What is so immoral about homosexuality?

[FallingPianos]

People keep saying its immoral, but I dont see anything immoral at all about it.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

It goes against the bible, which tells half this country how to live their lives.
For those of us that can figure it out on our own, it is not necessarily immoral.

that is all.

 

[Captain America]

I don't view it as immoral in the least. Live and let live, I say.

I view it more like......yuk.:shock:

I can't imagine a sweaty, boney, hairy legged man on top of me.

Eeee-yewwwwww..........

But that's just me.

But I can, however, imagine being a lesbian had I been born a woman. Women are soooooo nice to cuddle with.....amongst other things.:mrgreen:

 

[americanwoman]

I

I can't imagine a sweaty, boney, hairy legged man on top of me.

Eeee-yewwwwww..........

I think he would be a sweaty, boney, hairy legged man behind you .....


I don't think it's immoral because I truly think people are born gay. If God made them gay I guess he/she wouldn't think it's immoral.

 

[FallingPianos]

I can't imagine a sweaty, boney, hairy legged man on top of me.

Eeee-yewwwwww..........

men are such hypocrites.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

men are such hypocrites.

Not us well groomed metros.

Speaking of gayness, its not wrong and im not against it, but as Dave Chapelle so articulately put it:

"Gay people are gettin married ya'll! I love you dawg, I love you too dawg, yo lets get married dawg.. That s*** is gross!"

 

[Jerry]

People keep saying its immoral, but I dont see anything immoral at all about it.

What common measure shall we use to gauge morality in this discussion?

 

[Kelzie]

I don't view it as immoral in the least. Live and let live, I say.

I view it more like......yuk.:shock:

I can't imagine a sweaty, boney, hairy legged man on top of me.

Eeee-yewwwwww..........

But that's just me.

But I can, however, imagine being a lesbian had I been born a woman. Women are soooooo nice to cuddle with.....amongst other things.:mrgreen:

Really? I think that sounds rather nice. Except the "boney" part. Unless...you know, I'm just going to let that one go.:mrgreen:

 

[Sir_Alec]

I don't view it as immoral in the least. Live and let live, I say.

I view it more like......yuk.:shock:

I can't imagine a sweaty, boney, hairy legged man on top of me.

Eeee-yewwwwww..........

But that's just me.

I shave (more than my face), I shower daily, I work out, I wear anti-persperant, and my leg hair is fairly thin. I think you could make an acception for me.

But I can, however, imagine being a lesbian had I been born a woman. Women are soooooo nice to cuddle with.....amongst other things.:mrgreen:

Hypocrite.

 

[Captain America]

I shave (more than my face), I shower daily, I work out, I wear anti-persperant, and my leg hair is fairly thin. I think you could make an acception for me.

I tell yew wut....... I doubt that would attract me brother. Hairy legs....:shock: OMG!

But what I do like about you is your awesome sense of humor and the focused, grounded way you present yourself. You and I could party for hours. I have many friends from all walks of life. That is a character trait that many of them share as well.

Hypocrite

Guilty as charged but I plea insanity. I'm just crazy 'bout poonanny.
What can I say? It will be the death of me yet I am sure. Count your blessings bro.

 

[FallingPianos]

What common measure shall we use to gauge morality in this discussion?

I'm not looking for a common measure. I'm asking people what measure they use.

 

[FallingPianos]

Really? I think that sounds rather nice. Except the "boney" part. Unless...you know, I'm just going to let that one go.:mrgreen:

hmmm.... I'm not sure about the hairy part.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not looking for a common measure. I'm asking people what measure they use.

Oh, your looking for IMO's, okay.

IMO, a physiologically 'wired' sexual orientation itself is benign. It is neither moral nor immoral.

I would call a sexual orientation which comes not from physiological 'wiring', but from abuse, immaturity, or having chosen the sociopathic-sexist lifestyle of the Lesbian Feminist, immoral.

FYI: The bible does not say word one about sexual orientations, only actions.

 

[ProudAmerican]

I think the term immoral applies to those of us with a religious back ground that believe God created man and woman for a specific reason.

I think for those that dont believe in this religious purpose, the term unnatural would fit better.

 

[Thinker]

I think for those that dont believe in this religious purpose, the term unnatural would fit better.

Unfortunately, "unnatural" is a very weak term, as it can be interpreted in
enough ways to fit anyone's bias.

If something happens, for whatever reason, it has happened in nature and
can therefore be deemed natural.

Natural can be used as the opposite of man-made.

Does natural mean "usual" or "common"? Is left-handedness natural? What
percentage of a population needs a certain trait to make that trait natural?

My view is that morality is a mixture of personal and cultural ideas. One
person might think that letting someone live a life of constant suffering is moral
but allowing them to die would be immoral. Someone else might take the
exact opposite view.

Homosexuality or homosexual behaviour is not of itself moral or immoral. It
seems to me that the label immoral is applied by those who dislike it in order
to justify that dislike: what I do is moral and what you do is immoral.

 

[ngdawg]

I think the term immoral applies to those of us with a religious back ground that believe God created man and woman for a specific reason.

I think for those that dont believe in this religious purpose, the term unnatural would fit better.

Nah, 'unnatural' doesn't fit better for me. Unnatural has connotations of being 'made' artificially in some way. Homosexuality doesn't fit that; it's perfectly natural to those that are and most studies point toward it being an inherent or genetic trait as much as heterosexuality is.
It only becomes immoral when it is forced on someone not interested; in that vein, trying to force homosexuals to go straight would be just as immoral.

 

[ProudAmerican]

to me "natural" means the way nature clearly intended. we have oppossite sexes for one reason in nature. to pro create.

thats what is intended.

nature never intended for two people of the same sex to be together. if it had.....we would all simply be one sex and we would be able to create life through other means.

you can say "homosexuality is cearly natural to those that enguage in it" and thats fine. IMO, its not however the way things were intended for obvious reasons.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

to me "natural" means the way nature clearly intended. we have oppossite sexes for one reason in nature. to pro create.

thats what is intended.

nature never intended for two people of the same sex to be together. if it had.....we would all simply be one sex and we would be able to create life through other means.

you can say "homosexuality is cearly natural to those that enguage in it" and thats fine. IMO, its not however the way things were intended for obvious reasons.

Actually, unless you argue that homosexuality is a conscious choice, and a decision one makes, it is occurring naturally.

What's it gonna be?

 

[Thinker]

to me "natural" means the way nature clearly
intended. we have oppossite sexes for one reason in nature. to pro create.
thats what is intended.

I would be interested in finding out how you have an insight into what nature
"intends". I always thought nature was not sentient and therefore didn't
"intend" anything.

.....we would all simply be one sex and we would be able to create life
through other means.

As mammals continue to exist and as it appears that homosexuality is
common in many species, it follows that uniquely heterosexual behaviour
is not required to create enough life to propagate the species. No other
means is necessary. Life will go on and life will continue to generate
a healthy mixture of heterosexual and homosexual creatures.

 

[Jerry]

I would be interested in finding out how you have an insight into what nature
"intends". I always thought nature was not sentient and therefore didn't
"intend" anything.

As mammals continue to exist and as it appears that homosexuality is
common in many species, it follows that uniquely heterosexual behaviour
is not required to create enough life to propagate the species. No other
means is necessary. Life will go on and life will continue to generate
a healthy mixture of heterosexual and homosexual creatures.

If I may....

It's a Natural Law argument, and requires everyone to first have a common understanding of natural law premises, such as God and of a body of laws derived from the notion of a timeless order.

Basically, if you do not share a common understanding of natural law premises now, you will not accept a Natural Law argument.

 

[ProudAmerican]

As mammals continue to exist and as it appears that homosexuality is
common in many species, it follows that uniquely heterosexual behaviour
is not required to create enough life to propagate the species. No other
means is necessary. Life will go on and life will continue to generate
a healthy mixture of heterosexual and homosexual creatures.

I love this argument.

many species eat their young, and kill their mates after intercourse too.....does that mean its "natural" for humans to do it?

 

[Jerry]

I love this argument.

many species eat their young, and kill their mates after intercourse too.....does that mean its "natural" for humans to do it?

Yup. It sure does.

"But your Honor, the Praying Mantis and Black Widow kill their " partners" after sex......"

Anyone ever notice how God's commands direct us away from acting like animals and giving in to fleshly influences?

 

[Jay R]

I look at it like this. If there's a broadly equal number of men and women, we have a ratio of 1:1. If however, half those men are gay and would rather be with each other than women the ratio swings to 2:1 in favour of the heterosexual male, I have literally twice the girls to choose from!:smile:

Even better than that, broadly speaking gay guys seem to be good looking and well groomed specimins, exactly the kind of guys who might prove to be more tempting propostion for a young lady. So not only do I have more chances, I look like a more desireable catch too! Awesome!:smile:

Now then, there's the issue of lesbians. Theres a danger we'll lose valuable girls here. But no! As hetero guys are so often told, porn is just make believe!Hot lesbians are the rarest species on the planet! So we can afford to lose the lesbians, as it's only the bottom of the barrel that were being denied, and that'll be soaked up by our already increased ratio. Fantastic! And besides, even if they were hot they'll want kids one day, and who really trusts sperm donors right? Ex-convicts all of 'em.

Gay rights is swinging the game well and truly in the favour of the hetero male, and I for one have nothing but respect for men who love the c**k. More power to them, they're making the ultimate sacrifice, taking one for the team! Keep it up guys!:mrgreen:

(Moral or Immoral, they're just opinions people try to press upon others, I couldn't care less.)

 

[FallingPianos]

to me "natural" means the way nature clearly intended. we have oppossite sexes for one reason in nature. to pro create.

thats what is intended.

nature never intended for two people of the same sex to be together. if it had.....we would all simply be one sex and we would be able to create life through other means.

you can say "homosexuality is cearly natural to those that enguage in it" and thats fine. IMO, its not however the way things were intended for obvious reasons.

nature has no intentions. its not a living thinking being. it niether intended for homosexuality to exist or heterosexuality to exist.

at best, homosexuality is counter-intuitive to us with our current understanding of it and of evolution.

 

[Kelzie]

nature has no intentions. its not a living thinking being. it niether intended for homosexuality to exist or heterosexuality to exist.

at best, homosexuality is counter-intuitive to us with our current understanding of it and of evolution.

Not really. I've posted this before, but extremely fertile women have more homosexual sons. Could be some sort of population control to prevent exhaustion of resources. Much like when rabbits absorb their fetuses.