Yes it is unfortunate isn't it. I read Kant and agree with some of his classifications...I would not diregard Kant in any way...I'm just pointing out the fact that he's being used here in lieu of many other moralists to gain the moral highground which is the argueable point, I believe.


The bottom line....(I am really saying it was an improper cite from Kant)
There is a veritable grab-bag out there from many periods and philosophies on Moralist topics. I think people need to be able to further their own point by using sources and proper interpretations. Nice to meet you Phage!! (we haven't met yet)
:D

With regard to the 'past/present' argument presented by aimeecc, I only ask if you actually expect society to stagnate or if you acknowledge that there are some things that have been improved by our changing society.

To me it's pretty straight forward. Things change. Sometimes for the good, and sometimes not for the good, however I wouldn't trade the good changes for the not so good, because without the good changes our society would never grow and evolve.

The statement above obviously contains a number of statments that are purely perspective based. What one person views as good is not always the same for others. The same with the bad. Fortunately for you aimeecc, our society has evolved enough to allow you to hold the views you do without discriminating against you for them. Fortunately for those who disagree with aimeecc's views, society is quite happy for you to live your life any way you see fit as long as it's not harming others.

With regard to the 'instant gratification' statement. I'm with Sheldon (or used to be). If people are happy with their lifestyle and they take whatever precautions are necessary, then it's no one else's business besides those involved. People who go around sermonising about promiscuous people need to take the blinders off and realize that the life they themselves lead is not necessarily any better. Often times it's worse. Also, these people need to realize that just because people have periods of promiscuity in their lives, it doesn't mean they don't also have periods of monogamy. People are not static. They grow and evolve just as our society does.

I wasn't planing on posting in this thread, especially not when my motivation for the post resides in the realm of the tangential.

In a little defense of Kant, I think that the axiom there would rather be, "when it is needed in oder for my own survival, I shall hold my breath, until there becomes such a time when holding my breath is not required for my survival, or such a time that I need oxygen to stay alive"

Here I was drawing an example from ancient Greece, where it was not uncommon for rich men to have same sex relationships, and as a common theme it was more a preserve of the rich, wholly because the lives of the poor are not recorded in isolation.
So it was a rather poor example, but my main focus behind the whole "what do you think" line was purely to stimulate some intellectual debate, albeit rather poorly.

And here was my motivation for the post,

I found this at the bottom of the page as I was posting and I found it rather appropriate to the topic In hand.

"A-C-L-U We defend your right to screw!
--American Civil Liberties Union slogan chanted at Chicago's 25th Annual Gay and Lesbian Pride parade"

No fair! Breathing is as much a biological imperative in the long term as sexual reproduction, so you would need to modify Kant's argument to be something like "When it is needed in order for my own wellbeing, I shall partake in homosexual relations, until there becomes such a time when homosexual relations are not required for my wellbeing, or such a time that I require sexual reproduction to pass on my bloodline." This would of course undermine his conclusion, which was the point of drawing the parallel. Kant's reasoning does not allow dipping in and out of a behavior as appropriate, it simply suggests that the behavior is *never* appropriate.

And thank you Cicero, for the welcome.

Well, in Kerotan's formulation of a theoretical Kant argument against homosexuality, I suspect that "homosexuality" is considered to be exclusive homosexuality. As in, "if it is good for this one person to never reproduce, then it must be good for nobody to reproduce. It is obviously not good for nobody to reproduce, therefore it must not be good for this one person not to reproduce. QED"

The biggest problem with the argument is that it boils down to "variation is evil". A moral system based on that is essentially the caricature of communism in right-wing nightmares.

Kant was interested in furthering his own religious propaganda. Saying that homosexuality is unnatural and against god....(furthering his calssifications) Well there needs to be proof. Kant never provided that. If anyone is willing to provide the proof of the unnaturalness of homosexuality, then I'm willing to look at it.

I'm thinking you Kant. ha ha...not funny. Sorry.
:)

Otherwise Kant is an improper cite for the question at hand. And also was cited improperly...I have my reservations about this discussion at all.

Now that I think about it, homosexual sex is more moral than heterosexual sex when done for fun because homosexual sex does not run the risk of pregnancy.

I found it funny.

And yes the problem that you going to get with theological argument over proof is the same that you get over debates of psychoanalysis, that is, that what is being tested is not open for inspection.

arguably.

If it did, the world would be filled with even more little shits. :D

I'm not so sure equating religious affiliation and sexual orientation is 100% accurate.
I've "known" I was homosexual at least since I was in 2nd grade.
I even tried (really fucking hard) to change it until I was in middle school, by flooding my brain with (what I thought were) images of beautiful women - in neon 80's spandex with fake orange tans - whenever I caught myself looking sideways at a cute boy.
I remember having the distinct impression that, if I didn't fix it now, in 2nd grade, then it'd be infinitely harder to fix it when I went through what the teachers and my parents and the TV shows referred to as "puberty."
Puberty was fun.

I know there are tons of people who are raised in religious households, but following what your parents/gods tell you is right (thus being part of the Tribe by default),
and perceiving that you are "different" from everyone, including your family, and having to hide it for most of your life, with no real way to change it, except for how people perceive you,
are two very different things, in my opinion.

To put it shortly, most Abraham-spawned religious views on homosexuality are stunted and ignorant due to ideology that is, on this particular subject, stunted and ignorant.
I know that's a matter of opinion, but, well, we don't live in the Bronze Age anymore, much less the Middle Ages, much less with our heads shoved up our asses. Excuses are getting thinner and thinner.

Most hetro religious people commenting on sexuality are doing so from a set of values that they've been spoon-fed.
Even if they are new believers, it is a set of values that someone else gave them, someone else worked out, someone else set up.
[It is assumed that] They aren't homosexual themselves.
Why take someone's opinion to heart when they're rather ignorant of what they're forming an opinion on?

Speaking from personal experience as someone who went to a bumfuck baptist-ridden high school in Georgia just before gays suddenly became flashy pop culture anti-heroes (in bumfuck baptist terms, this was the late 90's),
most gay people have to come to terms with their value systems on their own, and decide how they feel about the fact that they are homosexual on their own, without having some ingrained/established religious structure that tells them how they should feel about it.

I don't think anyone's opinion should be completely disregarded, but, on this particular subject, I'd say that the cookie-cutter view of homosexuality that most religious people hold, should not be held on the same level as the opinion of homosexual people,
a.k.a. people who know a hell of a lot more about homosexuality than any Biblegod-fearing Joe that bases his opinions around words written by homophobic dead men 2000+ years ago, most of whom were trying to keep their people alive and organized and breeding in the fucking desert, since babies had a tendency of dying off rather easily.


- Equating homosexuality with promiscuity is also ignorant, in my humble opinion.
I'm a good looking guy, but I haven't bumped uglies in a year.
I'm just not wired like that when it comes to sex.
I don't roll with people just because they are gay; I roll with my friends. I can't stand sheepish people in any guise, including the rainbow-toting glitter princesses that would float away if they weren't securly handcuffed to the pleasure swing.
It makes it a chore to meet a gay person in a normal (not-club) setting that I can vibe with.
Nothing wrong with promiscuity; I just don't swing that way.
People are people.
It's the most vague fucking statement ever, but it's still true.


Personally, I hold the belief that sexuality is a spectrum, rather than a rigid set of categories. Everybody falls somewhere on it. Sure, some fall on the very edge of it, but there are way more people that fall somewhere in between the two extremes.
It's like everything else in the entire world.
I happen to be hetro-curious, but it's easy for me to say that in this society, since that what's considered normal.
I still see a villain from a science fiction movie every time I look at the female genitalia.
I see pretty much the same thing when I look at male genitalia, but it's not scary, and I want to make out with it.



On a lighter note, but probably more interesting,
here's a video.
Same sex sexy sex is as natural as popping out babies.
Just not nearly as draining on your wallet.


Disclaimer - This was a snub-nosed rant, not intended for or aimed at any specific person in particular.

You had me on your side up until this line. It's called diversity. If you don't gays like that, that's your right. But don't dismiss them just because you don't swing that way. It was the glitter that got us noticed and made it possible to at least get the straight world to laugh WITH us instead of at us, so we could then start to speak out.
I may not be one, but I thank Gods for them making it easier for me to be who i am. Hate comes in all packages. Even good-looking chaste gay men.

Good point.
Yeah, I guess I'm kind of an arrogant ass sometimes...sorry.
I was letting the coffee get away with me.

Thanks. Forgiven. :-)

I think you'd hit on an important point, Sheldon.
Laughing at Nathan Lane, or the Dorothys, while developing empathy in the subconscious, with the realization they are real human beings.

Thanks Bruce. BTW, Nathan Lane is an A-Typical secret crush of mine. :-)
Makes me laugh all the time.