Does gender matter?

[Immanuel Can]

Is it a "delusion" to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex as you?

I'll put your own question to you. You might have as easily asked, "Is it a delusion to be sexually attracted to children or the dead or sexual violence or dogs and cats." The argument's the same: all that's shifted is the object of the desire. What would you say to those alternatives?

Saying that two adults of the same sex being attracted to each other is NOT the same as saying an adult can be sexually attracted to children.

Nobody said it was. But the defense being offered works the same for both. If "desire" is all you need to prove legitimacy of what you want, then there are no bad "desires," and anything goes.

You don't get to make arbitrary exceptions: if you excuse homosexuality on the basis of "that is what I desire," then the same excuse works for everything else -- that is what THEY desire, so it would be equally legitimate.

Which, of course, is absurd.

[accelafine]

Is it a "delusion" to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex as you?

I'll put your own question to you. You might have as easily asked, "Is it a delusion to be sexually attracted to children or the dead or sexual violence or dogs and cats." The argument's the same: all that's shifted is the object of the desire. What would you say to those alternatives?

Saying that two adults of the same sex being attracted to each other is NOT the same as saying an adult can be sexually attracted to children. Being sexually attracted to children, while not causing harm in and of itself, does cause harm when it is REVEALED or ACTED upon. Children are vulnerable to adult sexual predation and it can cause trauma. If two adults of the same sex consent to having sex together and it is not forced on either of them, then it is NOT the same thing if it causes no such harm.

Despite what wokist propaganda would have you believe, that 'paedophiles' are just normal people who happen to be attracted to children and that everything's hunky dory unless it's 'acted upon', that is not the case. It's part of general sexual depravity, usually fed by porn. Paedophiles are ALWAYS going to harm children sooner or later. It's only a matter of access. The only way to prevent that is to lock them away forever. Paedophilia is not a sexuality. It's a depravity. Depraved people don't have a conscience.

[Alexiev]

I'll put your own question to you. You might have as easily asked, "Is it a delusion to be sexually attracted to children or the dead or sexual violence or dogs and cats." The argument's the same: all that's shifted is the object of the desire. What would you say to those alternatives?

The fact that one has a "desire" does not speak to the question of whether or not that "desire" is legitimate. You'll need an argument that show that the desire itself is deserving of being gratified. Do you have any such?

But of course, if you're a subjectivist about morality, you couldn't, could you? It can't be objectively "wrong" to refuse to agree with somebody else's desire if all morality is subjective. To think so would be self-contradiction.

It is not a "delusion" to be sexually attracted to whomever one is sexually attracted to.

Really? Then is it any more of a "delusion" to be attracted to children, corpses and animals? The same line of argument you're floating works every bit as well for those cases.

The desire exists; its "legitimacy" is irrelevant.

Not at all. There are surely good and bad desires. We may disagree on what some are, but we don't disagree about that.

It is neither evil nor delusional nor illegitimate to be sexually attracted to children. It is evil to have sex with children.

Well, Jesus Christ had a much more precise and accurate idea of what the moral status of both are. He pointed out that even heterosexual desire, when directed to an illegitimate object, is evil. See Matthew 5:28. The fact that the action is evil doesn't make the desire neutral. They're both problematic, morally speaking: one shows the outward actions, but the other reveals the state of the heart.

It would be silly to claim that their subjective desire did not exist, would it not?

Nobody's denying the desire exists. We're debating its moral status. That means we both know it exists, but aren't agreeing on what that moral status is.

I'm pointing out that having a desire and having a legitimate desire are not the same thing. And you believe that, too...even if you disagree about which specific desires fit in which category.

"Legitimate" means either legally sound (I hope you don't want to legislate against feelings, only against actions), or resulting from orderly thinking (if one is attracted to children, it is not "delusional" to recognize the attraction). So, no, it is not a "delusion to be attracted to children, corpses or animals. This is obvious. How would it be? It would be a delusion to persuade oneself that one was attracted to members of the opposite sex if that is untrue.

Of course such attractions might be referred to as "perversions" (of normal sexuality) or as "bad things" (because they are temptations to evil).

Based on your comments about Jesus, He appears to have preached that pedophelia and heterosexual lust are BOTH wicked. I'm tattling to William Blake (look for my post on "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" which I'll make in the next day or two on the religion forum). "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom".

[Immanuel Can]

It is not a "delusion" to be sexually attracted to whomever one is sexually attracted to.

Really? Then is it any more of a "delusion" to be attracted to children, corpses and animals? The same line of argument you're floating works every bit as well for those cases.

The desire exists; its "legitimacy" is irrelevant.

Not at all. There are surely good and bad desires. We may disagree on what some are, but we don't disagree about that.

It is neither evil nor delusional nor illegitimate to be sexually attracted to children. It is evil to have sex with children.

Well, Jesus Christ had a much more precise and accurate idea of what the moral status of both are. He pointed out that even heterosexual desire, when directed to an illegitimate object, is evil. See Matthew 5:28. The fact that the action is evil doesn't make the desire neutral. They're both problematic, morally speaking: one shows the outward actions, but the other reveals the state of the heart.

It would be silly to claim that their subjective desire did not exist, would it not?

Nobody's denying the desire exists. We're debating its moral status. That means we both know it exists, but aren't agreeing on what that moral status is.

I'm pointing out that having a desire and having a legitimate desire are not the same thing. And you believe that, too...even if you disagree about which specific desires fit in which category.

"Legitimate" means either legally sound (I hope you don't want to legislate against feelings, only against actions), or resulting from orderly thinking (if one is attracted to children, it is not "delusional" to recognize the attraction). So, no, it is not a "delusion to be attracted to children, corpses or animals. This is obvious. How would it be? It would be a delusion to persuade oneself that one was attracted to members of the opposite sex if that is untrue.

I didn't say that the having of the desire was a "delusion." Nobody debates whether or not somebody HAS a particular desire, if they say they do. If "I have an attraction to..." is an excuse for anything, then it's an excuse for all things. So it would mean you would be advocating not morality but amorality...at least in regard to sex.

But it's actually not an excuse for anything. So it's not a defense of any inappropriate sexual behaviour or predilection.

Based on your comments about Jesus, He appears to have preached that pedophelia and heterosexual lust are BOTH wicked.

If by "lust" you mean "misdirected desire," then yes, all such things are included. But there's no exception for homosexuality on that, either.

I'm tattling to William Blake (look for my post on "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" which I'll make in the next day or two on the religion forum). "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom".

Blake was a Swedenborgian. He's not a theological authority on anything. But he did write good poetry, and his paintings are quite interesting...though rather weird, too.

[Gary Childress]

I'll put your own question to you. You might have as easily asked, "Is it a delusion to be sexually attracted to children or the dead or sexual violence or dogs and cats." The argument's the same: all that's shifted is the object of the desire. What would you say to those alternatives?

Saying that two adults of the same sex being attracted to each other is NOT the same as saying an adult can be sexually attracted to children.

Nobody said it was. But the defense being offered works the same for both. If "desire" is all you need to prove legitimacy of what you want, then there are no bad "desires," and anything goes.

You don't get to make arbitrary exceptions: if you excuse homosexuality on the basis of "that is what I desire," then the same excuse works for everything else -- that is what THEY desire, so it would be equally legitimate.

Which, of course, is absurd.

I didn't say any desire is legitimate. I said homosexuality is probably not harmful if it's done between two consenting adults however pedophilia is different because it can have negative consequences to a child. Therefore it's false to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

[Immanuel Can]

Saying that two adults of the same sex being attracted to each other is NOT the same as saying an adult can be sexually attracted to children.

Nobody said it was. But the defense being offered works the same for both. If "desire" is all you need to prove legitimacy of what you want, then there are no bad "desires," and anything goes.

You don't get to make arbitrary exceptions: if you excuse homosexuality on the basis of "that is what I desire," then the same excuse works for everything else -- that is what THEY desire, so it would be equally legitimate.

Which, of course, is absurd.

...it's false to compare homosexuality to pedophilia.

Nobody did. I just pointed out that the argument that was being used to justify the one equally justifies the other things, and all other things. And if it doesn't work for them, then neither does it worth for this.

[phyllo]

Nobody did. I just pointed out that the argument that was being used to justify the one equally justifies the other things, and all other things. And if it doesn't work for them, then neither does it worth for this.

Actually, you called non-binary gender delusional, then said that almost all delusions are harmful and that "thinking that you're a woman when you're a man, or vise versa" certainly is.

When Alexiev said that homosexuality (or not identifying with biological gender) is neither delusional nor harmful, you ignored that and started talking about desire, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.

And so here we are.

You never demonstrated any harm that comes from homosexuality or non-binary gender. You just changed the subject.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody did. I just pointed out that the argument that was being used to justify the one equally justifies the other things, and all other things. And if it doesn't work for them, then neither does it worth for this.

Actually, you called non-binary gender delusional, then said that almost all delusions are harmful and that "thinking that you're a woman when you're a man, or vise versa" certainly is.

Yes, I said all that. What I didn't say was what Gary claimed I said, which was that all sexual deviations are the same thing. They're different, though all evil.

When Alexiev said that homosexuality (or not identifying with biological gender) is neither delusional nor harmful, you ignored that and started talking about desire, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.

No, I pointed out that his argument worked equally well for all sorts of sexual deviation. And it does. Which means that it's not a good argument by which to defend homosexuality, unless one is equally happy to defend everything else.

That was the point: the fault in the pattern of arguing.

You never demonstrated any harm that comes from homosexuality or non-binary gender.

Yeah, I can demonstrate that. But it wasn't my point. What you and Gary need to do is to pay attention to the argument, instead of imagining what you think I could have, would have, or should have said.

[phyllo]

You never demonstrated any harm that comes from homosexuality or non-binary gender.

Yeah, I can demonstrate that.

Go ahead. Since that's an important point of interest in the discussion.

[Immanuel Can]

You never demonstrated any harm that comes from homosexuality or non-binary gender.

Yeah, I can demonstrate that.

Go ahead. Since that's an important point of interest in the discussion.

It's an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22) and an offense against the natural order (Rom. 1:26-27). That which creates separation from God is the very definition of the greatest possible harm. So all forms of sexual perversion, including heterosexual adultery and such other deviations, whether "normalized" by society or not, are harmful in the most extreme way.

But no, that had nothing to do with whether or not the defense Alexiev had offered was a sensible one. So it wasn't all that "important" to the point in hand.

[phyllo]

So it says in your holy book that God doesn't want you to engage in that behavior.

This shows the reason why you think the behavior is bad rather than showing any actual real world harm.

And if one does not believe in that particular god or book, then one does not have any reason to think the behavior is bad.

[Age]

Yeah, I can demonstrate that.

Go ahead. Since that's an important point of interest in the discussion.

It's an abomination to God (Lev. 18:22) and an offense against the natural order (Rom. 1:26-27). That which creates separation from God is the very definition of the greatest possible harm.

Claiming God has a beard and a penis created separation from God, yet, here, is "immanuel can" continually creating the greatest possible harm.

So all forms of sexual perversion, including heterosexual adultery and such other deviations, whether "normalized" by society or not, are harmful in the most extreme way.

Including "immanuel can's" sexual fantasies, of course.

But no, that had nothing to do with whether or not the defense Alexiev had offered was a sensible one. So it wasn't all that "important" to the point in hand.

[Immanuel Can]

So it says in your holy book that God doesn't want you to engage in that behavior.

This shows the reason why you think the behavior is bad rather than showing any actual real world harm.

And if one does not believe in that particular god or book, then one does not have any reason to think the behavior is bad.

Well, perhaps you don't regard "harm" as including committing any offense against God or any desecration of the sanctity of another person. So you'd have to go to gross scatalogical, social and medical details to find the evidence of "harm" you would acknowledge, and I'm sure you're not willing to do that either...so you're not going to see any harm in it, I suppose. And since "harm" is essential to your definition of "wrong," you're going to think you have no reason to think such behavior is bad. That makes sense.

But the problem is not that there's no harm, or that it's not an abomination to the Creator, or that it is not a violation of the natural order of life, or that that 'lifestyle' is not attendend by multitudinous physical, psychological and spiritual injuries...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

[Age]

So it says in your holy book that God doesn't want you to engage in that behavior.

This shows the reason why you think the behavior is bad rather than showing any actual real world harm.

And if one does not believe in that particular god or book, then one does not have any reason to think the behavior is bad.

Well, perhaps you don't regard "harm" as including committing any offense against God or any desecration of the sanctity of another person. So you'd have to go to gross scatalogical, social and medical details to find the evidence of "harm" you would acknowledge, and I'm sure you're not willing to do that either...so you're not going to see any harm in it, I suppose. And since "harm" is essential to your definition of "wrong," you're going to think you have no reason to think such behavior is bad. That makes sense.

But the problem is not that there's no harm, or that it's not an abomination to the Creator, or that it is not a violation of the natural order of life, or that that 'lifestyle' is not attendend by multitudinous physical, psychological and spiritual injuries...it's just that you won't accept that the actual harm is harm.

Exactly like it is just that "immanuel can" will not accept that the actual harm is harm.

[LuckyR]

I agree. Deliver people from their delusions, as we all should want to be. There's no kindness in letting the deluded persist, however "satisfied" they may claim to feel.

There are not many truly "harmless" delusions. Almost always, you can find some level of "harm" that is being done when a person abandons reality for a delusion.

But for certain, thinking that you're a woman when you're a man, or vise versa, is not a "harmless" thing, either to the deluded one or the others he seeks to pull into his delusions with him. So that one's out for "harmlessness."

Is it a "delusion" to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex as you?

I'll put your own question to you. You might have as easily asked, "Is it a delusion to be sexually attracted to children or the dead or sexual violence or dogs and cats." The argument's the same: all that's shifted is the object of the desire. What would you say to those alternatives?

The fact that one has a "desire" does not speak to the question of whether or not that "desire" is legitimate. You'll need an argument that show that the desire itself is deserving of being gratified. Do you have any such?

But of course, if you're a subjectivist about morality, you couldn't, could you? It can't be objectively "wrong" to refuse to agree with somebody else's desire if all morality is subjective. To think so would be self-contradiction.

Ah yes, "what-about-ism" the last refuge of those who can't/won't address the actual topic.