Homosexuality and Teens Having Sex

[Bottle]

But either way, I don't see a reason to draw the distinction making a child so much more special. By that I mean I see no reason why those rules of preference ought not apply.

So you see no reason that human beings shouldn't be treated like objects that you can pick up and discard on a whim?

All the more reason you should never be a parent.

If the self-awareness and sentience of a being doesn't impact how he treats that being, then I'd go a step further and say that he should never have reproductive contact with another human either. Because obviously "consent" will have no value to him.

[Sdaeriji]

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it.

And the boss IS made aware of it...the instant he started fucking an employee, there was a problem, and that's why there are rules against it.

Seriously, do you think corporations have these rules in place out of some kind of quaint moral habit? Of course they don't. They put these rules in place because they've got the same data set I have. The boss will always claim it's not going to be an issue, and it always is, and there's always a mess, and it's always going to cost, so why the hell should anybody put up with it?

When a boss is fucking his subordinate(s), it is a problem, and it interferes with the company's profits. When a professor is fucking his students, it is a problem, and it interferes with the value of the institution and its ability to attract new students. And so on.

In all honesty, I've only run into a few actual examples of abuse of power in a boss/subordinate sexual relationship. In fact, most seem to violently over-react to the appearance of impropriety by treating the employee in the sexual relationship more strictly than other employees. The real danger is that it almost immediately results in an extraordinarily hostile workplace. Other employees, not privy to private actions the way the management and HR are, instantly and automatically assume that there IS an abuse of power, and that the employee IS receiving special dispensation because of the relationship. This leads to resentment towards the employee and defiance towards the boss. The poisonous nature of a boss/subordinate relationship to co-workers is now the primary motivation to prohibiting them. The rules may have been instituted to prevent legitimate abuses of power, but they remain to prevent toxic workplace environments.

[Bottle]

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it.

And the boss IS made aware of it...the instant he started fucking an employee, there was a problem, and that's why there are rules against it.

Seriously, do you think corporations have these rules in place out of some kind of quaint moral habit? Of course they don't. They put these rules in place because they've got the same data set I have. The boss will always claim it's not going to be an issue, and it always is, and there's always a mess, and it's always going to cost, so why the hell should anybody put up with it?

When a boss is fucking his subordinate(s), it is a problem, and it interferes with the company's profits. When a professor is fucking his students, it is a problem, and it interferes with the value of the institution and its ability to attract new students. And so on.

In all honesty, I've only run into a few actual examples of abuse of power in a boss/subordinate sexual relationship. In fact, most seem to violently over-react to the appearance of impropriety by treating the employee in the sexual relationship more strictly than other employees. The real danger is that it almost immediately results in an extraordinarily hostile workplace. Other employees, not privy to private actions the way the management and HR are, instantly and automatically assume that there IS an abuse of power, and that the employee IS receiving special dispensation because of the relationship. This leads to resentment towards the employee and defiance towards the boss. The poisonous nature of a boss/subordinate relationship to co-workers is now the primary motivation to prohibiting them. The rules may have been instituted to prevent legitimate abuses of power, but they remain to prevent toxic workplace environments.

Precisely. I've seen it countless times, and, in every single case, the people who were fucking would insist it was totally no big deal, and it wasn't going to cause problems, and everyone should just be cool about it, and it always ended up being a trainwreck.

Every prof who wants to fuck his student will be quite sure that HE is far too rational and reasonable for it to cause problems. Every boss who is nailing her secretary will be quite sure that SHE is not going to let it cause problems in the work place. If you are a boss wanting to bone your subordinate then guess what? You're not special. You're no different from the endless stream of others who have been in your shoes. Get over yourself.

[Flameswroth]

But either way, I don't see a reason to draw the distinction making a child so much more special. By that I mean I see no reason why those rules of preference ought not apply.

So you see no reason that human beings shouldn't be treated like objects that you can pick up and discard on a whim?

All the more reason you should never be a parent.

If the self-awareness and sentience of a being doesn't impact how he treats that being, then I'd go a step further and say that he should never have reproductive contact with another human either. Because obviously "consent" will have no value to him.

See, to me that's a different animal, which I guess just goes to show how subjective the topic really is...or shows just how two faced and/or bigoted I am, whatever your flavor is. To me, there's a difference between meeting another person and getting consent to interact with them physically and a child I created who relies on my support and chooses to go against my wishes.

But that line I draw is just as arbitrary as any other, based solely on my personal opinion, so I won't declare it to be some sort of moral imperative or anything.

[Angleter]

If they had sex and weren't in a serious relationship (any sexuality), then I'd go apopleptic. Mostly because I like the word apopleptic, but this is what I'd say: "What the hell d'you think you're doing, going off and sleeping with any Tom/Thomasina, Dick/Fanny or Harry/Hetty before you have any idea what this person is like? Sex is a special thing- <sexual partner> is NOT special. Not until you've been out together for a few months, anyway. And did you use protection? And do you know if <sexual partner> has any diseases?"

Please note that a 'no' answer to either of the last two questions prolongs the bollocking. I'd make a brilliant father.

[Sdaeriji]

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it.

And the boss IS made aware of it...the instant he started fucking an employee, there was a problem, and that's why there are rules against it.

Seriously, do you think corporations have these rules in place out of some kind of quaint moral habit? Of course they don't. They put these rules in place because they've got the same data set I have. The boss will always claim it's not going to be an issue, and it always is, and there's always a mess, and it's always going to cost, so why the hell should anybody put up with it?

When a boss is fucking his subordinate(s), it is a problem, and it interferes with the company's profits. When a professor is fucking his students, it is a problem, and it interferes with the value of the institution and its ability to attract new students. And so on.

In all honesty, I've only run into a few actual examples of abuse of power in a boss/subordinate sexual relationship. In fact, most seem to violently over-react to the appearance of impropriety by treating the employee in the sexual relationship more strictly than other employees. The real danger is that it almost immediately results in an extraordinarily hostile workplace. Other employees, not privy to private actions the way the management and HR are, instantly and automatically assume that there IS an abuse of power, and that the employee IS receiving special dispensation because of the relationship. This leads to resentment towards the employee and defiance towards the boss. The poisonous nature of a boss/subordinate relationship to co-workers is now the primary motivation to prohibiting them. The rules may have been instituted to prevent legitimate abuses of power, but they remain to prevent toxic workplace environments.

Precisely. I've seen it countless times, and, in every single case, the people who were fucking would insist it was totally no big deal, and it wasn't going to cause problems, and everyone should just be cool about it, and it always ended up being a trainwreck.

Every prof who wants to fuck his student will be quite sure that HE is far too rational and reasonable for it to cause problems. Every boss who is nailing her secretary will be quite sure that SHE is not going to let it cause problems in the work place. If you are a boss wanting to bone your subordinate then guess what? You're not special. You're no different from the endless stream of others who have been in your shoes. Get over yourself.

If we could expect adults to act like adults in the workplace, then a lot of the time it actually would be no big deal. Often times, the people in the relationship are the only mature ones in the lot. Except in the rare cases of, "Show me your tits and you'll get a raise," the people involved in the relationship have usually avoided it for a very long time because of all the concerns over perceived impropriety.

The real problem comes from all the co-workers who are, for lack of a better word, jealous. Jealous of all the benefits they incorrectly think the subordinate in the relationship is getting. That jealousy ruins the workplace and causes most of the problems.

If only we could expect adults to act like adults about sex, instead of acting like 15 year olds.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Welcome to biblical morality, where asymmetric power relationships are a-okay but being in a consensual relationship with the wrong type of person is a horrendous sin, where violence is glorified and sexuality is demonized, where blind obedience is commended and thinking is condemned. The OT is not a book of morality. It is an exact inversion of all moral principles ever founded by any reasoned moral philosopher.

I can easily say that I, and almost every person on the planet for that matter, am far, far more ethically conscious than YHWH.

[Glorious Freedonia]

What question have I not answered?

You never gave a full response to my original question (in what way does homosexuality harm society), only stating that it was a "biblical crime." And no, the bible doesn't give me any more information about what harmful things it does. I checked.

If we take sin out of the picture, there is no harm that I am aware of. Can you think of any?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

How well did you know them? If you looked into their lives, you could probably find some amount of coercion or manipulation there.

Could you please prove the "All incest is coerced." theorem for us?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If we take sin out of the picture, there is no harm that I am aware of. Can you think of any?

So there's no tangible harm? Then, you are admitting that your morality is arbitrary and not based on any principles whatsoever. I therefore discard it as incoherent.

[Techno-Soviet]

If I found out my daughter was having sex with another girl, I'd be like...oookay and either live with it or politely confront her about it and have "the talk". Which option I choose depends on her age and her girlfriend's age. If she were like...12, I'd have a bit of a problem with it, but 14 or older I'd probably be okay with. Same if I ever have a son.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Incest is a totally different topic. For the record though, two members of the same family really love each other in that way, there's nothing you can really do to stop it. If you had no religion, would you still recoil at the thought of 'homosexuals'? It seems to me that you're just happily listening to what a few society-controlling anti-pacifists interpreted from a book that's been changed and translated more times than any other.

What society controlling anti-pacifists are you referring to?

Mourro, I never got an answer to this one.

I didn't see your question due to the amount of people trying to point out that you're wrong. I'll answer now. I'm referring to the various religious groups who try to suppress people, hence they control the society, and they condemn things as natural as one's sexuality, causing unnecessary tension between people, hence anti-pacifist. Reform Jews and even Conservative Jews radically reconsidered this 'homosexual' issue that has bothered the synagogue so much, and they are beginning to understand that love is not conditional and that a gay man or woman can actually contribute things to society. Are you going to criticise those Jews too?

Yes. First, they are confused if they think that female homosexuality was ever really considered sinful. It is only male homosexuality that is the problem. Each Jew has the obligation to determine what is right and what is wrong, but I do criticize any view that male homosexuality is not sinful and that accepting and tolerating it is not sinful either.

What an idiotic answer. Homosexual men are sinners but homosexual women are not? You don't make any sense at all. And if you're 'obligated' (again, language that suggests you're under control from thinking freely and rationally), have you ever asked yourself why? I'd like to take a guess that you were taught to think that way, but that school of thought is unfortunately rusty and baseless, which is why, thankfully, our good, well-minded society takes the lead and appreciates the virtues of freedom. There is no argument against this kind of freedom, lest you want to make people unhappy for your own deluded accord.

I do not make the rules. All I can suggest is that you try to at least find one area of your life to make holy. I choose sex.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I do not make the rules.

Nor, given your laughable defenses thus far, do you ever seem to think about them.

[Czardas]

What question have I not answered?

You never gave a full response to my original question (in what way does homosexuality harm society), only stating that it was a "biblical crime." And no, the bible doesn't give me any more information about what harmful things it does. I checked.

If we take sin out of the picture, there is no harm that I am aware of. Can you think of any?

If we leave sin in the picture: what harm does this specific sin do to society (as opposed to merely the eternal futures of the people engaging in it)? I understood that, unless some justification for temporal punishment was offered (eg your sin of theft has deprived some guy of his car), your sins were generally between you, your priest/rabbi/imam/spiritual advisor/whatever, and God.

Do you know the justification for why this particular behavior is considered sinful?

[Nercer -]

Something I've been thinking about recently.

In general, most parents will disapprove of their teenage kids having sex. The most common reasons outside of religion are:
- Risk of pregnancy
- Risk of STDs
- Not emotionally mature enough

Here's my question - what happens when you throw homosexuality into the mix?

If your gay son has sex with his boyfriend, there is no risk of pregnancy (despite what fanfic says).

How would you react if you found out your gay teenage child was having sex, assuming you already knew he/she was gay?

EDIT: Turns out lesbians CAN transmit STDs. They just have a much lower rate of it.

I never did get the whole teens are to immature to have sex thing. No one has any problem with them working minimum wage jobs to keep the dominating capitalist system going and paying taxes. Nor does anyone have a problem with teenage boys being sent off to fight and die in wars of imperialism, but if teens want to have "adult" freedoms and try something such as having sex everybody's like "Whoa, kid, you're too young for this!" America is such a weird country . . .

That is all, as you were

[Techno-Soviet]

Something I've been thinking about recently.

In general, most parents will disapprove of their teenage kids having sex. The most common reasons outside of religion are:
- Risk of pregnancy
- Risk of STDs
- Not emotionally mature enough

Here's my question - what happens when you throw homosexuality into the mix?

If your gay son has sex with his boyfriend, there is no risk of pregnancy (despite what fanfic says).

How would you react if you found out your gay teenage child was having sex, assuming you already knew he/she was gay?

EDIT: Turns out lesbians CAN transmit STDs. They just have a much lower rate of it.

I never did get the whole teens are to immature to have sex thing. No one has any problem with them working minimum wage jobs to keep the dominating capitalist system going and paying taxes. Nor does anyone have a problem with teenage boys being sent off to fight and die in wars of imperialism, but if teens want to have "adult" freedoms and try something such as having sex everybody's like "Whoa, kid, you're too young for this!" America is such a weird country . . .

That is all, as you were

I don't see what you're trying to say. The age of consent in my state is 17; I can join the Army at 17 (I am in the Army) and I can work at 16.

I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

[Caine Isle]

Both are intollerable unmoral acts and should be punished with death.

[Glorious Freedonia]

Who cares? Students are not competing against each other. They are simply trying to learn. Even if they are competing with each other, getting extra teaching time is probably something that is available to the others. When I was in college I took advantage of the fact that my profs (I never slept with one btw) had time in their schedules for students to come and meet with them outside of class to get extra help.

You seem to act like life is a perfectly fair game where we are all competing against each other. Often, it is much more lonely than that. It is about each of us trying to be the best that we can be. We try to be good not to be better than the other guy but simply to be the best that we can be. That is certainly the case with education if you are going about it right.

The other students care, obviously. They're paying the same amount of money as the student who's fucking the teacher, but they're getting less education. The student who's fucking the teacher has an advantage over the other students when it comes to tests and quizzes and the material in general. There's also the likelihood that the professor will grade the student more advantageously just because the professor likes that student more (hence the fucking). There is an enormous difference between a student who visits the professor at every single office hour to get a leg up on the test (an advantage all students share) and a student who gets a quiz cram session following some midnight fellatio (an advantage not all students share). You're being deliberately obtuse to avoid recognizing this very transparent disparity.

You're fooling yourself if you think college isn't a competition. It's a competition with yourself to get as high grades as you can, and it's a competition between students for prospective future employment. And the concept behind it is that it is inherently fair, and all determinations made based upon it are made solely based on their intellectual abilities, and nothing more. You're naive to think that you're not constantly competing against your co-workers, as well. You may think that you have a mutually beneficial relationship, and you probably do, but always keep in mind that your boss will only have so much money to give out in raises, only so many opportunities to promote, and is always on the look out for new talent. To treat it as anything other than a competition is a disservice.

A student's job is to learn. The students are not their to compete with each other. We must each strive to learn as much as we can. It is why we have brains. Fucking the person who is helping you learn does not compromise the learning. Anything else is just jealousy. People need to be free to be attracted to smart people and have sex with them. If your professor never slept with you do not be jealous and say there is something wrong with the student who slept with him/her.

Your obsession with grades is a little vulgar. If someone learns well, they hopefully will get good grades. Grades are not the goal, learning is. That is why it is called education and not grade distribution or assessment.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Both are intollerable unmoral acts and should be punished with death.

Earlier you indicated, possibly because your grammar sucks, that you thought everyone in existence deserves death. After saying that, the sting of claiming homosexuals deserve death kinda vanishes entirely. Fail troll is fail. And if you're not a troll, fail human is fail.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

A student's job is to learn. The students are not their to compete with each other. We must each strive to learn as much as we can. It is why we have brains. Fucking the person who is helping you learn does not compromise the learning. Anything else is just jealousy. People need to be free to be attracted to smart people and have sex with them. If your professor never slept with you do not be jealous and say there is something wrong with the student who slept with him/her.

Your obsession with grades is a little vulgar. If someone learns well, they hopefully will get good grades. Grades are not the goal, learning is. That is why it is called education and not grade distribution or assessment.

I know you're a bit reality challenged, so allow me to explain it to you. I actually do want to learn in school. However, I need to get the grades because my ability to go further in education depends on them. Welcome to Earth.

[Maskharah]

Both are intollerable unmoral acts and should be punished with death.

Agreed with the Caine Isle, no batty riders will be breathing on the shores of our isles.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Agreed with the Caine Isle, no batty riders will be breathing on the shores of our isles.

Obvious puppet is obvious.

[Sdaeriji]

Who cares? Students are not competing against each other. They are simply trying to learn. Even if they are competing with each other, getting extra teaching time is probably something that is available to the others. When I was in college I took advantage of the fact that my profs (I never slept with one btw) had time in their schedules for students to come and meet with them outside of class to get extra help.

You seem to act like life is a perfectly fair game where we are all competing against each other. Often, it is much more lonely than that. It is about each of us trying to be the best that we can be. We try to be good not to be better than the other guy but simply to be the best that we can be. That is certainly the case with education if you are going about it right.

The other students care, obviously. They're paying the same amount of money as the student who's fucking the teacher, but they're getting less education. The student who's fucking the teacher has an advantage over the other students when it comes to tests and quizzes and the material in general. There's also the likelihood that the professor will grade the student more advantageously just because the professor likes that student more (hence the fucking). There is an enormous difference between a student who visits the professor at every single office hour to get a leg up on the test (an advantage all students share) and a student who gets a quiz cram session following some midnight fellatio (an advantage not all students share). You're being deliberately obtuse to avoid recognizing this very transparent disparity.

You're fooling yourself if you think college isn't a competition. It's a competition with yourself to get as high grades as you can, and it's a competition between students for prospective future employment. And the concept behind it is that it is inherently fair, and all determinations made based upon it are made solely based on their intellectual abilities, and nothing more. You're naive to think that you're not constantly competing against your co-workers, as well. You may think that you have a mutually beneficial relationship, and you probably do, but always keep in mind that your boss will only have so much money to give out in raises, only so many opportunities to promote, and is always on the look out for new talent. To treat it as anything other than a competition is a disservice.

A student's job is to learn. The students are not their to compete with each other. We must each strive to learn as much as we can. It is why we have brains. Fucking the person who is helping you learn does not compromise the learning. Anything else is just jealousy. People need to be free to be attracted to smart people and have sex with them. If your professor never slept with you do not be jealous and say there is something wrong with the student who slept with him/her.

Your obsession with grades is a little vulgar. If someone learns well, they hopefully will get good grades. Grades are not the goal, learning is. That is why it is called education and not grade distribution or assessment.

You conclusively fail to address a single point of my argument. When you're willing to have an honest discussion instead of alluding to some fantastical jealousy on my part for never having boned a professor, let me know. Until then, troll troll is troll.

[Glorious Freedonia]

If it becomes a problem the boss should me made aware of it.

And the boss IS made aware of it...the instant he started fucking an employee, there was a problem, and that's why there are rules against it.

Seriously, do you think corporations have these rules in place out of some kind of quaint moral habit? Of course they don't. They put these rules in place because they've got the same data set I have. The boss will always claim it's not going to be an issue, and it always is, and there's always a mess, and it's always going to cost, so why the hell should anybody put up with it?

When a boss is fucking his subordinate(s), it is a problem, and it interferes with the company's profits. When a professor is fucking his students, it is a problem, and it interferes with the value of the institution and its ability to attract new students. And so on.

As soon as I hear the word "power" use in reference to sex, it makes me think that the person talking that way is a feminist. There is little or no truth that I recognize in that revolting philosophy advocated by the likes of one Gloria Stein who was not concerned with truth but concerned with power. Accordingly, it is hard to take any of that stuff seriously. I will choose cupid over a feminist any day of the week.

[Ifreann]

Both are intollerable unmoral acts and should be punished with death.

Agreed with the Caine Isle, no batty riders will be breathing on the shores of our isles.

Obvious puppet is

Agreed with the Caine Isle, no batty riders will be breathing on the shores of our isles.

Obvious puppet is obvious.

Damn it!