I would say yes… It might be one of those “definition 2” things – the English language is nice that way.
(So long as one doesn’t try to play cutesy games with it. Rush Limbaugh famously used the second definition of “discrimination” to try to defend people who practice the first definition. As if having a fine sense of artistic tastes made it okay to hate blacks… Good old Rush…)
I think Ají de Gallina means about “not being 100% pro-gay” is that some people perceive that there may be negative effects of being gay. For example, a person may see that a young child who is living with gay parents and is also being bullied or teased at school for having gay parents. Now, the observer can naively think that having a gay parent is negative for a young child’s upbringing; however, I think there may be a logical fallacy in this way of thinking, because the observer fails to see that the gay parents are living in a homophobic society, thereby being the victims themselves. If homophobia does not exist, then the gay parents may bring up the child very well – just as well as a straight couples do.
So, I think Ají de Gallina’s post is somewhat logically fallacious, because a counter-argument supporting gay rights can easily be made.
Some straight people are grossed out by straight oral sex, or even straight regular sex. Finding different types of sex gross isn’t any sort of bigotry. [It’s definitely a rare thing, but there are essentially heterosexual people that find regular, heterosexual sexual acts to be gross. ]
Gay sex is less than straight sex, it serves no reproductive purpose. Additionally, it is almost certain that gay people are not normal by any definition of the term.
See the neato thing is that we are human beings and our worth is no longer defined as “who can spread around the most DNA”. Why, we’re so goddamn clever that we can even reproduce *without *sex. And sex, to us, has a range of uses and is important for reasons that have nothing to do with reproduction. So defining sex strictly in terms of making more people is pretty pointless. But of course, the people (like you!) who pull out this creaky argument are already aware of all the above. It’s lazy, it’s disingenuous, and it’s completely beside the point. And you fucking know it is.
This makes it sound like you used the term before you knew what it meant. I think homophobia would fit into that definition of “social evil,” but I try not to use the word evil as a descriptor. I find it doesn’t add anything to the discussion except a false air of absolutism.
Posit a very simple construction in which there are only two types of sex “reproductive sex” which I define as sex in which both partners are intentionally hoping to sexually reproduce and “gratification sex” in which the partners are engaged in sexual activity purely for physical and emotional satisfaction.
Ceteris paribus, reproductive sex is inherently “greater” than gratification sex because:
Gratification sex is inherently selfish, both parties are wanting pleasure out of the experience. (Without getting too deep, even sex in which one partner is doing something that isn’t innately physically pleasurable for them but is very pleasurable to their partner is still ultimately a selfish act by both partners as even the partner not directly receiving pleasure is still engaging in the general act as part of a larger system of pleasure seeking.)
Reproductive sex is inherently unselfish, because the partners are trying to create a new life that will be a great burden and responsibility on them, and that will require substantial sacrifice to care for over many years following.
Note I said all else being equal, obviously a welfare queen trying to get pregnant so she can get a bigger benefit check who has no intention of raising the child adequately is engaging in a level of immorality that is greater than the level of immorality present when you’re just getting pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
To get back to specifically homosexual sexual acts versus heterosexual sexual acts, since there is no possibility of homosexual physical sex acts ever being reproductive sex [I am aware in a lab they can theoretically create an embryo with DNA from two women only], homosexual sexual acts are by their nature synonymous with “gratification sex” which is morally inferior to " reproductive sex."
I do not believe that human beings have a set purpose, be it to reproduce or anything else. I do believe biologically species that have continually existed probably have behavioral or other such adaptations that make them likely to naturally and aggressively produce many offspring, but that’s totally outside of the bounds of what is relevant to this discussion. I am also aware from a practical sense that people create new life through methods other than normal sexual intercourse, but again, that isn’t relevant to the discussion.
Please explain why there is any immorality present in this situation. It is on it’s face morally neutral.
And, point of order, you originally said gay sex is less than straight sex. Straight sex is very often, as you define it, gratification sex. Why are you changing the terms?
I think pleasure seeking is morally neutral and sometimes morally negative, not morally positive.
Note that I drink to the point of intoxication, fornicate for pleasure, and various other things that I personally believe to be immoral. I have a very “strict” set of beliefs about what is moral and what isn’t. I essentially believe to even approach moral behavior you almost need to be an ascetic. I guess where I’m different from most people is I don’t get hung up on wanting to believe my life is moral. It isn’t, a lot of things I do are immoral.
I thought I made it clear here:
Essentially imagine there are two classes of objects.
We’ll call one class AB, the other class will be AC.
Each class contains types of sexual acts.
AB contains some sexual acts which are gratification sex, and some which are reproductive sex. AC contains various different acts, all of which are gratification sex.
AB is akin to heterosexual sex, it may be gratification sex, but sometimes it isn’t.
AC is akin to homosexual sex, it can only be gratification sex. So morally I have to view the class AB > AC.
WHAT??!! They’re people??!! Now you’re making stuff up. Next thing you’re gonna tell you don’t put mayo on your hot dogs.
No. I think that some parts of the “gay agenda” (to give it a simple name) are not the best thing for society (specifically marriage and adoption).
Yes, I suppose you are right. The question is indeed badly worded and biased. There was one time when I took a Stats class about learning how to write questions in an unbiased fashion, because sometimes a question worded one way can sway a person’s opinion, and that’s not good for the sampler (i.e. “If one can enter the military, vote, and obtain a permanent driver’s license at age 18, then should the legal age of drinking be lowered from 21 to 18?” would be considered a biased question, because you can predict that more respondents will say “Yes”). You do have a logical, reasonable point there. I think my question can be perceived as a badly worded question, so I should be at fault. Yes, I do agree with your point-of-view that it does not add anything to the discussion except a false air of absolutism, because it is latently treating one side as superior than another.
I remember the time when I was reading through my Stats textbook, and it included all sorts of biased questions as examples of what one should not ask. If one wants to get an honest opinion from people, then one should not ask biased questions, like the example I mentioned above. The question that I asked in this thread, I think, would be considered a biased question, and the nature of the culture war would make this question very biased and unfair to those who have a differing opinion of gay rights, targeting them as “evil” or sub-human. Though there is no rational argument against the gay rights movement, I think the question that I have asked here clearly shows that the lack of rational arguments is what drives certain individuals to vilify the opposing side, even though the opposing side, no matter how disagreeable to the pro-gay activists, is human and therefore fallible.
Funny how people talk about wanting to have children then, how much joy children bring to one’s life, how they’ll have someone to care for them in their old age, etc. I’d say most people who choose to have children do so because they think they’re going to enjoy having children. By your own standards, that’s selfish.
This topic is really a hijack of this thread, though.
Prove it. There are several entire schools of philosophy that say different.
Sex is sometimes called “bumping uglies” for a reason. Human sex organs are simply not the most symmetrical & elegant parts of the body.
I’m trying to agree, and I can see how someone who has actually been exposed to those kind of immature behaviors would automatically bristle at the idea that some people have a natural repulsion to gay sex acts. But I’m not condoning the immature behavior - I’m saying the gut instinct, the repulsed thought isn’t something people can control, and I don’t think it’s fair to call someone homophobic when their actions directly support people who are LGBT. I have racist thoughts sometimes, but that doesn’t make me a racist by any stretch of the imagination. In fact my willingness to acknowledge my own prejudices and actively fight against them is arguably better than just pretending we live in a color-blind society.
But you think the canned ham thing is sexist and I think it’s hilarious so I guess we have very different views on this matter.
I woud argue that homophobia (fear or dislike of homosexuals) is neither good nor evil. What makes it evil is the hatred it causes in other people. From that hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality stems all the anti-gay evil we see in the world today. If a bunch of kids can bully another kid into committing suicide because of his/her sexuality,that is evil.
Agreed. I detest broccoli, but would never seek to ban it, limit its use, or take any kind of action against broccoli-lovers. Nor do I think there’s anything wrong with liking broccoli - it just isn’t for me. These thoughts don’t make me a broccoliphobe.
It seems like there’s a middle being excluded here, isn’t there? You don’t have to want to have sex with people of the same sex, but on the other hand, if you’re actually disgusted by seeing two people of the same sex hold hands or exchange a reasonably chaste kiss (as some people apparently are) I think it’s fair to suggest that’s homophobic. And if you have such thoughts and don’t keep them to yourself, it absolutely is. I mean, I know I don’t find it gross to see a straight couple or a lesbian couple kiss, so it’s hard for me to imagine why it’d be upsetting to anyone else to see two men kiss.
For that matter, I also don’t care if you hate broccoli but if you complain at me for eating it in front of you (I love broccoli!) there’s also something wrong with you.
People holding any sort of prejudice, however irrational, are not evil. It is only where they act on that prejudice to the detriment of others that it becomes worthy of moral sanction.
I may find broccoli-eating to be positively revolting, so much so that it is hard even to watch someone munching on a broccol; but if I nonetheless do not attempt to attack, abuse, or restrict the rights of broccoli-eaters, that prejudice isn’t of any moral concern.
Fair point. Being genuinely disgusted by same-sex PDA is probably homophobic. However, it’s totally legitimate for me to point out that broccoli is gross; unlike homosexuality, no one is seeking to oppress broccoli-lovers, and someone has to tell them that the stuff is evil. Evil!