Can we objectively prove that being gay is wrong (in the same way you can prove rape/pedophilia is wrong)?

[standalone09]

What do you think can we objectively prove that being gay is wrong (in the same way you can prove rape/pedophilia is wrong)?

 

My opinion:

 

Here is an objective argument explaining why homosexual (sexual) behavior is improper/unacceptable

 

The sexual system provides a set of facts about features and functions associated with the sexual system. If we wish to objectively determine how the sexual system is intended to be used, we must examine the facts indicated by the sexual system itself.

The sexual system comprises physiological (organs, glands, hormones/chemicals and corresponding functions) and psychological components (attraction, emotions, etc). The physiological and psychological components are expected to be consistent and compatible with each other. Therefore, we can say the sexual system is expected to be a harmonious sexual system. If a sexual behavior introduces incompatibility, we identify the particular sexual behavior as improper for the sexual system (i.E., not based on opinion but based on the facts indicated by the sexual system).

The same is true for the digestive system. In particular, we have, included within the digestive system, a physiological component to process food that we eat. With respect to the psychological aspects of the digestive system, we naturally have periodic desires to eat “real” food (which is targeted by the physiological digestive system) and some foods more than others. Furthermore, we don’t naturally desire “unreal” food such as paper when we are hungry.

Considering the sexual system, a number of conclusions can be made.
Fact1: The sexual system “indicates” that certain organs are sexual (genital) organs and certain other organs are non-sexual organs.
Fact 2: The sexual system indicates that the normal expected sexual target is an ADULT, HUMAN of the OPPOSITE SEX.
The objective conclusion is that the sexual system indicates that homosexual behavior is not a proper, expected or acceptable sexual behavior for the human sexual system. This same criterion in fact 2 allows us to reject other unacceptable forms or sexual behaviors.

In fact, we can generalize and say both the attraction and the sexual behavior is unacceptable for the human sexual system.

The sexual system tells us that a child is neither sexually developed physically nor psychologically for sex. Therefore, a child is not a logical sexual target for an adult. Therefore, we objectively conclude that pedophilia is improper and unacceptable sexual behavior or attraction (even before the behavior).

[HeyYou]

How do you define "adult"? Based on simple physical compatability, some folks are 'sexually capable' as young as 12-13 years old, in that, they are capable of having sex, and producing offspring. I don't know of many (any) places where girls that age (or guys for that matter) are considered "adult"...... Nature doesn't care about anything else. Nature has no morals, does not have some set age where sex is 'acceptable', in a cultural context. Nature just wants continuation of the species. That's it.

 

But, from that perspective, homosexuality is incapable, in and of itself, of producing offspring. (in humans) Therefore, homosexuality should be considered 'unnatural'. Now, when you introduce 'sex for pleasure', it's a whole new ball-game.

Edited August 11, 2015 by HeyYou

[FiftyTifty]

Rape is wrong, as it inflicting harm (sex without consent) upon another human being. Pedophilia is not inherently wrong, as it is just a sexual attraction to prepubescent humans; acting upon the sexual attraction, however, is objectively wrong, as the child is not mentally mature. For reference, the human brain finishes development at the age of 25, but is considered mature between the ages of 16 and 21, depending on the culture.

 

Homosexuality is as wrong as heterosexuality is; that is to say, it isn't. It is just a sexual attraction, the same as pedophilia. With acts pertaining to homosexuality and heterosexuality, however, the parties involved are typically of a mature mental and physical state.

 

And fer the record, homosexuality ain't unnatural. Plenty of animals exhibit attraction towards members of the same gender.

 

Unnatural would be, say, humans engaging in homosexuality whilst flying 10,000 feet above the Earth + listening to Iron Maiden + drinking Irn Bru through plastic noses.

 

 

Oh aye, pertaining to your logic: curing diseases, wearing clothes, learning languages, cooking food, boiling dirty water, utilizing toilets, etc. are all wrong; they're not normal acts, after all.

[standalone09]

Rape is wrong, as it inflicting harm (sex without consent) upon another human being. Pedophilia is not inherently wrong, as it is just a sexual attraction to prepubescent humans; acting upon the sexual attraction, however, is objectively wrong, as the child is not mentally mature. For reference, the human brain finishes development at the age of 25, but is considered mature between the ages of 16 and 21, depending on the culture.

 

Homosexuality is as wrong as heterosexuality is; that is to say, it isn't. It is just a sexual attraction, the same as pedophilia. With acts pertaining to homosexuality and heterosexuality, however, the parties involved are typically of a mature mental and physical state.

 

And fer the record, homosexuality ain't unnatural. Plenty of animals exhibit attraction towards members of the same gender.

 

Unnatural would be, say, humans engaging in homosexuality whilst flying 10,000 feet above the Earth + listening to Iron Maiden + drinking Irn Bru through plastic noses.

 

 

Oh aye, pertaining to your logic: curing diseases, wearing clothes, learning languages, cooking food, boiling dirty water, utilizing toilets, etc. are all wrong; they're not normal acts, after all.

 

 

 

I have given overwhelming reasons to show why sex organs have only ONE purpose-*procreation*. Couple that with the arguments I gave, and you will understand why Homosexuality is objectively against the very nature of the Human system.

I have never told anything about it being 'Common' or 'Normal'.You seem to be deliberately straw-manning.

I will summarize it for easier understanding:
Fact1: The sexual system “indicates” that certain organs are sexual (genital) organs and certain other organs are non-sexual organs.
Fact 2: The sexual system indicates that the normal expected sexual target is an ADULT, HUMAN of the OPPOSITE SEX.

Thus the clear indication is that the sex organs are for procreation.

Thus, Condoms, birth control, and masturbation etc. Can all be seen as a clear misuse of one's organs.

Unless you can prove that Organs are not sexual in nature and were really intended for pleasure, you are implicitly agreeing that you don't have anything to say against this argument.

There are many practices that society as a whole has become very tolerant about.But this does not make it morally jusitfied.

 

For the "Homosexuality in animals" argument i will just quote Dr. Antonio Pardo:

 

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

Edited August 11, 2015 by standalone09

[Aurielius]

On a species survival basis we have more than enough heterosexuals to continue the species, so presenting a biological engineered argument is moot. Homosexual's simply are what they are and every species has examples of this behavior (excepting insects for some unknown reason). A constant variation of the norm is perfectly in tune with species genetic diversity...hence homosexuality is part of the overall human norm.

[HeyYou]

 

Rape is wrong, as it inflicting harm (sex without consent) upon another human being. Pedophilia is not inherently wrong, as it is just a sexual attraction to prepubescent humans; acting upon the sexual attraction, however, is objectively wrong, as the child is not mentally mature. For reference, the human brain finishes development at the age of 25, but is considered mature between the ages of 16 and 21, depending on the culture.

 

Homosexuality is as wrong as heterosexuality is; that is to say, it isn't. It is just a sexual attraction, the same as pedophilia. With acts pertaining to homosexuality and heterosexuality, however, the parties involved are typically of a mature mental and physical state.

 

And fer the record, homosexuality ain't unnatural. Plenty of animals exhibit attraction towards members of the same gender.

 

Unnatural would be, say, humans engaging in homosexuality whilst flying 10,000 feet above the Earth + listening to Iron Maiden + drinking Irn Bru through plastic noses.

 

 

Oh aye, pertaining to your logic: curing diseases, wearing clothes, learning languages, cooking food, boiling dirty water, utilizing toilets, etc. are all wrong; they're not normal acts, after all.

 

 

 

I have given overwhelming reasons to show why sex organs have only ONE purpose-*procreation*. Couple that with the arguments I gave, and you will understand why Homosexuality is objectively against the very nature of the Human system.

I have never told anything about it being 'Common' or 'Normal'.You seem to be deliberately straw-manning.

 

I will summarize it for easier understanding:

Fact1: The sexual system “indicates” that certain organs are sexual (genital) organs and certain other organs are non-sexual organs.

Fact 2: The sexual system indicates that the normal expected sexual target is an ADULT, HUMAN of the OPPOSITE SEX.

 

Thus the clear indication is that the sex organs are for procreation.

 

Thus, Condoms, birth control, and masturbation etc. Can all be seen as a clear misuse of one's organs.

 

Unless you can prove that Organs are not sexual in nature and were really intended for pleasure, you are implicitly agreeing that you don't have anything to say against this argument.

 

There are many practices that society as a whole has become very tolerant about.But this does not make it morally jusitfied.

 

For the "Homosexuality in animals" argument i will just quote Dr. Antonio Pardo:

 

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

 

You completely ignored where I blew your 'fact 2' out of the water. Basing assumptions on a false premise just doesn't work.

[colourwheel]

Here is my 2 cents....

 

No one can "objectively" prove that being gay is anymore wrong than one can "objectively" prove that being gay is right. What is right and what is wrong is completely "subjective" in itself. What it boils down to is personal belief.... and not everyone believes the same things.

 

In fact you can't "prove" even rape or pedophilia is wrong. Only reason why rape/pedophilia is looked upon as being so "wrong" is because of how social norms have condemned them so negatively over time to the point where almost everywhere in the world they are completely illegal acts and against the law.

 

Personally, I believe there is nothing "wrong" with someone being gay. It's a social norm where we even see people in public office who are gay or lesbian. Actors/actresses and tv personalities that are loved around the world are even gay. Basically, homosexuality is a social norm that is widely accepted. Most of my friends that I know who are gay are a lot nicer people then most heterosexual people in my life. So I don't see anything "wrong" about someone being gay.

Edited August 11, 2015 by colourwheel

[JoyTrooper]

Saying sexual organs are for procreation and procreation only is just narrow minded, it's not that black and white. Humans and animals doesn't go around having sex because it's "the logical thing to do", they have sex because it feels good. We are creatures of pleasure and we seeks to satisfy ourselves and that is the ultimate goal and part of a natural process that often leads to procreation. We all have different ways of finding pleasure and all people are different, some people find pleasure the "traditional" way while others needs something a little different to spice it up in the bedroom, and some are exclusively attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality is natural, pleasure is a natural thing.

 

As for rape and paedophilia, that whole argument is dead in the water. There is sexual activity between two consenting adults and then there is rape and paedophilia where there is a victim of sexual abuse, pretty important distinction...

[oldgiza]

I'm currently of the opinion that anything that happens in the bedroom of consenting adults is fine if it harms no-one. You've got to follow your heart, no matter where it leads. You can't say in your mind, "today I will love this person and not that person". It happens in the heart not in the head, and it happens whether you want it to or not. Society's bigotry and prejudice will ease and gradually diminish, I think.

 

Some people love a person of a different race, or a different religion, or a person of the same gender, or a closely-related person. Love has a way of overcoming the artificially constructed barriers of society.

 

Look, if two people really love each other, if they are willing to make sacrifices for each other, if their greatest joy is in being together, doing happy things together, if they inspire each other to be a better person, if they help each other, and take care of each other, then tell me, what the hell does it matter if they have different colored skin, or if they have the same genitals, or if they are closely related?

 

And on the other hand, there is a lot of confusion and suffering from girls who grow up and leave home, and spend years searching the world for their true love, never realizing, because of society's prejudice, that he was just in the next room the whole time.

 

[Lisnpuppy]

1) You do realize that anything other than standard sexual position (ie the missionary) is considered either sexually deviant or a fetish in the DSM psych and medical guidelines? They also used to publish what the various knots on your skull meant.

 

2) Also 'homosexual" behavior IS exhibited among animals, most notable the chimps (and our closest genetic cousins) and other close primates who use sex for NO OTHER REASON that social interaction and it can be hetero or homosexual interaction. Here are some scholarly article links to this: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/com/33/1/143/

 

3) Morality and what is acceptable changes with culture, time and place. The Greeks and Romans had really no issue with homosexuality and even sexuality among the very young. It was acceptable and not considered morally repugnant or deviant in most cases. Many cultures that have developed prohibitions begin in times and places where extending their populations are more productive to their society and so the importance is placed on families that bear children. Other cultures with large populations bases will often have very different ideas on gender and sexuality that manifest itself through moral or religious teachings.

 

As we have evolved beyond many of these things and can honestly and objectively look at the impact certain behaviors have on society...I can see no more harm in being tolerant of homosexuality as I am of a woman's choice of clothing and lipstick or a rock bands love of sex, drugs and rock n roll! Is one more promiscuous than the other? How can we say this? Does one have more say and impact on the behavior of society?

 

A cultures morality and what is acceptable is always in flux. And in this place and time I am very much more concerned if someone is a good person. Are they learned, are they good members of society in that they give back and help others? If all these things are yes then I could care less whom they wish to have in their beds at night.

 

Regardless of my personal opinion a few of your arguments are a bit lacking when faced with evidence of science and history.