Heterosexuality and the heterosexual lifestyle.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think homosexuality is something people are born with, being genetic or whatever. But I don't think paedophilia even can be. I'd say paedophilia often has more to do with childhood trauma. Or "nurture" rather than "nature" in any case

I would be inclined to agree with you, but I guess I don't really see much of a substantive difference. Whether pedophiles have the attractions they have as a result of nature or nuture, they still probably can't control their attractions any more than homosexuals can. As such, it is pretty clear that simply having an uncontrollable attraction to a non-standard set of partners in no way grants some sort of moral legitimacy to any action taken because of those attractions.

Then again, I have nothing to back this up...

Welcome to the club.

At least you probably have the advantage of being well-rested. I'm up at 1:48 AM after a long Saturday and am not thinking as clearly as I should be...

[Mercator]

Perhaps, yes... But if it's only about moral legitimacy isn't consent enough legitimacy already?

Welcome to the club.

[MrFun]

Can't wait for Ben Kenobi's justification for unconstitutional, theological-based laws.

[Zero]

as for original question:

Ive been living a striaght life for all my life and so far its been good. Ive been enjoying hetero sex. so i dont see why i should go gay anytime soon.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm an aggressive advocate for the heterosexual lifestyle.

[Boris Godunov]

I love heterosexuals. Honestly, some of my best friends are straight. No problems with them whatsoever! Well, except those that just act too straight. Those kind are embarrassing to be around. I mean, why be so obvious unless you're trying to get attention or something?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Some people try to use the fact that homosexuals are "born that way" as some sort of proof that homosexuality is a moral behavior. At such times, bringing up the fact that pedophiles (who almost everyone would agree are not moral individuals) are also probably "born that way" is a pretty effective means of ending a silly argument, ie. that the fact that homosexuals are born gay has any sort of bearing on the morality of their behavior.

Not that I'm saying homosexuality is immoral...

I couldn't believe I could agree with you in a gay thread

It is absurd to base the morality of homosexual behaviour based on the nature vs nurture. This argument is flawed and bound to bite back in the ass.

I think one should look at the morality of homosexual behaviour in the scope of informed consent between adults. Unlike pedophilic behaviour, homosexual behaviour is not supposed to do damage on an unwilling or defenseless victim.

BTW, I don't think any sexual attraction is immoral per se. It's not like there is much room of a choice. However, some sexual behaviours can be immoral, based on the degree of consent and the damage it can do to its targets. I don't think consentual homosexuality between adults is any immoral, because these adults aren't coerced or lured into doing something that will have dire consequences for them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Read the pscyhological literature on the subject, and you'll find backup, as this is indeed the consensus wrt to paedophillic behavior.

From what I could find (admittedly, I never opened a research book on pedophilic behaviour), every theory so far has been shown to be flawed, including the many psychological theory, and the only biological theory. Science so far seems unable to strongly explain the causes of pedophilic behaviour.

Not that it is that important in the argument here. Whether the causes are nature or nurture, it can be as hard to remove a natural attraction as to remove a nurtured one, once hard-wired. And it don't think the 'naturality' or 'nurturality' of the sexual attraction should be taken into account when weighing its morality. Actual damage or lack thereof should be the main subject of importance.

I mean, is it more moral to be gay when you have felt it since, birth, than when you have 'developed' a gayness based on in-life events?

[Fake Boris]

to Spiffor for the nurture vs nature arguments.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I love heterosexuals. Honestly, some of my best friends are straight. No problems with them whatsoever! Well, except those that just act too straight. Those kind are embarrassing to be around. I mean, why be so obvious unless you're trying to get attention or something?

I know what you mean -- I cringe with disgust whenever I see a straight couple walking around in PUBLIC, holding hands.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I couldn't believe I could agree with you in a gay thread

It is absurd to base the morality of homosexual behaviour based on the nature vs nurture. This argument is flawed and bound to bite back in the ass.

I think one should look at the morality of homosexual behaviour in the scope of informed consent between adults. Unlike pedophilic behaviour, homosexual behaviour is not supposed to do damage on an unwilling or defenseless victim.

BTW, I don't think any sexual attraction is immoral per se. It's not like there is much room of a choice. However, some sexual behaviours can be immoral, based on the degree of consent and the damage it can do to its targets. I don't think consentual homosexuality between adults is any immoral, because these adults aren't coerced or lured into doing something that will have dire consequences for them.

This could fit very well with David Richards's "right to conscience" argument in his book, "Identity and the Case for Gay Rights: Race, Gender, Religion as Analogies."

[Flinx]

Boy am I glad I live in my isolated little world... some of you are downright scary. It is amazing how living in a country of 30 million polite people shelters you.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, theological-based laws are unconstitutional because we are supposed to be separating government from religion in United States.

Agreed.

Secondly, theological-based laws are unconstitutional, because they deny people the right to conscience, which I explained to in my immediate above post already.

No you have not. You have not clarified the connection between this and freedom of conscience. Nor, have you established the connection between these laws and 'theologically based laws.' The reason they are a factor in secular society has to do with the fact that a family provides benefits to society unmatched by any other alternative arrangement.

Thirdly, theological-based laws also deny a person's right to intimate life, or right to freedom of contract with others.

1. There is no expressed right to 'intimate life'. Otherwise, you could sue someone for refusing to sleep with you because they are denying your right to intimate life.

One does not need intimate relations in order to live, it's nice work if you can get it, but you won't die from lacking the contact.

Therefore, any sexual contact cannot be expressed as a right, because such a right would infringe on freedom of conscience, in the right of others to refuse you, and their own right to freedom of association.

Secondly, laws preventing the state from recognising gay relationships do not bar them from associating with each other. Therefore, you are not restricted either in conscience, or in association. Don't confuse the two issues of sodomy regulations and marriage. Just because some arguments work with the latter, does not necessarily mean they work on the former.

Fourth, theological-based laws are wrong because they apply rules differently and unequally between gays and straights. It's ok for heterosexuals to engage in un-reproductive relationships, but it's suppose to heretical for gays to do the same thing.

Presumes that it is wrong for laws to discriminate. Look at it this way. The laws against discrimination do not prevent those actions taken to ameliorate the situation for those who are already handicapped. This is why one can target blind people for instince, to help them with their situation.

Another example would be benefits to vets, not provided to other people. The state does not bar anyone from serving in the armed forces, yet the state provides many benefits to vets only. The same is the case from marriage. No one is prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex, not even you, Mr. Fun, if this would be your desire.

Also, your argument also fails to the same critique as earlier. To say that the act is 'heretical' is much different than saying that sodomy is illegal. Sodomy is not illegal. Gays are allowed to enjoy relationships with one another under the laws already established.

Fifth, as I have already said before, theological-based laws also dehumanize gays -- see previous posts.

Presumes that who one is is inextricably bound in who one sleeps with. I say that this is false. One is much more than the sum of one's actions. You are not just a gay person, that should your desires change, that you would no longer exist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Right to conscience, as in the right to affirm part of what you are (gay) and right of conscience as in the right to choose to enter a relationship with another adult of the same gender.

Again, same old argument.

Who one is is much more than who one sleeps with.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mercatore:

Oh that's nice! So heterosexuals can have the pleasure of getting married to someone they're attracted to, while gays just have to deal with that horrible "defect" God put them up with?

So heterosexuals are free of defects? No. The difference is because society does very well with marriage, so to change the definition will likely also change the benefits that society derives from marriage.

Secondly, to argue that homosexuality is a defect requires presuppositions not available to a secular society. I don't mind arguing why this would be 'disordered' behaviour, but this is not the justification for why the state ought to treat the two differently.

Finally, if one believes that homosexuality is disordered, one must also be clear that it is considered disordered behaviour. In order words, one can overcome the behaviour, it is not an inextricable part of your nature.

They can either become celibate or marry someone they're not attracted to?

Again, according to the laws of the church, not of society. You have set up a false dilemma. If they choose to get married, they should do so because they truly desire to do so. If they do not, then they should not get married.

Would you marry someone you're not attracted to? Even if you could just as well be together with someone you ARE attracted to, if it weren't for the fact that your family would disown you in that case?

In my own case? I would marry someone I loved, even if it meant that my family would disown me. If you don't think I'm sincere, the only women my mother said she had a problem with me dating were Catholics. She said that she had no problem if I brought home a guy, but help me if I brought home a Catholic.