AdminModulous responds to me:
quote:
It's an equally valid question - though there are few threads around here concerned with the morality of heterosexual sex. I'm perfectly happy to entertain the question and I don't think it implies that heterosexuals are animals.
You're missing the point and being quite disingenuous in the process:
First, the missing the point aspect: Since we don't think that heterosexuality leads to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape (after all, we encourage heterosexuality but discourage bestiality, pedophilia, and rape), then what on earth makes anybody think that homosexuality could possibly lead to them any more than heterosexuality does? The two go together. If heterosexuality doesn't lead to them, then homosexuality necessarily doesn't either. If homosexuality does, and if we must actively discourage homosexuality on that basis, then heterosexuality necessarily does as well and we must actively discourage heterosexuality on that basis, too.
The only other option is to assert that there is something that gay people do that straight people don't do, but there is no such thing. In fact, given the sheer number of heterosexuals out there, straight people engage in the activities condemned in gays much more often. So if it doesn't make straight people have sex with animals, children, or against someone's will, then it cannot make gay people do any of those things, either.
Second, the disingenuous part: Nobody ever questions heterosexuality as leading to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape. You know this. Please show me where anybody has ever studied heterosexuality as causative factor of such. If you can't find any, let us not pretend that it is "an equally valid question."
After all, sex is not species. Changing the sex of the participants does not alter the species of those involved. Sex is not age. Changing the sex of the participants does not alter the ages of those involved. Sex is not consent. Changing the sex of the participants does not alter the consent of those involved.
quote:
Indeed - the morality of oral sex was once questioned and we could even ask the question of oral sex.
Again, you are being disingenuous at best. The question of the morality of oral sex was to compare it to genital sex. Those two are different acts. However, there is nothing that a same-sex couple does to each other than mixed-sex couples don't also do. In fact, because there are more straight people in the world than gay people, it is much more likely that "the thing that makes Jesus puke" (bonus points for catching the reference) is being done by a straight person than a gay person.
Changing the sex of the participants from gay to straight doesn't change the act. Therefore, since it isn't problematic when straight people do it, then it cannot be problematic when gay people do it.
quote:
Which is backwards. Nobody is discussing the morality of bestiality.
Yes, they are. They are making the implicit statement that bestiality is morally wrong. By bringing up bestiality in a discussion about the morality of same-sex sexual activity, one necessarily equates the two. Why would it be brought up if not to equate them?
Again, the question that should immediately be asked is why the person is jumping to bestiality, pedophilia, and/or rape when discussing same-sex sexuality when such comparisons would never be made when discussing mixed-sex sexuality? There are no sexual acts that gay people engage in that straight people don't. So if we don't think heterosexuality leads to bestiality, pedophilia, and/or rape, then why on earth would homosexuality lead to it?
quote:
The question was what reasoning prevents us from considering it moral whereas we can consider homosexual sex not immoral.
And my point is that it is illogical to do so and anybody who does do so is necessarily a homophobic bigot. We never consider that heterosexuality would lead to such and since there is nothing gay people do that straight people don't, it necessarily is the case that homosexuality doesn't lead to such, either. The two go together.
quote:
The question wasn't about gay people but about homosexual sex and its morality.
Once again, you are being disingenuous. We aren't talking about the neutral "men who have sex with men" statement of the CDC and NIH when trying to define sexual activity between people of the same sex without reference to sexual orientation since there are many instances where people who aren't gay will engage in same-sex sexual activity. We are talking about the sexual activities that people engage in when a full suite of options are available.
Thus, if you regularly, deliberately, and eagerly engage in sex with someone of the same sex, then you aren't straight. It doesn't matter that you don't "identify" with gay people...you're not straight. Thus, "homosexual sex" is necessarily about gay people because they're the ones engaging in it.
That said, you're avoiding the issue: Homosexual sex is no different from heterosexual sex. There is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't. Therefore, the question of the morality of "homosexual sex" can only be argued on a few levels. One is that all sexual activity that isn't penis-vagina is immoral (and the people who advocate such are exceedingly rare in reality). The other is that there is something about the sex of the parties involved that is of importance such that engaging in a specific act with a member of the opposite sex causes a different reaction than if the exact same act is engaged in with a member of the same sex.
You will note that neither one can look to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape as a justification.
quote:
However - the question is does discussing the morality of bestiality mean that we are comparing gays with animals.
As a simple question of the morality of bestiality without regard to the sex of the participants or the sexual orientation of the human involved? Of course not.
But as soon as you introduce gay people...and only gay people...into the discussion, then you are necessarily comparing gays with animals and thus reveal yourself to be a homophobic bigot. The moment a discussion about the morality of gay people wanders off into questions that don't involve the sex of the participants but rather introduce orthogonal traits such as species, age, or consent, then the one doing so reveals himself as a homophobic bigot.
quote:
we are comparing two sexual activities
No, we aren't. If we were, then we wouldn't involve ourselves with the sex or the sexual orientation of the participants. The fact that someone wishes to introduce homosexuality into the discussion indicates that he is a homophobic bigot.
quote:
to understand how us non-homophobic people decide that homosexual sex is not immoral but bestiality is.
But we already know why: There is absolutely no connection between sexual orientation and such things as bestiality, pedophilia, or rape. To even consider them is illogical. To insist that they have some sort of connection is to reveal oneself as a homophobic bigot.
Since there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't, how can one possibly get to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape when considering same-sex sexuality but never do so when considering mixed-sex sexuality?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
