Someone fulfilled is someone who fulfills the potential of his nature. So a homosexual according to this will satisfy his desire for pleasure by having homosexual sex but at the cost of neglecting his potential to have a family with a woman, have a child which is his own, and possibly at developing the kind of deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers. — Agustino
There's only 3 important topics which can make or break your life but not many in the West find it "polite" to discuss them. Sex, Politics and Spirituality. — Agustino
Well, as all other socialists, you seem to think that the state, or a single parent, can provide adequate care for the child. I will say that it is possible for a single parent to (not for the state), but very difficult. Someone who, after having a child, does not marry that person, therefore commits himself to a very risky position, and thus threatens the well-being of the child. — Agustino
Well BC, thanks for sharing your story, I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your partner. There's elements of good in every life, and I am sure you have developed a lot of good traits going through what you have gone through, and in the end character is what matters. However, neither of us can know how things would have ended had you decided to get married to a woman and have children - but I would wagger that now you would have felt more fulfilled than you currently say you feel. Alas, I am not in a position to judge you or your life - first of all I am younger than you, and I generally hold older people in respect, and second of all you have a right as all people do to make your own choices and bear their benefits and/or consequences that they bring.Being born homosexual (and later electing what to do with it) frequently carries with it the cost of not passing on one's genes. Of course, with technology or by a willing suspension of disbelief, a gay man can father children. Lots of gay men have--though probably many of them were actually bisexual. I've thought about that. It isn't necessary that everyone pass on their genes. With 7+ billion genetic donors, we will somehow have to survive without mine. Would I have made a good father? Now--with maturity and the settled mind of early old age, yes. But I was in way too much turmoil not related to sexuality at all when I was of the usual breeding age. Everyone was better off by me dealing with my own mishegas and not getting married. I didn't set up a happy gay home with Bob until I was 36, and that lasted for just about 30 happy years (cancer ended it).
I haven't been fulfilled a good share of my life -- I didn't fulfill the potential of my nature -- not my sexual nature (that got fulfilled in spades) -- which I think was to be a somewhat contemplative change agent who early on gravitated toward leftist politics. I didn't fulfill this feature because, putting it succinctly, I didn't know how. Now I know how, but am running out of steam. That's life, again.
There wasn't much missing my long term relationship. It was strictly voluntary (no marriage vows holding it together), it had the "deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful lovers" per your description. I also had along the way quite a few short relationships which I would not want to have missed -- I would not want to have missed your dreaded promiscuous sex, either -- it was just great more often than not.
It should be obvious to you, but the thing that keeps most gay men from marrying women and having children is a near total lack of interest in the female body. Gay men having sex with often just doesn't work well. — Bitter Crank
I think this is untruthful. I have said numerous times that people should have the freedom to decide what to do in sexual matters for themselves. This of course does not mean that all decisions are equally good, and it does not mean that everyone will make the right decision. However, it is precisely for this reason, and we can both agree that sexuality plays a very important role for well-being, that sexual morality must be one of the most important topics of discussion.You are not permissive toward sexual behavior. — Bitter Crank
I don't think the ultimate in human existence doesn't exist or is unachievable (Socrates, by and large, is an example of achieving that). But I do agree that I haven't achieved it yet.You, however, have not achieved the nonexistent ultimate in human existence. You just achieved your best. — Bitter Crank
Which is a pity, because those who do violence to homosexuals literarily force homosexuals to become even more homosexual in their desires. What should instead happen is that a moral argument is put forth, and people allowed to decide for themselves.If you you like being gay, then engage politically to protect yourself and your brothers from predatory legislators who have nothing better to do with their time in office but to harass homosexuals. — Bitter Crank
I do tell these people when I meet them that it does no good either to them or to homosexuals to denounce them - certainly it doesn't convince homosexuals to change their ways. No violence can, only reasonable argument and loving discussion can do that.And don't forget to militate against the right wing preachers who think it is Christlike to specialize in denouncing gay sexual toothpick sins (which they presumably are not involved in) while ignoring the barked logs of corporate and individual sins -- greed, hypocrisy, predatory lending, environmental devastation, war, et al. — Bitter Crank
Masturbation does blind you as well to a certain extent... not as much as other forms of vice though.That's what they said about masturbation. They lied. — Bitter Crank
Yes but not serious talk. The make fun of sex, politics and religion very often. The favorite subjects of comedians unfortunately. But serious talk about either three is very rare, because it makes people uncomfortable.Oh come now! People talk about sex, politics, and religion all the time. What circles are you traveling in where all this isn't talked about? — Bitter Crank
It's good to see you think this way :)I din't say anything about the state raising the child. I think it is the parents' job (emphasis on the plural there) to raise their child(ren). I think the state should encourage procreation among married partners, because that objectively seems like the best setting for successful childrearing. It can do this by such things as mandating maternity leave, paternity leave, prenatal care, tax rebates, and the like. I'm not interested in having the state open up baby farms. — Bitter Crank
Sure we don't. I cannot agree with it after the number of people I have seen being destroyed by it, the number of people who just did it because they didn't know any better - they didn't recieve a good education about it, because society doesn't discuss it anymore.... Also my whole study of human history reveals that promiscuity has always been socially dangerous and ultimately goes against man and woman's own nature and best interest. This includes atheistic, non-religious philosophers such as Epicurus and Spinoza, and includes absolutely all of the world's religions. I think it's quite safe that the vast majority of people, whether religious or not, have historically agreed to this. Not to mention that the investigation of my own soul allows me to understand how promiscuity can initially seem tempting to some, upon thorough investigation one can see that it is a poison for the soul.We don't agree on the morality of promiscuity, of course. But we both favor a moral approach to sexuality. — Bitter Crank
I think that when intercourse becomes a physical function we have lost what is most important in it.Well, don't know about you, but intercourse has always been a physical function for me and my partners. Of course there is a critical psychological piece too. — Bitter Crank
that's what the West has done for the last 100 years, and look where we are! We're more miserable than ever. — Agustino
However, neither of us can know how things would have ended had you decided to get married to a woman and have children — Agustino
It is certainly the case that the West (and much of the world) has been undergoing a large shift in the norms of social, sexual, marital, behavior and fulfillment. — Bitter Crank
A committed relationship counts as marriage for me, in the spirit, if not in the letter. — Agustino
Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. — Agustino
Not to "feel" oppressed? There we have it. You're not worried about them BEING oppressed, you want them to not FEEL oppressed. — Agustino
So it's morally wrong to believe that there's a lion in the adjacent room (when there really isn't one)? We were trying to discuss moral right and wrong there, so please don't equivocate :)
And if you were not equivocating, and you used them both in the sense of moral wrong, then please explain to me what is morally wrong about the belief I put above? What is morally wrong in thinking homosexual sex harms the participants, regardless of what they think? — Agustino
Why is thinking morally repugnant to you? — Agustino
Correct! — Agustino
No, what you're talking about is not sexual morality. Everything that involves another person should have the other's consent before going through. If I want to have dinner with you, I should get your consent before having dinner, and not force you. But I don't call that dinner morality - that would be stupid. So really, if consent is the only matter that you think is important for sexual morality, then in truth you are arguing for NO sexual morality whatsoever, and merely masking this.Of course it does. That's the difference between cheating and not cheating. Cheating is what makes it wrong. Without the cheating aspect, we're just left with your subjective waffle about it being a vice. Needless to say, I reject your assertions about it being a vice, so you're just wasting time with your tirade against vice from your presumed moral high ground. Once you've established that it's a vice, then I suspect I'll find your argument more compelling, but I won't be holding my breath. — Sapientia
I have a freedom to express my thoughts about any subject, including the morality or immorality of homosexuality and/or anything else, and you have no right to tell me that I should hold my thoughts to myself - neither do you have a right to tell me you feel judged, because I have not judged you or anyone else. I have just made a statement. If the statement makes you feel bad, perhaps your conscience is telling you something...I did clearly state that it's not good for people to BE (or feel) oppressed. I said so because neither are good, and to emphasise that even if you don't advocate oppression by force, the mental oppression caused by judgementalism is still concerning, especially if unwarranted, as it is in this case. — Sapientia
In your opinion it's misinformation, that is one, and secondly, does it encourage violence towards anyone? No, it encourages respect towards everyone including homosexuals, but takes a moral stand on homosexual sex, thereby teaching people morality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact there would be something wrong if we did not teach other fellow men morality.It's wrong because it's harmful misinformation. — Sapientia
Yes.Are you implying that whether or not they're married isn't important, but that whether or not they're "married" (i.e in a committed relationship) is important? — Sapientia
Gender is important, but not as important. That's why I've said that I consider homosexual sex to be a relatively small vice, compared to the danger of a vice like promiscuity.I also find it odd that you so readily agree that the respective genders of the couple aren't important. That implies that you don't think that gender effects whether or not the relationship is virtuous. — Sapientia
I don't think this, but I fail to see how it would be oppressive if I thought so. You think two people who are attracted to each other cannot be attracted to each other without having sex?? They cannot have a satisfying relationship without sex?If you don't think that gender is important, then how, in your view, would a same-sex relationship be virtuous? Must they refrain from any sexual activity with each other? That would indeed be oppressive, not to mention utterly wrongheaded. — Sapientia
No, what you're talking about is not sexual morality. Everything that involves another person should have the other's consent before going through. If I want to have dinner with you, I should get your consent before having dinner, and not force you. But I don't call that dinner morality - that would be stupid.
As for sexual morality. Sex has two purposes; one physical (reproduction) and the other psychological (intimacy). Failure to meet at least one of those purposes is wrong, end of story. Promiscuous sex does not facilitate intimacy, and a growing together in love, and is therefore a failure to actualise the potential that exists in sex. — Agustino
I have a freedom to express my thoughts about any subject, including the morality or immorality of homosexuality and/or anything else, and you have no right to tell me that I should hold my thoughts to myself - neither do you have a right to tell me you feel judged, because I have not judged you or anyone else. I have just made a statement. If the statement makes you feel bad, perhaps your conscience is telling you something... — Agustino
In your opinion it's misinformation, that is one, and secondly, does it encourage violence towards anyone? No, it encourages respect towards everyone including homosexuals, but takes a moral stand on homosexuality, thereby teaching people morality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, in fact there would be something wrong if we did not teach other fellow men morality. — Agustino
I don't think this, but I fail to see how it would be oppressive if I thought so. You think two people who are attracted to each other cannot be attracted to each other without having sex?? — Agustino
I've explained what is wrong with it, have you not read my previous post? Do you disagree with any of the points there? If so, why?No, what I was talking about was sexual morality. I was talking about the morality of certain sexual acts. Weren't you paying attention? I said that provided there's mutual consent, there's nothing wrong about, for example, sex outside of a relationship. That is, if a couple agree to have sex with other people, then there's nothing in itself wrong about that. What matters are the reasons behind that agreement and the foreseeable consequences, and they're not necessarily detrimental. — Sapientia
It's not excessively narrow - I have taken into account both physical and psychological purposes of sex (excessively narrow would be saying sex is just for reproduction). And the purpose of sex is an objective statement by the way. This is the purpose not only for me, but for all people (whether they realise it or not), because it simply is the complete fulfilment of sexual potential, including the physical aspect (reproduction) and the mental one (intimacy). When you consider what sex is, you will inevitably come to this conclusion. So you are free to reject my view, but that is not an argument. Just a denial.I reject your excessively narrow psychological interpretation of sex. It need not be about intimacy and growing together in love. If that's the way that you see it, then that's fine. But that's your personal view, and shouldn't effect those for whom it doesn't concern. If you expect that of a sexual partner, then by all means, make that clear to them before having sex with them. But otherwise, your view may be unwelcome for good reason. — Sapientia
I expressed myself wrongly, my apologies. I meant that you feeling judged by my statement is just a feeling. It's not objectively valid to say that I have judged you personally, and so it's ridiculous to make that accusation from a rational point of view.But you're wrong that I have no right to tell you if I feel judged. Talk about double standards! And you have clearly judged a group of people of which I might or might not be a part, so why deny it? — Sapientia
Let me give you objectivity. Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity all believe homosexual sex is immoral. This means that 90%+ of people who have ever lived historically have believed so. You must be very arrogant to believe, without any argument, that these people were all idiots, and you are the smart one. People from all corners of the Earth, independently of each other, have arrived at EXACTLY the same belief. People from different cultures, people of different races and ethnicities, people of all sorts of different backgrounds. You have to explain to me how people came to believe this falsehood in such large numbers, all independently from each other, from different corners of the world? Why don't people believe many other possible falsehoods? Then you have to tell me how some of the greatest minds who have ever lived, for example Schopenhauer, came to believe similar things as well, if such things are false. I'm going to enjoy seeing you try to disprove all of history, including some of the smartest people who have ever lived - it's certainly going to be fun to watch (and before you say it, I am aware of the Ancient Greek position on the issue, just to make that clear - nevertheless, this position remains a very very tiny minority, that nevertheless I respect - the Greeks at least had good arguments, which is why I consider homosexuality alone and of itself to be a minor vice compared to promiscuity for ex.)If you verify your information with credible sources, then I'll concede that it's not misinformation. But I doubt whether you can do so. And just because it doesn't encourage violence, at least explicitly, that doesn't mean that it isn't harmful. There are plenty of non-violent views and questionable or false information which is nonetheless harmful, and which would be seriously detrimental if widespread. This is the stuff that influences how we think and act and how we judge and treat people. It's important that we get it right, I'm sure you'll agree. Subjective opinion alone and prejudice are not good enough. Can you do better? You did mention objectivity, but I've yet to see any sign of it. — Sapientia
Yes, but will anyone force them to adopt it? No. But I will tell them the truth. If they want to refuse the truth, they can do so, but they do it at their own peril. If someone wants to hurt himself, in the end there is nothing that others can do to stop him if he is determined to do it - and he is free to do it. That is the thing with freedom - you suffer the consequences of the choices you make! :)Of course not. Don't be silly. I meant that it would be oppressive if people were to refrain from engaging in such sexual activity against their will and desire and good judgement. (Of course, you might not agree that it's good judgement). If they were to adopt such a moral standard, then they would be obliged to do so in order to be "virtuous". — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.