Human Sexuality

[Dark Moth]

What does choosing a path have to do with whether men having sex with men being okay makes people having sex with children okay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I misinterpreted your question. Granted, the child is not always unwilling, (although the vast majority is) I've read about a 12 year old girl who routinely had sex with older men willingly (before she was tragically killed) The point I'm making is if something supposedly unnatural is okay, where do you draw the line? How do you know what's okay and what's not? You can't always say love justifies everything, because Michael Jackson apparently loved those young boys yet it would still be considered unacceptable, regardless if they were willing or not.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[Lucius]

You simply can't compare the two because one is illegal and damaging, the other is not.

[cewekeds]

Last I check Michael Jackson was never found guilty to having sex with kids.

Was it unatural a 100 years ago when 30-35 year old men where marrying 12-13 year old girls? You claimed you disagree with the homosexuality lifestyle but what does that mean and what parts?

[Reveilled]

What does choosing a path have to do with whether men having sex with men being okay makes people having sex with children okay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I misinterpreted your question. Granted, the child is not always unwilling, (although the vast majority is) I've read about a 12 year old girl who routinely had sex with older men (before she was tragically killed) The point I'm making is if something supposedly unnatural is okay, where do you draw the line? How do you know what's okay and what's not? You can't always say love justifies everything, because Michael Jackson apparently loved those young boys yet it would still be considered unacceptable, regardless if they were willing or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, the line is quite easy. Consent. If two or more people consent to performing an activity, then that is no one's business but their own. Children are not capable of making an informed decision with regard to sexual activity, so they cannot consent to it. Therefore any sexual activity performed with them is a form of rape.

 

I don't see the slippery slope. Look at something else Children can't do. Voting for instance. Where do you draw the line? How do you know who should be allowed to vote? I mean, if you start letting the poor or the women vote, how do you know that letting kids vote is a bad idea? Yet which countries that accepted universal sufferage ended up letting the kids vote? Historically, we seem to have had no trouble at all defining children as special cases under the law. They have different protections and diferent rights. The same holds true here for sexual consent.

[Lucius]

What does choosing a path have to do with whether men having sex with men being okay makes people having sex with children okay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I misinterpreted your question. Granted, the child is not always unwilling, (although the vast majority is) I've read about a 12 year old girl who routinely had sex with older men (before she was tragically killed) The point I'm making is if something supposedly unnatural is okay, where do you draw the line? How do you know what's okay and what's not? You can't always say love justifies everything, because Michael Jackson apparently loved those young boys yet it would still be considered unacceptable, regardless if they were willing or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, the line is quite easy. Consent. If two or more people consent to performing an activity, then that is no one's business but their own. Children are not capable of making an informed decision with regard to sexual activity, so they cannot consent to it. Therefore any sexual activity performed with them is a form of rape.

 

I don't see the slippery slope. Look at something else Children can't do. Voting for instance. Where do you draw the line? How do you know who should be allowed to vote? I mean, if you start letting the poor or the women vote, how do you know that letting kids vote is a bad idea? Yet which countries that accepted universal sufferage ended up letting the kids vote? Historically, we seem to have had no trouble at all defining children as special cases under the law. They have different protections and diferent rights. The same holds true here for sexual consent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said.

[Dark Moth]

Even if you disregard consent, it still would be considred immoral. Why? Because of the age difference and the skewing of social standards. Even if you exclude the example of adultxchild relations, you cannot argue that men were ever meant to have sex with other men; the same goes for women. It is not natural. That is why I disagree with same sex relations. It is a particular lifestyle I am not comfortable with, but that does not mean I am bigotted or hateful towards them. I am sure you might disagree with the way some people live, but you don't persecute them or discriminate against them.

[Lucius]

It's not 'natural' to sit here and type on an internet forum, either, or driving a car at 120 km/s, when we ought to be outside hunting for food. There's a lot of stuff that isn't 'natural' when you define nature in the way you do, which is "what we humans were created to do".

[Reveilled]

Even if you disregard consent, it still would be considred immoral.  Why?  Because of the age difference and the skewing of social standards.  Even if you exclude the example of adultxchild relations, you cannot argue that men were ever meant to have sex with other men; the same goes for women.  It is not natural.  That is why I disagree with same sex relations.  It is a particular lifestyle I am not comfortable with, but that does not mean I am bigotted or hateful towards them.  I am sure you might disagree with the way some people live, but you don't persecute them or discriminate against them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What does whether it's natural or not have to do with anything? Man was not meant to wear synthetic fibers, fly, or invent the internal conbustion engine; none of them are natural. Monogamy arguably isn't natural, either. Divinely Inspired books certainly aren't natural (since they're of supernatural origin in part).

 

Personally, I find the idea of homosexual sex extremely disgusting, but just because I think it's disgusting doesn't mean I think it's wrong. I think black coffee's disgusting too. I certainly don't disagree with the way a homosexual person chooses to live their life.

[Dark Moth]

It's not 'natural' to sit here and type on an internet forum, either, or driving a car at 120 km/s, when we ought to be outside hunting for food. There's a lot of stuff that isn't 'natural' when you define nature in the way you do, which is "what we humans were created to do".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that's not how I define "natural". And you can't say that human beings aren't meant for any of those things. It's natural for humans to develop technologies to better themselves and ensure their suvival. That is one of our instincts of self-preservation and species-preservation (that is also granting we don't destroy the planet in the process). Sexual relations is a different thing. Instead of saying "it's not natural" I should have said that it is not an agreeable mindset, in my opinion.

 

And I am not going to stop homosexuals from living their lives. I merely stated in the first place that I disagreed with it. Is that a crime? This is not much different than, say, if I disagreed with someone's politics. I am merely disagreeing with what some see as acceptable and others don't.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[Lucius]

That's exactly right, you aren't meant for any of those things, you're an animal, albeit a smart one, our species wasn't put here by some divine intervention in the form of just two people, you know.

[Reveilled]

It's not 'natural' to sit here and type on an internet forum, either, or driving a car at 120 km/s, when we ought to be outside hunting for food. There's a lot of stuff that isn't 'natural' when you define nature in the way you do, which is "what we humans were created to do".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that's not how I define "natural". And you can't say that human beings aren't meant for any of those things. It's natural for humans to develop technologies to better themselves and ensure their suvival. That is one of our instincts of self-preservation and species-preservation (that is also granting we don't destroy the planet in the process). Sexual relations is a different thing. Instead of saying "it's not natural" I should have said that it is not an agreeable mindset, in my opinion.

 

And I am not going to stop homosexuals from living their lives. I merely stated in the first place that I disagreed with it. Is that a crime? This is not much different than, say, if I disagreed with someone's politics. I am merely disagreeing with what some see as acceptable and others don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But why do you care what one man chooses to do with another constenting man? If you aren't involved in it, and no one's rights are being violated, why do you feel the need to have an opinion on whether it is right or not?

[Magena]

But why do you care what one man chooses to do with another constenting man?  If you aren't involved in it, and no one's rights are being violated, why do you feel the need to have an opinion on whether it is right or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Ya know, that is one argument I keep using.

 

I do find it funny though that most of the men that I know who are severely homophobic seem to think that the idea of (watching) two women going at it is truly acceptable.

 

I am actually more worried about the number of people who are serial monogomists or who don't even subscribe to the monogamy idea at all, and have sex with just about anyone at any time. We have some pretty deadly things out there that get transmitted via sexual contact and yet it society still thinks of guys as studs if they can bag numerous babes (or dudes) in any given month. - of course women who do the same are considered Ho's, but hey, no one said it needed to make sense.

[Dark Moth]

Well, I'm sure you do things that hurt no one that people disagree with it. The same situation applies here. I disagree with it, and since I do happen to believe in God, I disagree with Lucius's statement. And I'm not a conservative Bible-thumper either. But you see, that is what this is here: a clash of beliefs. And it's really pointless to argue here any further, cause we're not going to change each others' beliefs here anyway.

 

Edit: Actually, I take it back cause arguing is what this thread is here for. Gotta love these controversial threads.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[Reveilled]

Well, I'm sure you do things that hurt no one that people disagree with it.  The same situation applies here.  I disagree with it, and since I do happen to believe in God, I disagree with Lucius's statement.  And I'm not a conservative Bible-thumper either.  But you see, that is what this is here: a clash of beliefs.  And it's really pointless to argue here any further, cause we're not going to change each others' beliefs here anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Okay, just one final question, then:

 

Why do you assume that just because God has an opinion on this subject, that his is correct? If you're not a sheep blindly following a book, as you say, don't you ever think that he might be wrong?

[Dark Moth]

Well, if God created this world, created his rules and laws, gave us our very lives, and is omnipowerful, than I guess I would be compelled to obey his rules, I guess. Even though I'm not that good at it.

 

The three O's of God for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are:

Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnipresent (everywhere) Omnipowerful (all-powerful)

 

To quote the Bible: Even the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man. (basically that's what it says)

[Reveilled]

Well, if God created this world, created his rules and laws, gave us our very lives, and is omnipowerful, than I guess I would be compelled to obey his rules, I guess.    Even though I'm not that good at it. 

 

The three O's of God for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are:

Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnipresent (everywhere) Omnipowerful (all-powerful)

 

To quote the Bible: Even the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.  (basically that's what it says)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See, that strikes me as a rather strange position to take. Of course, seeing as I believe the creator of the universe is none of those O's, and would think we were rather missing the point of it all if we blindly followed her rules, I doubt we'd agree on this. All I'll say is that you're wrong about the nature of God. "

 

I always thought one of the most positive views of the relation between man and god was this Nietzsche quote:

"Companions, the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators, the creator seeks -- those who write new values on new tablets. Companions, the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest."

Would a creator give us all this intelligence and knowledge of good and evil if s/he didn't expect us to come up with our own definition of morality?

 

 

We're getting a bit off topic here, though...

[metadigital]

I hate when hypocritic religious people say stuff like "I respect them and accept them, but they're wrong". So who is actually wrong here? The gay person loving his partner without bothering anyone (and definitely not judging anyone), or the religious person saying someone else is "wrong" (whatever that means) because a 2000 year old book says it's wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since I'm sure you had me in mind, I'll answer this for you. Well, when you believe a 2000 year-old book is divinely inspired, then yes you do tend to obey what it says. Besides, if it's okay for a man to love a man (and I mean passion love, not brotherly love), then would you say it's okay for a man (or woman) of mature age to love a young boy or girl? Michael Jackson would certainly agree.

 

Are you seriously comparing Homosexuality to Pedophilia? Are you aware of the difference between two adults having consensual sex, and one adult having sex with someone who does not have the ability to consent?

 

If it's okay for a man to love (and in this case I mean love in the having sex sense) a woman, then would you say it's okay for a man (or woman) to love another man or woman against their will?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[1]Many gay people end up going straight. Some people might think they're gay or straight, only to turn out not being that way. Granted, it's not that way for all of them. Of course it's not okay for someone to love someone against their will, but in this case, it's choosing the path that is more gratifying.

 

[2]@ Lucius: If you believe in God and that God is eternal and that the Bible is his/her/its word, then of course you would obey the entity that created the Earth. I am not a conservative Christian, I'm more moderate, but I still hold to many of the lessons taught by the Bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Great statistical analysis, there. You've convinced me! /sarcasm

You sound like someone who has never even (knowlingly) met a "dirty, confused" homosexual.

 

2. You reek of uninformed bigotry, based on "divine guidance". Sounds like you are more fundamentalist than you even realise. Why don't you go out and walk a mile in their shoes, before casting that first stone, Mr Glasshouse?

[metadigital]

Even if you disregard consent, it still would be considred immoral.  Why?  Because of the age difference and the skewing of social standards.  Even if you exclude the example of adultxchild relations, you cannot argue that men were ever meant to have sex with other men; the same goes for women.  It is not natural.  That is why I disagree with same sex relations.  It is a particular lifestyle I am not comfortable with, but that does not mean I am bigotted or hateful towards them.  I am sure you might disagree with the way some people live, but you don't persecute them or discriminate against them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are actively discriminating against them, you are a bigot. Read what you just wrote, and replace the homosexual references with racial ones: you wouldn't dare post that, would you? (Or would you?)

[metadigital]

Well, if God created this world, created his rules and laws, gave us our very lives, and is omnipowerful, than I guess I would be compelled to obey his rules, I guess.    Even though I'm not that good at it. 

 

The three O's of God for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are:

Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnipresent (everywhere) Omnipowerful (all-powerful)

 

To quote the Bible: Even the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.  (basically that's what it says)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are completely ignoring the blatant contradictions written in the Bible. Or is that down to the infallibility of man, interpreting the sacred word of your God?

 

I hate arguing with Christians, because most of them are too stupid to recognise when they are wrong. I have nothing against faith; but blind faith is for idiots. You are an idiot.

[Dark Moth]

 

Well, once you learn the difference between race and lifestyle, I'll get back to you. And I'm not discriminating against them. Look up discrimination in your beloved online-dictionary.

 

I don't treat homosexuals any differently. Crap, I know some in real life. I don't hate them or treat them any differently than I would a straight person. That would be being bigoted; that would be discriminating . All I merely stated in the first place was that I disagree with it, and suddenly that makes me a bigot, racist, zealot, narrow-minded person, nazi, whatever you want to call me. I disagree with polygamy, too. Does that make me a bigot or racist or hypocrite?

 

Nice to see you're so mature you have to call people names. To quote what you told me once "you resorted to the last bastion of the illiterate: the insult". And I never called them dirty or confused. You're putting words into my mouth, oh-so-mature metadigital. Please leave if you can't argue in a mature fashion or stop insulting others whom you disagree with.

 

Crap, now you're discriminating against me cause I'm a Christian. You can't seem to tolerate people of differing opinions. Hypocrite.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[Magena]

Well, if God created this world, created his rules and laws, gave us our very lives, and is omnipowerful, than I guess I would be compelled to obey his rules, I guess.    Even though I'm not that good at it. 

 

The three O's of God for Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are:

Omniscient (all-knowing) Omnipresent (everywhere) Omnipowerful (all-powerful)

 

To quote the Bible: Even the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man.  (basically that's what it says)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know this is off topic from the start of the thread, but I figured I would pipe in about this before the thread gets closed down for derailment.

 

If I thought that everything said in the King James bible was truly the word of God, then I would be more willing to agree the opinions in the bible, but I know that not only the KJB but other versions of it have always had a strong influence on what the church wanted (or the king wanted society to think) that I have problems with the idea that there could be that against what God would allow. - since sometimes it is as much biological as anything else.

 

That doesn't mean that I think abusive people should be allowed to abuse just anyone - though of course there are options there for those who choose to look - and yes there are often chemical imballances - sometimes drugs fix these, sometimes they don't or only make the situation worse - but human sexuality is something that has been under investigation for very few years comparitively. I'm not talking about things like breeding or those aspects of sexuality, rather those aspects that are in the brain.

 

It's true that people who feel they are homosexual don't go through the same psychological eval's as those who feel they were born into the wrong sex, but then again, I don't see the need. - if we are going to start going that far as to have sext therapists to tell people if they should be homosexual or heterosexual, then we definately need testing before people can start having kids (I mean the ones having the kids, not just testing before the kids get confused by the fact that Dad use to be married to Mom, but now is married to Frank.

[Dark Moth]

Just don't forget, the KJV is not the "official" Holy Bible, nor was it even the first English bible. it's just one popular version among many. King James merely supervised the translation of the Bible into English. Also, the Bible is a collection of books written by many different authors over hundreds of years. In fact, the original languages of the OT were Hebrew/Aramaic while the NT was originally in Greek. If you already know that, then my bad.

 

And thank you for arguing in a non-abusive manner. See, metadigital? It's not so hard.

Edited July 24, 2005 by Mothman

[alanschu]

you cannot argue that men were ever meant to have sex with other men; the same goes for women.  It is not natural.  That is why I disagree with same sex relations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Define "natural," because homosexuality does occur in other animals in nature than just human beings.

[Magena]

Yep, that is true. And even now if you go into a store that sells a collection of bibles, there are new ones even cropping up now. It does bother me that even with those, when you read Genesis, the interpretations will change.

 

There were also "books" left out of the bible when it was first compiled, not because they were hidden away, but because the monks/clergy who were putting it together didn't want to include them for whatever reason.

[Lucius]

Well I can see no further use in arguing about this, as Meta said, I hate arguing with Christians. No offence.

 

Edit: This wasn't a response to you, Magena, just so you know.