. And yes, this could be drifting farther and farther away from the OP. My original intent was to show that, while I agree with your opinion on Pedophilic harm, many people do not agree with you. Concerning the OP, harm is one reason people justify homosexuality. Unlike Pedophilia, they say, it does no harm. My point was that while you and I agree that pedophilia does harm, and homosexuality does not, that's just our personal opinion (based on various reasonable sources). Many others completely disagree with us, and while we may disagree with their sources, they have serious weight and meaning, at least to them. Therefore, the harm argument doesn't hold water, it's just your opinion. Not a fact.

 

[Manafi's Dream]

Umm, idk if this is the Gay Marriage thread or not, but I support gay marriage ^_^ Go equality!

But seriously, isn't it bad enough they get abused so much by the general public? Why not give some mercy and at least let them marry?

 

[randomspot555]

Well guys, I guess since mattj thinks that anything ever thought ever that isn't something purely objective like "the sky is blue" is just "opinion, not fact" and of course, opinions can't be dumb or wrong. Thread over, amirite?

 

[Geekachu]

<post>

I must concur mattj, I rather applaud you for this post.

Why not give some mercy and at least let them marry?

'Mercy' seems to be a bit pitiful, dontchathink? I mean, surely when you talk about equality, you can't be then insinuating any sort of conformity to imbalanced social norms? Anyway, I joke.

But I do agree, I always have found it corrupt how a man and woman who don't even love each other can marry, yet a homosexual couple who do love each other can't. *shrugs*

 

[Manafi's Dream]

But I do agree, I always have found it corrupt how a man and woman who don't even love each other can marry, yet a homosexual couple who do love each other can't. *shrugs*

Exactly! It's not very fair when there are higher odds of the gay couple loving each other than the straight couple loving each other

 

[AzukanAsimbu]

The thread name change is possibly to get us away from the debating of whether or not homosexuality is a choice for most. Kind of like if Person A says it is, Person B is gay and knows it's not, Person A reiterates a slightly different way that it is, Person B keeps saying it's not, and who better than someone gay to know that, anyway? Person C trolls, and no one listens to anyone else's points, no matter where they fall on the scale of validity or not.

Let's do this:
Citing social (and not religious) points, even if homosexuality was a choice, what purpose does denying us the equality of marriage serve, anyway? Is there a valid, nonreligious reason to deny marriage equality?

I don't want to hear tradition, because Greeks and Romans accepted homosexuality as norm. Same-sex, well, sex, was not untraditional or in general seen as bad by the public as a whole.

I don't want to hear "sactity of marriage", either, because, by that logic, divorce should be illegal.

I don't want to hear fallacies like the slippery slope.

I don't want ad hominem, because that answers nothing.

I don't want to hear that it changes marriage for everyone, because most would agree that interracial marriage, which changed the way marriage was seen, is a very positive advancement for society and marriage, as a whole.

Lastly, the children argument holds no water. I have yet to see a study that shows that gay couples cannot raise children as well as straight, nuclear households, not to mention single-parent families. And if marriage was just for children, that means contraception should be illegal, and if a married couple does not have one or more children in their care, a divorce is legally mandated.

Alpha, wow. Completely sums up my thoughts

 

[Geekachu]

Well guys, I guess since mattj thinks that anything ever thought ever that isn't something purely objective like "the sky is blue" is just "opinion, not fact" and of course, opinions can't be dumb or wrong. Thread over, amirite?

I think what mattj was getting at was that in the context of our previous argument, yes, it is factual that children aren't capable for commited relationships, but this is going to differ from culture-to-culture (and that bare-bone fact to me is bullplop to an Iranian man etc.). But then again, I suppose we are discussing as people from first world Western cultures with ever evolving contemporary values... *shrugs again*

 

[Ces]

Umm, idk if this is the Gay Marriage thread or not, but I support gay marriage ^_^ Go equality!

But seriously, isn't it bad enough they get abused so much by the general public? Why not give some mercy and at least let them marry?

Honestly, I can see why people don't approve of gay marriage, but I certainly support gay marriage.

 

[KuroiMawile]

Mawile asks the obvious

Honestly, I can see why people don't approve of gay marriage, but I certainly support gay marriage.

If the answer isn't a religious one, then why would someone be opposed to someone's Big Gay Wedding?

 

[Ces]

If the answer isn't a religious one, then why would someone be opposed to someone's Big Gay Wedding?

It is a religious one. I never said it wasn't.

 

[mattj]

Well guys, I guess since mattj thinks that anything ever thought ever that isn't something purely objective like "the sky is blue" is just "opinion, not fact" and of course, opinions can't be dumb or wrong. Thread over, amirite?

Lol. Facts do exist. But this specific conversation, so far, hasn't included many. Mathematics, Physics, Sciences, History, there are a lot of facts to be discussed there. But human attraction? Emotion? Morality? Unless you're discussing the measurable effects of pheromones, or patterns of genetic mutations, you're probably discussing opinions. And until you accept that, you'll never understand anything other than your own personal opinions.

[edit]
AHAHAHAHA MY POST COUNT IS 1337

 

[KuroiMawile]

ah, I was just wondering if there was a reason that wasn't religious.

I started out with that as a, 'excluding A, what reasons are there for B', or 'what reason for B, and don't say A.' Not saying you said anything other than what I quoted.

 

[Ces]

ah, I was just wondering if there was a reason that wasn't religious.

I started out with that as a, 'excluding A, what reasons are there for B', or 'what reason for B, and don't say A.' Not saying you said anything other than what I quoted.

I understand, sorry if I sounded rude.