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

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.

You are not permissive toward sexual behavior. That isn't a crime, it's not a disgrace, it's not a social faux pas, it's not even politically incorrect. it's who you are, Agustino. You are a traditional Christian moralist committed to marriage, family, deep intimacy that can exist between loyal and faithful [heterosexual] lovers, and that is all fine by me. Stock with it. I have no complaints about your essential nature.

You, however, have not achieved the nonexistent ultimate in human existence. You just achieved your best.

We don't agree on the morality of promiscuity, of course. But we both favor a moral approach to sexuality. I think there is a proper, moral way to practice promiscuity: respectful, responsible (don't transmit diseases which you can avoid transmitting), generous -- give and receive both, non-predatory (leave partnered couples alone), practice with mutual consent.

How much promiscuity? Moderation in all things, of course. If one is obsessed with having sex, something has gone haywire in one's personality, and it should be dealt with promptly. One should not risk jail for sex -- therefore, don't decide to perform blowjobs on the capitol steps. It won't turn out well. (Far fetched example -- don't know anybody who did it.

Along with promiscuity, one should engage in politics in the gay community. The gay sexual community proceeded the gay political community (gay sex created both). 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.

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.

That is why vice is dangerous - it blinds one to its effects until it is too late... — Agustino

That's what they said about masturbation. They lied.

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

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?

You have to be a self-serving snitch, looking only for personal interest and money not to. — Agustino

coincidentally, that's what a lot of people think Hillary is.

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

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.

Intercourse is never a physical function, it is, first and foremost, a psychological one. — Agustino

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.

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

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.

You are not permissive toward sexual behavior. — 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, however, have not achieved the nonexistent ultimate in human existence. You just achieved your best. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

That's what they said about masturbation. They lied. — Bitter Crank

Masturbation does blind you as well to a certain extent... not as much as other forms of vice though.

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

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.

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

It's good to see you think this way :)

We don't agree on the morality of promiscuity, of course. But we both favor a moral approach to sexuality. — 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.

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

I think that when intercourse becomes a physical function we have lost what is most important in it.

that's what the West has done for the last 100 years, and look where we are! We're more miserable than ever. — 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. We know what we are shifting from (19th century ideas and earlier) and the old values have been breaking up and then crumbling. A new regime will eventually come into existence -- don't know when or what, sorry. One is either fortunate or unfortunate to live during periods of social upheaval. It is exciting, alarming, depressing, joyful, etc. The thing to remember is that promiscuity, gay liberation, high rates of single motherhood, unplanned pregnancies, all that and more are a consequence of upheaval, not the cause.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world

It need not be the prelude to the apocalypse. More likely it is only the prelude to the next rapprochement among competing views, interests, preferences, demands, concerns, commitments, and so on. A new morality will emerge, there will be new sinners, new saints, and so on. I have no idea how the chips will fall -- and nobody else, either, knows.

Keep breathing -- no telling how long this will take.

However, neither of us can know how things would have ended had you decided to get married to a woman and have children — Agustino

Heterosexual marriage was not a psychological possibility. It was out of the question from the get go, and some things one just has to accept, and that was one of them.

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

I think this isn't so true about the rest of the world. If you look at countries like Brasil, China, Russia, etc. you're seeing a shift back towards traditional values nowadays. It's only Europe and parts of the US which are different. Again, I don't think this is anything more than a blip in history. In fact the US I think is slowly going to turn back to traditional values. I don't think either Hillary or Bernie are going to win in the US. What's happening at the moment is that the media and Hollywood is largely controlled by "liberals" (I put it in quotation marks, because liberal never used to mean "leftist"; rather it was a word applied to conservatives like John Locke) who are extremely vocal. In fact, this has always been the weapon of socialists, and social reformers - a lot of screaming, which makes a small minority appear as the majority. There's a large majority of people that is not represented by these people and is at the moment being unheard and ignored.

A committed relationship counts as marriage for me, in the spirit, if not in the letter. — Agustino

Then you should have been clearer. If you had have simply said "committed relationship" rather than "marriage", then you would've avoided foreseeable misunderstanding.

Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. — Agustino

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 regarding the former.

Not to "feel" oppressed? There we have it. You're not worried about them BEING oppressed, you want them to not FEEL oppressed. — Agustino

You really should take more care in reading the quotes that you reply to. If you had have done so, then perhaps you wouldn't have made such an easily avoidable mistake in understanding. 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.

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

Your false analogy about a lion isn't helpful. It's wrong because it's harmful misinformation. With a sensitive issue such as this, given it's historical, cultural and societal context, and, in particular, that homophobia is no thing of the past, people - yourself included - have a great responsibility to ensure that the views or information that they espouse or share is credible. You've given me no reason to accept that what you've claimed is true.

Why is thinking morally repugnant to you? — Agustino

Why do you think that twisting my words is productive?

Correct! — Agustino

Odd. So you don't think that whether or not they're married is important? Or are you now equivocating? 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? 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. Otherwise you'd surely claim instead that it's important in at least that respect. 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.

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

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.

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. Because one who engages in this 1. fails to fulfill the potential of sex, and 2. damages their mind by training it to become blind to the real potential of sex and 3. harms the other partner in the same way s/he harms himself, and 4. harms their own future committed partner and/or the future committed partner of the other person. Fact remains, that no rational person would sacrifice intimacy + pleasure for pleasure. Only an irrational, or at least a rational but ignorant person would do so.

Take a small child, and watch his development, to the age when he learns about sex. You will see, that a child finds it morally horrendous to think about having sex with someone if they don't love them, and are committed to them. Why? Because this is natural for human beings. The one who is seeking to impose extremist values on others is not me, but you. You should be aware that literarily 80%+ of thinkers, including atheists, have thought as I say about sex. Check out Epicurus for example. They don't make atheists like that anymore, do they? The man realised that consent isn't the only important matter when it comes to sex. The effect it has on your mind is more important - that's why Epicurus encouraged non-sexual relationships between people, because he understood the dangers of non-commitment.

Edit: I might add the Kantian argument here which is also valid:

1. It is wrong to use another person solely as a means for personal satisfaction - this objectifies them, and treats them as an object and not a person.
2. Promiscuous sex involves using another person for personal satisfaction, treating them effectively as a temporary object to help one gain something (pleasure) for themselves.
THUS: promiscuous sex is wrong, as it objectifies the other person, and does not lead to the spiritual/psychological betterment of the other, as sex in a committed relationship would.

The facile objection that having sex involves giving the other person pleasure as well won't cut it. Why? Because the intention is to use the other to get pleasure for yourself, the fact that the other may also enjoy it is only of secondary concern to you, and ultimately accidental if it happens. Committed sex on the other hand treats the person not as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself - through having sex you seek unity with that person.

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

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...

It's wrong because it's harmful misinformation. — 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.

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

Yes.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

You might not like what my conscience is telling me.

I haven't denied that you have such a right, nor have I said that you should keep your thoughts to yourself - although there's a time and a place. (It's appropriate on a philosophy forum of all places). 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?

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

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.

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

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".

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

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?

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

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.

And by the way, my so called "narrow" interpretation of sex is the interpretation of most human beings who have ever lived. The fact that you and your progressive friends think differently about sex doesn't matter. You (progressives) are a blip in history, an accident. Millions before have thought just like me, and I can guarantee you that millions after me will think just like this, with this so called "narrow" interpretation. Of course you must be very arrogant to think that literarily everyone else's perspective is narrow, and only yours is "wide" and correct...

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

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.

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

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.)

As for promiscuity being bad. I won't even bother to prove the objectivity of this. Literarily all thinkers in history have believed this - believers and non-believers alike. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, etc. etc. literarily everyone, the smartest minds that have ever existed, the greatest people in history. It's such a joke that you say the opposite without bothering to provide any sort of argument.

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

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! :)

Sorry, I've been gone for a bit, but have had the unfortunate ability to keep up with this national embarassment in the USA called the presidential primaries.

All I can say for sure is that I am so happy to have left the USA some 23 years ago.

Seeing now just how much hatred, racism, violence/justifications for violence, misogynistic & homophobic stupidity the general public has within itself, I feel that I really never wish to return to that place ever again. Austria is certainly not perfect, but there are simply far too many screwed up people in the USA with too many weapons and far too little common sense or understanding of reason or logic or patience.

Sorry to sound this way, but I have really become not only disappointed in the people of the USA, but I have really found myself very embarrassed by their current actions.

Indeed this is simply my opinion and it is not really expressed in terms of philosophy, but to be fair there has really been next to nothing regarding this issue of election that has had much to do with philosophical thinking.

I'll now go back into hiding.

Meow!

GREG

Having left the United States myself for some time (albeit nowhere long as your stated 23 years), encountered countless travellers from all across the world (Western and otherwise), I can only conclude that the US doesn't have a monopoly on ignorance. My anecdotal impressions is that Western Europeans have a generally better education, but in the end this just produces a certain population of individuals who know just enough to discuss familiar topics superficially to appear reasoned, cultured, and sophisticated, but cannot carry through with much depth or much else resembling creative risks outside of the dominant ideologies. Western Europe has its fair share of racism and far-right ignorance. Austria's fascist 'Freedom Party' is gaining ground with 20.5% of the national vote in 2013 (more than 30% in Vienna), pulling out ahead in some state elections. A fascist is a fascist, I don't really care if they look like a poor rural American or an 'educated' and cultured city-dwelling European.

In fact, as ideological production centers, the general failure of K-12 schools in the US means that many live outside of the cognitive regulatory reach of the state apparatus. Incredulous to grand narratives, distrusting of representatives of authority. Who cares if you got the badge and blue uniform Mr. Pig Man, who cares if you're legally 'right', that the assertion of your authority through violence in all of its felt, raw irrationality of the immediacy has behind it an abstract apparatus and sign, an endless codex written in non-human language, stored away in digital libraries and off-limits spaces, inflexible to circumstance and the little imperfections of the ebb and flow of bare life. Reference to a by-law does not justify legal authority except through circular reasoning. I am here. I speak myself, I live these streets and know who you really represent. It is the talk and murmur of my fellow prisoners. Your flag is a jolly-roger, gun-slinging pinkertons sanctioned by statesmen who speak between two fasces, of 'law and order', to protect the highest bidder and the general state of things.

Of course it also means a general deterioration of the social body, the capacity to readily identify as a part of a larger whole. Every individual is a private corporation, taking risks and making investments; I have no ethical responsibility in my actions so long as it's legal, it's up to the big other, the government, to step in and regulate it. Responsibility and moral agency deferred, children under the loving and watchful care of big daddy. Literature used to be our great secular transcendence, and the chorus of the rooted community joined in common interest and political song, the totalizing narratives of the early 20th Century (in its wonderful as well as horrific forms). In its place, we turn toward the spectacle, toward the news and its constant mood of some fresh new catastrophe. Political theatre has turned into show business. And Trump knows show business.

All of this is a global process, and I don't see Americans as being uniquely effected by it.

More topical to the OP, since his posting, Bernie has swept Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska. But it is not enough, as it is likely Hillary will sweep New York, and possibly California. And they will continue to represent the preferences of superdelegates as 'earned'..

However, there might be hope of a contested convention, in the event that a portion of superdelegates are all that decide the nomination. I find this situation more hopeful, as it will help generate a narrative and national recognition of the Democratic Party as inherently undemocratic, as it exists in any case. It could help lead to masses of people (finally) breaking away from the Dems and carving out genuine left alternatives, no longer under the same illusions that the party is there to motivate their interests in the halls of power. One can hope. Electing one president won't produce the changes that are needed anyway. There will be no deus ex machina.

Sanders still has a huge disadvantage (but that was said since the very beginning of his campaign, and the middle, and a month or two ago) but the momentum is still going stronger. The thing is that in large parts of the country, large parts of the country are only getting to know who Sanders is.


___________________________________


From a friend who specializes in media communications and public opinion:


I'm in between the optimistic and pessimistic views. What the pessimistic view misses out on is the trend in knowledge and opinions: against Clinton, for Sanders. Nothing's to say the trend couldn't peter out or reverse, but to take it seriously requires being less pessimistic, or "right-now-realistic", than this critic..

Are the criticisms about the math behind his campaign accurate? Accurate right now, sure, but that's a standard that has continuously failed at predicting the future in this campaign.

People talking about Sanders' "momentum" I wouldn't call it "momentum"...It's about the spread of ideas. We've already seen a massive spread over the past half year - question is where is the saturation point, or where the speed of spread slows down. Most ideas diffuse according to an S shaped curve: slow at first, then rapid growth, then slow again. If the political information which has animated so many people to support a politician attractive only for his ideas is still in the middle of the curve, we can expect Sanders to outperform at remaining primaries. If not, if we're at the top of the curve, then the required information isn't spreading widely and quickly enough, and he'll lose. I can't think of a way to measure this; all we know is that the vast majority of USians know jack shit about politics.. but likely primary voters are probably the most informed of the majority. But "likely" primary voters aren't the only ones: there are all the formerly-unlikely voters who come out to support Sanders. So anyway, my conclusion is optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect.


___________________________________

From Robert Mcchesney, pretty much the leading researcher in the political economy of the media:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4c5h0y/now_we_know_why_the_corporate_media_npr_the_dnc/


Now We Know Why the Corporate Media, NPR, the DNC and Hillary were Desperate to Kill Off Bernie's Campaign by March 15

Because they all know Hillary is holding a weak hand. She is not popular with voters. I have been doing extensive canvassing with prospective voters in Wisconsin and it confirms what the polls say--Hillary has little enthusiastic support, especially among people under 50. People do not trust her. The more they see her the less likely they are to like her.

Even her hardcore supporters are either people getting paid off by her or expecting jobs for themselves or their friends in her administration. If you go to Hillary's reddit page to see what motivates the handful of people there to be passionate about Hillary, there are almost no issues to speak of. It seems to be mostly angry bitter people who believe it is Hillary's turn, like we live in a monarchy and anyone who challenges her right to the crown is a usurper.

That is not a very powerful selling point to a majority of Democrats, let alone Americans.
Not so with Bernie. When people get to know him, they respect him and support him. Even Republicans tend to like him more than Hillary, by a wide margin. And independents adore him. he has all the momentum and enthusiasm in the race. Hillary is reduced to the absurd position that she relies upon low voter turnout to win primaries and caucuses. That says everything you need to know about how weak she is. Because Democrats win general elections when there is high turnout, the kind Bernie routinely generates.

That is why the establishment had to run him out of the race before these truths became widely known.
They tried. They failed.

Five consecutive wins now where Bernie gets at least 70 percent of the vote. Wow.
Bernie was in single-digits or low double digits in the polls for these five states 9 months ago. Just like everywhere else except Vermont. Now he is winning total blowout victories against the biggest brand name in the Democratic Party if not the nation..
If we had a credible news media, for the next week the discussion would be whether Hillary should withdraw from the race so as to not undermine Bernie's chances in November. The establishment media would obsess with how Hillary, one of the best known politicians in the world, could be demolished in five states in which she she did better in most of them in 2008. Why is she--the putative nominee according to all the "experts"-- going so sharply in the wrong direction?

Alas, we do not have a credible media. But we have survived their offensive and they are running out of ammunition.

All hands on deck for Wisconsin. We win there and it is two weeks of intensive campaigning in New York. Hillary's home state. Bernie won his home state with 86 percent of the vote. Let's see Hillary match that.

If Bernie wins Wisconsin and makes a ballgame of it in New York, he is the leader. If he wins Wisconsin and New York, Hillary is through. Game over.

Any way you slice it, she is on life support from the corporate media right now.
The next 23 days could shape the course of history. Now or never.

___________________________

If you want to follow the campaign though, just scroll down this, they post literally all the types of news that pops up

https://www.facebook.com/groups/berniesandersactivists/?fref=nf

Also, if you weren't paying attention to the alternative media (websites like Alternet), there was massive voter fraud in Arizona. All the corporate media websites announced Hillary Clinton the winner of the Arizona primary when literally less than 10% of the non-Republican voters got to vote with thousands of people still waiting in line. Literally a tiny percentage of the citizens got the chance to vote and Hillary was suddenly declared the winner of the Arizona Primary, and the corporate media is still not covering the outrage that resulted from this, even though the information has spread in the alternative media and on social media. People are doing massive protests in Arizona right now for revote so if they succeed, the Sanders campaign might get back Arizona too.


Here are the articles:

http://usuncut.com/news/arizona-polling-disaster/

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/phoenix-election-chief-blames-voters-and-laws-super-long-lines-tuesday

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-inspires-mass-protest-against-voter-suppression-arizona

http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-hearing-chaos/

A number of states have been disenfranchising voters by fresh, new approaches -- like eliminating polling stations, requiring identification documentation that not everyone has, and such. That this has been going on isn't exactly a secret, but the implications haven't been adequately explored by the [mainline] media. But this is typical. The media honestly report that there are long lines (like, really long lines) and usually this is chalked up to heavy turnout. A little background story would show that heavy turnout was paired with elimination of many voting sites (in Arizona).

Requiring more identification documentation really is a barrier, and not just to undocumented aliens who are maliciously crossing the border in order to screw up the electoral system. I'm a WASP with unimpeachable American standing, but I don't drive and don't have a driver's license. I was in my 60's before I finally went to the trouble to get a non-driver state ID--equivalent to the license. (I used to need a registered voter with a legitimate ID in my precinct to vouch for my legitimacy.) Getting an ID wasn't a terribly difficult procedure--i already had a birth certificate and could leave work for a couple of hours to go to the courthouse. Birth certificates aren't technically hard to get, but there is a small cost, some bureaucratic procedures, and often a substantial time delay.

Bureaucratic rigamarole is often a sufficient barrier preventing people from getting something they want. It is easy for conservative legislators to contrive targeted voter disenfranchisement plans. Poorer people, and certain minorities, tend to vote for liberal candidates. Putting one or two barriers in the road on the way to the polls can shift the vote enough to help conservatives win.

It went quite severe in Arizona this time though.

Which is that people registered as Democrats and had proof of that, but when they went to the polls were told they were not registered as Democrats but as Independents or PND (Party Not Designated). People even went back to get their registration cards and confirmation emails. The Electronic Pollbooks had their registrations messed up and so they were turned away and/or given provisional ballots which didn't count because their registrations were not Democrat in the [E-BOOKS]. This "error" heavily disenfranchised Sanders supporters, who switched to Democrat so they could vote for him, and even many who were Democrats for DECADES found their registrations SWITCHED.

Thank you for the additional details. There's no excuse for this sort of thing happening. After a century of mechanized and digitized data processing we know how to keep track of details. When we don't, it's usually not an accident. It's either malfeasance or incompetence.

Yes, the vote should be held again--this time with accurate lists--and more polling stations.

Agustino, do you believe that a homosexual lifestyle affects the well-being of the general public?

Depends what you mean by homosexual lifestyle. If it's a homosexual couple living non-promiscuous lives, then clearly no. If we're talking about a homosexual person who goes and tries to encourage other non-homosexuals to engage in sex with him, then probably it does affect the well-being of the general public. So it depends on the people involved.

If we're talking about a homosexual person who goes and tries to encourage other non-homosexuals to engage in sex with him, then probably it does affect the well-being of the general public. — Agustino

True, but this is not exclusive to homosexuals.

Indeed.