Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerotan
... Immanuel Kant, using his moral theory, homosexuality is morally wrong because it universalises the axiom that (putting it simply) we should all have homosexual sex.
he would argue that this creates a contradiction, in that by everyone having homosexual sex, we fail to reproduce, no therefore in time can no longer have homosexual sex.
So using Kants moral theory, we have concluded that being (in Kants eyes) homosexual is wrong.
|
This is, on the face of it, ridiculous and based on a logical falsehood. By this reasoning masturbation would also be wrong because if we all only masturbated then we would fail to reproduce. To make the logical error more clear, lets look at another example divorced from the issue:
Suppose a man falls out of a boat in the ocean and finds himself completely submerged. A fellow boater suggests that the man hold his breath. Kant disagrees, saying that if we universalise the axiom we would all asphyxiate. Kant is also a moron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerotan
but where do you stand?
|
Personally, I am inclined to treat homosexuality as just another form of masturbation. Be it by hand, mouth, anus, whatever, any sexually satisfying act that is not reproductive in nature is masturbation. I am not stimulated by the male form so I don't partake of that particular fetish, but it is no more immoral than prophylactics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerotan
Do you believe that homosexuality is against god?
|
This is an unproductive question, as the assumptions required to answer it are unlikely to be agreed upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerotan
Do you think that homosexuality is the preserve of the rich?
|
Do the rich somehow have a greater supply or access to their own sexual organs? It could be argued that they have access to more *other* sexual organs I suppose, or that they have more free time, but I don't see anything about being poor that prevents being gay.