Why is homosexuality wrong?

[Divair]

Morality is subjective and irrelevant.

Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral.

OK? Congratulations? Talk about randomly derailing the conversation.

[Objectiveland]

Objectively: "A person who by nature, rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral (just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se."

If you're going to quote, please link to the source material, or give appropriate attribution if a link is not possible.

why? If one wants to find it they can very easily. see you did.

[The Grand District]

Ivory record, God is all three of what you posted. He is perfect. The devil caused sin. God has something more wonderful than any living person can describe. Its called Heaven. Despite sin, God forgives us if you believe and have faith in Him. He knows people will sin and thats why he has a plan for them. The battle between the Devil and God has been fought and won by God. He is everything good and righteous. Have faith and know of all the Wonders that come from Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God.

[Zottistan]

Because God made the world for one Woman and one Man to be together and reproduce. He does not want man and man or woman and woman couples. But, although as a Christian i do not approve of homosexuality, i (and other Christians out there) must tolerate that people will be gay because of sin. Approval and Tolerance are two very different words.

Yeah. Because God. There's an argument nobody's heard before.

I've found OCD to be handy several times. My "compulsion" is that if numbers aren't aligned by value, or figures by size, I can't stop fidgeting with it. It sucks when I'm looking at raw data, but my bosses love me for how well I organize things. They've accepted that I'm "different", and they allow me the time to make sure things are perfect.

Lucky you. I just spend around twenty minutes a day making sure the chairs and carpet line up with the floorboards and trying to make sure the chess pieces sit bang-smack in the middle of the square. If things have a straight edge, they must line up or I won't be able to focus on anything else. big things must never be on top of smaller things, and edges must always run parallel to eachother. Now, if only there was a practical use for any of that.

[Free South Califas]

You just won [ warn]a three day ban[ /warn]. Keep it up and you'll win an all expense paid trip back to the nation creation page.

Ummm, please explain to me how posting that homosexuality is something that needs to be cured...is not flamebaiting?

I'm having trouble making heads or tails of that, as well. If Jewish heritage, or genetic predispositions to developmental disorders, were portrayed as something that needs to be cured, I would like to think that this would be seen as flamebaiting. (Nazi flamebaiting, but that's another story )

[Divair]

-religious preaching-

*Yawn*


This is getting repetitive.

[Farnhamia]

-religious preaching-

*Yawn*


This is getting repetitive.

Getting?

[Objectiveland]

Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral.

OK? Congratulations? Talk about randomly derailing the conversation.

Sorry wasn't trying to but several people seemed to indicate my views were inconsistent so I was explaining. If you were not one of them I apologize.

[Divair]

*Yawn*


This is getting repetitive.

Getting?

True. It has always been and will always be repetitive.


Until religion shrinks and disappears.
*crosses fingers*

[The Emerald Dawn]

Because God made the world for one Woman and one Man to be together and reproduce. He does not want man and man or woman and woman couples. But, although as a Christian i do not approve of homosexuality, i (and other Christians out there) must tolerate that people will be gay because of sin. Approval and Tolerance are two very different words.

Yeah. Because God. There's an argument nobody's heard before.

I've found OCD to be handy several times. My "compulsion" is that if numbers aren't aligned by value, or figures by size, I can't stop fidgeting with it. It sucks when I'm looking at raw data, but my bosses love me for how well I organize things. They've accepted that I'm "different", and they allow me the time to make sure things are perfect.

Lucky you. I just spend around twenty minutes a day making sure the chairs and carpet line up with the floorboards and trying to make sure the chess pieces sit bang-smack in the middle of the square. If things have a straight edge, they must line up or I won't be able to focus on anything else. big things must never be on top of smaller things, and edges must always run parallel to eachother. Now, if only there was a practical use for any of that.

I don't disagree that it can be bad. I'm not trying to make light of it, trust me. I'm just trying to point out that calling it a universal ill to be considered a fundamental flaw is kind of...demeaning.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you're going to quote, please link to the source material, or give appropriate attribution if a link is not possible.

why? If one wants to find it they can very easily. see you did.

You don't understand why it's considered necessary to provide links, sources, and necessary attribution on your own?

Have you ever written an essay that required research for school?

[The Emerald Dawn]

If you're going to quote, please link to the source material, or give appropriate attribution if a link is not possible.

why? If one wants to find it they can very easily. see you did.

Because it is intellectually dishonest, and ethically bankrupt to do otherwise.

Quotation without citation is called plagiarism. It's bad form.

[Raeyh]

Objectively: "A person who by nature, rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral (just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se."

I would give someone the benefit of a doubt that when they are involved in a homosexual relationship that they are acting in accordance to their nature rather than against it.

[Zottistan]

Yeah. Because God. There's an argument nobody's heard before.
Lucky you. I just spend around twenty minutes a day making sure the chairs and carpet line up with the floorboards and trying to make sure the chess pieces sit bang-smack in the middle of the square. If things have a straight edge, they must line up or I won't be able to focus on anything else. big things must never be on top of smaller things, and edges must always run parallel to eachother. Now, if only there was a practical use for any of that.

I don't disagree that it can be bad. I'm not trying to make light of it, trust me. I'm just trying to point out that calling it a universal ill to be considered a fundamental flaw is kind of...demeaning.

Well, nothing psychological is universal. The whole study of analytical psychology is just categorization and subcategorization of behaviours.

[Ivory Record]

Ivory record, God is all three of what you posted. He is perfect. The devil caused sin. God has something more wonderful than any living person can describe. Its called Heaven. Despite sin, God forgives us if you believe and have faith in Him. He knows people will sin and thats why he has a plan for them. The battle between the Devil and God has been fought and won by God. He is everything good and righteous. Have faith and know of all the Wonders that come from Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God.

Well, ignoring the fact we're arguing about the unknowable, he can't be all three of what I posted. If he is truly powerful, the devil could not have caused sin, unless he allowed the Devil to cause sin, in which case he is not truly good, unless his giving humans free will gave them the ability to fall victim to sin, in which case he is not truly wise.

Or, we can buck up, take responsibility for our own reality, and try to solve the problem in the way the OP framed it, rather than dressing up our biases (intellectual or otherwise) in religious dogma.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I don't disagree that it can be bad. I'm not trying to make light of it, trust me. I'm just trying to point out that calling it a universal ill to be considered a fundamental flaw is kind of...demeaning.

Well, nothing psychological is universal. The whole study of analytical psychology is just categorization and subcategorization of behaviours.

And then subcategorizing the subcategories.

I've read the writeup on Schizophrenia, the appendix has an appendix.

[Objectiveland]

Exactly.

Again, the opposite of my point. I'm saying I'm happy with being gay and autistic but having OCD sucks.

Objectively: "A person who by nature, rather than by choice, is more attracted to members of the same sex than the opposite sex still has the choice to recognize and act in accordance with this fact or to repress or act against it. If a person wishes to achieve happiness and promote his life, then he must, in a realm as morally important as sex, act in accordance with his nature. For example, it is morally right for a woman whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a woman she loves and desires. In contrast, it is morally wrong for a man whose nature it is to be sexually attracted to women rather than men to become romantically involved with a man rather than seeking out a woman. So there are contexts in which homosexual behavior is immoral (just as there are contexts in which heterosexual behavior is immoral), but there is nothing immoral about homosexuality per se."

How do you know the difference between someone who's homosexual by nature and someone who does stuff with the same sex but isn't a "real homosexual"?

I wouldn't. But the person acting in accordance with their nature would know.

[Farnhamia]

why? If one wants to find it they can very easily. see you did.

Because it is intellectually dishonest, and ethically bankrupt to do otherwise.

Quotation without citation is called plagiarism. It's bad form.

Well, he did put it in quotes, and I never got the impression he was trying to pass it off as an original thought. It is, however, impolite to ignore the unwritten rule about providing sources.

[Southern Jasperia]

I love dick and I tend to be a pretty nice guy.

Wuss wrong with that?

:braceself:

[Divair]

I love dick and I tend to be a pretty nice guy.

Wuss wrong with that?

:braceself:

Nothing.

[Southern Jasperia]

I love dick and I tend to be a pretty nice guy.

Wuss wrong with that?

:braceself:

Nothing.

[Northern Dominus]

Because it is intellectually dishonest, and ethically bankrupt to do otherwise.

Quotation without citation is called plagiarism. It's bad form.

Well, he did put it in quotes, and I never got the impression he was trying to pass it off as an original thought. It is, however, impolite to ignore the unwritten rule about providing sources.

This is Objectivism. Plagarism is allowed if you're strong enough, just as subjugation and oppression of LGBT humans is ok too under that theory.

I love dick and I tend to be a pretty nice guy.

Wuss wrong with that?

:braceself:

What's wrong with that? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT'S WRONG!!!!!...

Absolutely nothing. Hell if I knew you I probably would be trying to set you up with one of my gay/bisexual friends who are single at the moment.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I love dick and I tend to be a pretty nice guy.

Wuss wrong with that?

:braceself:

The first is of no more relevance to me as a person than whether or not you like pistachio ice cream or not.

The second is relevant to me, but in a positive manner.

So...nothing. In fact, there's everything right with it.

[Objectiveland]

why? If one wants to find it they can very easily. see you did.

You don't understand why it's considered necessary to provide links, sources, and necessary attribution on your own?

Have you ever written an essay that required research for school?

It was in quotes so I obviously wasn't trying to steal anything. Quotes are provided in publishing context to give credit and allow follow up research. This is the internet, it takes two seconds to look it up if you want too (just like in a real book I assume you don't look up every footnote). Either way I don't care if you look it up on not.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I love dick and I tend to be a pretty nice guy.

Wuss wrong with that?

:braceself:

The first is of no more relevance to me as a person than whether or not you like pistachio ice cream or not.

The second is relevant to me, but in a positive manner.

So...nothing. In fact, there's everything right with it.

PEOPLE WHO LOVE PISTACHIO ICE CREAM SHALL BURN IN EVERLASTING DAMNATION.