Which websites shouldn't be on the net? - Page 3

Dr Strangelove · January 5, 2003, 01:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
Have you looked?

No, I was hopeing that you could refer me.

monolith94 · January 5, 2003, 01:31

"Many people do, they're called Christians."
Shut up

Kingof the Apes · January 5, 2003, 02:44

Yeah, methinks Christians don't run around killing people for thier sexual orientation.

Oerdin · January 5, 2003, 02:56

They do in certain muslim countries though.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 03:35

i like porn and warez and communism! it'd be cool to see a combo site.

"sexy female comrades pirating software to share with the masses! only $19.95 per month!"

Ben Kenobi · January 5, 2003, 18:14

"It's about love, as corny as that sounds. I really can't imagine a worse evil than not allowing someone to love."
-Lorizael

Are not some forms of love discouraged, such as between a child and an adult? There are many good reasons for doing so, mostly to protect the child from exploitation.

Even so, just because it is discouraged, does not mean that people are kept from loving. Does not true love overcome hardships? In no way do I keep people from loving each other.

If homosexuality is harmful, does it not make sense to warn people of the dangers? We can't keep people from harming themselves, but we should offer help to those disaffected by the lifestyle, and avoid encouragement.

red_jon · January 5, 2003, 18:57

The vast majority of Christians I used to know tried to make my life hell when I came out, so I really don't have time for them.

Lorizael · January 6, 2003, 01:44

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
"It's about love, as corny as that sounds. I really can't imagine a worse evil than not allowing someone to love."
-Lorizael

Are not some forms of love discouraged, such as between a child and an adult? There are many good reasons for doing so, mostly to protect the child from exploitation.

Even so, just because it is discouraged, does not mean that people are kept from loving. Does not true love overcome hardships? In no way do I keep people from loving each other.

If homosexuality is harmful, does it not make sense to warn people of the dangers? We can't keep people from harming themselves, but we should offer help to those disaffected by the lifestyle, and avoid encouragement.

Exploitation, that's it. What happens between an adult and a child is wrong because in pretty much every circumstance, the child does not consent, doesn't know how not to consent, or does not love the adult.

Homosexual sex, however, is sex between to consenting individuals of the same sex. There's no exploitation in there, no unequal feelings, except in specific circumstances of a relationship that really have nothing to do with the fact that the act is homosexual.

Ben Kenobi · January 6, 2003, 18:00

red_jon-

Well, I'm a Christian and I do have time. Part of the package is that if somebody wants to talk to you, you should hear them out. I can't say I'll agree, but I will listen.

"What happens between an adult and a child is wrong because in pretty much every circumstance, the child does not consent, doesn't know how not to consent, or does not love the adult."

Lorizael- you agree with me that under certain circumstances the state is justified in regulating sexual conduct, at least in terms of consent. A child cannot consent to a sexual act imposed by an adult, and should therefore be protected. This is different from saying, it's love, therefore it's okay.

I agree that pedophilia is different than homosexuality, in that they have different reasons for why they are wrong. But first, I think I have to ask, what about bestiality? Why is this wrong?

Switch · January 6, 2003, 18:55

Not that I think sites should be 'censored', per say, but generally the sites I chose just shouldn't exist, much like some people

Not all of them were necessarily limiting free speach...those that would prevent encouraging terrorism and criminalism would merely be helping to ensure that more people obey the law, and I believe the terrorism thing would be illegal in the US anyways (or so I would assume, as of late

)

St Leo · January 6, 2003, 18:58

We cannot communicate with other animals, so they cannot give consent. Bestiality is wrong because it's rape.

Lorizael · January 6, 2003, 23:17

I say what St Leo said. So if the problem isn't that homosexuals aren't consenting, what is it?

You say there are higher instances of sexually transmitted diseases? You say it is more dangerous?

Then why do we allow people to ride roller coasters? Why do we let people eat fattening foods? Why do we let people do any of the monstrously dangerous and unhealthy things they do?

Tell me why homosexuality is wrong.

Ben Kenobi · January 7, 2003, 00:46

St. Leo-
Bestiality would be fine if animals could talk?

I was thinking more about the effects on the person of getting used to pleasuring animals more than people.

Lorizael-
IMHO most roller coasters are quite safe

Homosexuality has bad effects on the participants. this is the main reason why it is wrong. These effects include increased rate of suicide, drug abuse, and the STD's which I already mentioned. Other health problems such as infections due to the structure of the bowel designed to let things out rather than in also play a factor.

Most of these are symptoms of the short period in which most gay relationships last. People are like sticky tape. If you keep sticking and removing them, eventually they lose their stickyness.

Other reasons include the fact that it is not universalisable. If everyone were gay, eventually no one would be. Within about 70 years or so. This is not true for heteros.

Kant presumes that all moral actions are universalisable, that when everyone does an action, that action should persist. Things like helping a neighbour do work.

Of course, this assumes that people only practice homosexuality, which is the act we are testing. This particulear argument will not work for bisexuals.

Tuberski · January 7, 2003, 00:49

universalisable?

Is that a word?

ACK!

loinburger · January 7, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Homosexuality has bad effects on the participants. this is the main reason why it is wrong. These effects include increased rate of suicide, drug abuse, and the STD's which I already mentioned. Other health problems such as infections due to the structure of the bowel designed to let things out rather than in also play a factor.

This is an issue with a particular brand of intercourse, not with homosexual sex in general. Many homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. Practically all female homosexuals do not engage in anal sex.

Quote:

Most of these are symptoms of the short period in which most gay relationships last. People are like sticky tape. If you keep sticking and removing them, eventually they lose their stickyness.

This is partly an issue with the social stigma (and law) preventing a legal long-term homosexual relationship. This is also not a purely homosexual issue -- many heterosexuals also engage in short-term relationships.

Quote:

Other reasons include the fact that it is not universalisable. If everyone were gay, eventually no one would be. Within about 70 years or so. This is not true for heteros.

But not everyone is gay. Furthermore, there is no reason why somebody who is homosexual would not also be capable of becoming a parent, e.g. through adoption or artificial insemination.

Quote:

Kant presumes that all moral actions are universalisable, that when everyone does an action, that action should persist. Things like helping a neighbour do work.

By this logic, heterosexual intercourse using contraception is equivalent to homosexual intercourse.

Furthermore, homosexual intercourse is universalisable (assuming of course that everybody wished to participate in homosexual intercourse). Why would a homosexual object to others being homosexual?

Addendum: This also means that failing to procreate (e.g. by being a confirmed bachelor) is morally equivalent to being a homosexual.

Cyclotron · January 7, 2003, 01:22

Only illegal stuff, i.e. warez/abandonware that is illegal. I don't care what else you put on the web.

Ben Kenobi · January 7, 2003, 01:51

"This is partly an issue with the social stigma (and law) preventing a legal long-term homosexual relationship."

Sorry, I don't think making this legal will improve the conditions. Just because a relationship is 'legal' does not reinforce the couple. It takes a commitment between two people. The law can help people meet, but it can't hold people together.

"This is also not a purely homosexual issue -- many heterosexuals also engage in short-term relationships."

Agreed- but many heterosexuals , at a far greater proportion manage to sustain long-term relationships. I'm not trying to argue a double standard- it's just as bad for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

Contraceptives don't work in your example because we cannot design a perfect contraceptive. A better example would be to try to universalise abortion. 100% effective.

Society has no interest in promoting homosexuality. No benefit is gained.

loinburger · January 7, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Agreed- but many heterosexuals , at a far greater proportion manage to sustain long-term relationships.

Do you have a cite for this?

Quote:

Contraceptives don't work in your example because we cannot design a perfect contraceptive. A better example would be to try to universalise abortion. 100% effective.

We could also try to universalize abstinence, which is 100% effective. Ergo, not having sex is just as bad as having homosexual sex. Have you procreated today?

One of the many problems with Kant is that universalizability is not the be-all end-all criterion for determining the validity of an ethical maxim. It is easy to universalize many trivial maxims ("Nobody shall wear shoes made of leather," "Nobody shall eat beef," or "Nobody shall clip his/her nails more than once per week"), as well as many immoral maxims ("Nobody shall lie more than once per month" or "Nobody shall lie except to somebody he/she does not like"). Universalizabilty is a criterion, but it's one that isn't particularly relevant.

There are also many actions that cannot be universalized, but which many of us perform every day. It is impossible for everybody to drive to work, since not everybody has a car. Is it therefore immoral to drive to work? Is it immoral to take the bus or subway, since not everybody's area is serviced by the bus or subway? Is it immoral to buy an airplane ticket just because there aren't six billion seats on the airplane? Certainly not -- such actions (ignoring for the moment the externalities of transportation, such as pollution) harm nobody, are often necessary for day-to-day life to continue, and can also be quite enjoyable, and yet they cannot be universalized.

The real question is, "who is being harmed by homosexual sex?" A lie harms the person to whom it is being told, and has the potential of harming many other people besides, thus it is immoral to lie. Who is harmed by homosexual sex? (Remember that homosexual sex does not necessarily entail anal sex, so many of the risks you described earlier are irrelevant. Also recall that it is entirely possible to practice safe homosexual sex by use of condoms etc.)

Quote:

Society has no interest in promoting homosexuality. No benefit is gained.

The benefit is that homosexuals would be allowed to live their lives unimpeded, rather than be stigmatized or even fined/imprisoned for behavior that harms nobody. Doesn't freedom benefit society?

Boris Godunov · January 7, 2003, 02:12

Quote:

Originally posted by obiwan18
Sorry, I don't think making this legal will improve the conditions. Just because a relationship is 'legal' does not reinforce the couple. It takes a commitment between two people. The law can help people meet, but it can't hold people together.

This isn't true. Having a law that permits homosexuals to engage in the same legal relationship as heterosexuals can would almost certainly increase the number of same-sex committed couples. The state providing an incentive to be bound to one another is a strong inticement for such relationships.

Quote:

Agreed- but many heterosexuals , at a far greater proportion manage to sustain long-term relationships. I'm not trying to argue a double standard- it's just as bad for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals.

I doubt you can statistically support this assertion if you focus on unmarried heterosexual couples versus gay couples. Since gays are deprived of the next common step in a relationship, the statistics will become skewed in favor of heterosexuals if you include married couples. Having a legally sanctioned union that includes nearly 1500 benefits to it is not a small consideration. There's also the pull of tradition.

Were heterosexuals given the same expectation as homosexuals that their relationships would fail, you'd see the same thing for straights. If society placed they same expectation on homosexuals as it did heterosexuals--that they would find someone, settle down and get married to them--then you'd see even more evening of the statistics. Plenty of homosexuals who have been brought up in the traditional environments transfer that to their gay existence and seek a committed monogomous relationship with someone of the same gender.

Quote:

Society has no interest in promoting homosexuality. No benefit is gained.

Society has a marked interest in promoting acceptance of homosexuality as something that just is a part of life for some people and not stigmatizing those who are gay. That would reduce the suicide rate and end many of the so-called ills of homosexuality you cite here.

I am also tired of the argument "Well, if everyone was gay, then mankind would be wiped out!" It's an irrelevant piece of emotional rhetoric that has no real meaning other to demean gay relationships. It has no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Society is ill-served by promulgating intolerance of homosexuality as a deviant, bad thing. It's not something people choose to be, it just is a fact of nature/life/whatever.

Sava · January 7, 2003, 02:15

hmmm how did this thread turn into a conversation about homosexuality?

Boris Godunov · January 7, 2003, 02:16

I'd also like to point out that there aren't any more health risks inherent in being gay than there are in being straight. Homosexuality isn't defined by a particular sex act, after all.

And that particular sex act that obiwan thinks is so dangerous happens to be practiced by heterosexuals on a comparable scale as it is by homosexuals.

Normal straight sex also includes health problems, including vaginal infections. Does that make it immoral, too?

loinburger · January 7, 2003, 02:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
hmmm how did this thread turn into a conversation about homosexuality?

I was wondering that myself, but hey, why ask why?

Sava · January 7, 2003, 02:19

Plus I heard somewhere that only like 50 percent of gays do anal sex. Straight people do anal, too. I don't see how its any more dangerous

If anything, gay men probably have higher standards of cleanliness and such.

Dis · January 7, 2003, 04:21

I would never do anal with a woman (or a man)!!

the statistics don't lie. more gay men have aids than straight men (based on their relative populations- and this is in the U.S.- I'm sure South Africa isn't like this). I don't know why this is, but it is true.

Boris Godunov · January 7, 2003, 13:57

Assuming, given your heterosexuality, that you're the "top" in an anal coupling, you'd not be and any more risk for contracting AIDS than through vaginal sex. The receivers of anal sex are the ones with the greatest risk. The risk of transmission for the top is, while not zero, statistically very small. Add a condom to the mix and it is safe for the top.

So if you found a woman you were madly in love with, thought she was terrific in every other way, but she happened to love anal sex and wanted you to do it with her, you would refuse, even if it meant your relationship suffering/ending? If you knew she was HIV-?

How selfish.

And as for transmission rates, the current group that has the highest infection rate is minority heterosexual women. This is due to a lack of education and prevention drives in inner cities. In terms of gays, white middle-class men have seen a reduction of transmission rates (putting them on nearly the same level as their heterosexual female counterparts), while the minority rates have undergone a troubling increase, especially among young urban minority gays.

And while the numbers are hard to guage, most surveys I've seen show the number of gay men who participate in anal sex to be in the 30-40% range. This is, oddly, to that much higher in the same surveys than the purported number of heterosexuals who partake of it, which I found quite surprising.

Sava · January 7, 2003, 14:17

I'm not in to anal sex with women (or men for that matter). But if she wanted it, I'd give it to her. It's not a turn off, but not a turn on. It just seems yucky. There'd definitely have to be some cleaning in that area beforehand though.

I've always been curious about the likelihood of contracting STD's from receiving or giving oral sex. Even though I had a moderate amount of sex-ed, I've never been able to have my questions asked to the fullest extent (no pun intended).

Boris Godunov · January 7, 2003, 14:45

Receiving oral sex is very low risk for transmission of AIDS. Giving oral sex to a man is also low risk, though not as low as receiving, and depends on whether or not (pardon the graphicness) the giver allows the receiver to ejaculate in his/her mouth. That supposedly carries about an 8% infection risk. I have no idea how risky it is for giving oral sex to a woman, but would imagine it carries a similar or slightly greater risk.

Ben Kenobi · January 7, 2003, 16:17

Finally- glad to see Boris respond.

"So if you found a woman you were madly in love with, thought she was terrific in every other way, but she happened to love anal sex and wanted you to do it with her, you would refuse, even if it meant your relationship suffering/ending? If you knew she was HIV-?"

Flip this around Boris-

Suppose I was into anal sex, and asked my girlfriend if she wanted to try as well. Would I break up with her just because she refused to gratify this desire? No. Likewise, she cannot expect me to do everything she wants, and nor do I expect her to do everything I would want. Both people should enjoy sex, not merely one person. The trick is to find what both people are comfortable with, yet still try new things once in awhile.

I would probably try it once, only if she asked for it, see what it felt like, and then say no. At this point, health is not a concern. I don't think the health problems with anal sex emerge unless practiced frequently. My reason for trying once is from respect for my wife. Why does she enjoy this? Why do you find this pleasurable? This helps me to understand her, even if I don't ever do so again.

This is a side issue though- "Homosexuality isn't defined by a particular sex act, after all." Here, I agree with you Boris.

The question now becomes what is homosexuality? Or for that matter what does sexual orientation mean?

From what I can see, it is not wrong to have homosexual proclivities, the question is whether you act on them or not. By proclivities, I mean having an attraction to men. I think people are all over the scale on this, some more than others. However, where the problem arises is acting on these impulses.

As for HIV transmission, the problem stems more from promiscuity than increased likelihood of transmission due to anal sex, although the vaginal walls seem more resistent.

"Add a condom to the mix and it is safe for the top."

Sorry Boris- condoms don't prevent HIV even for heterosexuals. Look at the difference in Africa between Uganda, and South Africa. South Africa preaches condoms, while Uganda preaches abstinence. Guess who has the worse HIV problem? Theoretically, condoms should protect people, but they break, leak, even when people use them properly.

Statistics forthcoming as requested for Loinburger.
Going to grab some lunch first.

Dis · January 7, 2003, 20:39

If I found a woman who was perfect for me- boy this might get the thread close. Let me put this delicately. I would do her in that way with a condom on. It seems to me you would get poop on your wang by doing that without a condom. Again, I don't know much about the subject. But I find poop kind of yucky. And I would make the chick take the condom off and wash her hands after I'm done. That's the only way I'd do it that way.

Lorizael · January 8, 2003, 16:06

Where do you draw the line Obiwan? There is risk in all kinds of sexual acts, whether it be vaginal, oral, or anal. Why is homosexual sex too dangerous when heterosexual sex isnt? It seems you've drawn an awfully convenient line there...