For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I already told you, through citing my research, the reasons why homosexuality is immoral. If you don't wanna hear it or look at it, that's fine. All it proves though is that you're not willing to hear it, and so you're going to annoy me by asking this question repeatedly, when I have already answered it.Blaggard wrote:
I am still waiting to hear why homosexuality is immoral though..?
You are getting emotional over nothing (ie. someone simply disagreeing over homosexuality). Here are reasons why homosexuality is immoral.
1) Sex is primarily about procreation, ie. giving birth to a new generation. Animals, of all kinds, have sex to procreate, and they do so as a heterosexual couple (not homosexual). You see, animals are not homosexuals by any means. These myths are misinterpreted by homosexuals, when in reality animals are of their limited primal instincts. Here is a paper that debunks this myth: http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html
Without procreation, life wouldn't exist here on earth, which is why there are two polar opposite sexes (with different sex organs), which enable procreation. This is where homosexuals and proponents of it fail at this aspect of biology.
2) Homosexuals cannot have an adequate family unit as compared to a heterosexual family unit. Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas found that when reporting data for lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers, as compared to a regular family unit, Mark found that, "the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures". Here are some facts from the Family Research Council (citing this) that Mark has found.
Children in homosexual family units are:
"Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female"
"Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense"
Read more at the Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research
I'd rather not read completely biased bullshit published by whatever organisations which basically just show how inequitously homosexuals are treated, you don't think they have more depression because they are subjugated, you don't think they have less chance at work because they are unfairly judged by the moral majority, you don't think they co-habit because their sort of relationship is not allowed, they are not allowed to marry and hence can't habit with a single partner? I'd rather that everyone got an equal chance and weren't hence demeaned for who or what they are that leads to such inequity. You never know if the idiots will stop talking shit and subjugating others that don't meet their expectations one day that might happen. Not in my lifetime but one lives in hope.WanderingLands wrote:Here
You are getting emotional over nothing (ie. someone simply disagreeing over homosexuality). Here are reasons why homosexuality is immoral.
1) Sex is primarily about procreation, ie. giving birth to a new generation. Animals, of all kinds, have sex to procreate, and they do so as a heterosexual couple (not homosexual). You see, animals are not homosexuals by any means. These myths are misinterpreted by homosexuals, when in reality animals are of their limited primal instincts. Here is a paper that debunks this myth: http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html
Without procreation, life wouldn't exist here on earth, which is why there are two polar opposite sexes (with different sex organs), which enable procreation. This is where homosexuals and proponents of it fail at this aspect of biology.
2) Homosexuals cannot have an adequate family unit as compared to a heterosexual family unit. Sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas found that when reporting data for lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers, as compared to a regular family unit, Mark found that, "the children of homosexuals did worse (or, in the case of their own sexual orientation, were more likely to deviate from the societal norm) on 77 out of 80 outcome measures". Here are some facts from the Family Research Council (citing this) that Mark has found.
Children in homosexual family units are:
"Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female"
"Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense"
Read more at the Family Research Council: http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study ... s-research
You are not or never were annoying me you are just wrong I am afraid, and although being wrong is not the biggest sin in the world, someone as ignorant as you is at least somewhat irritating.WanderingLands wrote:P.S. Excuse me if you thought I was being insulting when I said that you were "annoying" me.
It's not about "toleration" in general. But that some beliefs should be kept to yourself and practised in private, to avoid a society in which people actively attacks each other's freedom of movement and freedom to pursue personal affections. It includes the other way around, that just because a person is a jerk fundamentalist nut-case, as long as the person have some basic respects in their treating of you, you shouldn't deny their public rights. Or for that sake a racist, nationalist xenophobe, or just a selfish bastard.WanderingLands wrote:Why is it that religious conservatives are expected to tolerate "Liberalism" and homosexuality, yet all the while "Liberals" and homosexuals have the right to be intolerant to religious conservatives? Seems hypocritical, do you think?
Hmm, interesting read... but certainly there must have happened more between 1964 and now than just the Civil Rights Act. Most countries have a constant development in areas of rights and prohibitions, there must have been some kind of progress in legislation in 50 years time?i_another wrote:I would therefore argue that Arizona's law is statutorily permissible.
No sadly I think he's very much right, there is no reason why a shop owner might not bar anyone. I think he pretty much nailed it. Not that I am totally against the idea per se, of course in any Western country a shop owner has the right to refuse anyone, but on those grounds of course seems like nonsense. The law is the law though...The Voice of Time wrote:Hmm, interesting read... but certainly there must have happened more between 1964 and now than just the Civil Rights Act. Most countries have a constant development in areas of rights and prohibitions, there must have been some kind of progress in legislation in 50 years time?i_another wrote:I would therefore argue that Arizona's law is statutorily permissible.
Perversion? Do you even know what a "perversion" is?WanderingLands wrote:that don't tolerate this perversion.
There's nothing bad or wrong about homosexuality any more than you make in your own imagination. Homosexual love is as beautiful and valuable as any heterosexual love. Nothing about changing the gender of the mouth you are putting your penis in changes the value of the intimate act. Or the face you kiss, or the genital you lick. The value comes from human companionship, personal flourishing and strong dyadic societal ties. These values are irrespective of gender.the process of affecting something good or right in a negative way so that it becomes something bad or wrong
Yes, additional legislation has been passed; however, that lawmaking occurred at the state and not at the national level. For example, California and Maine have enacted state legislation that prohibits private businesses who offer public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Others, as you noted with the case of Arizona, have gone in a different direction. This is possible as a result of the principle of American federalism.The Voice of Time wrote:Hmm, interesting read... but certainly there must have happened more between 1964 and now than just the Civil Rights Act. Most countries have a constant development in areas of rights and prohibitions, there must have been some kind of progress in legislation in 50 years time?
Obviously those philosophers have not been doing their job if society has virtually stood still on this area for 50 years. No wonder they call the present congress the least efficient one for a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time.Blaggard wrote:but I suppose that is why ethics exist and why philosophers still have a place in society..?
Hmm, okay. Well whoever I talked about earlier with on the note of whether EU was a confederacy or a federation, I can see why it may look like a federation, seems the EU have more legislation concerning this than the US x)i_another wrote:Yes, additional legislation has been passed; however, that lawmaking occurred at the state and not at the national level. For example, California and Maine have enacted state legislation that prohibits private businesses who offer public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Others, as you noted with the case of Arizona, have gone in a different direction. This is possible as a result of the principle of American federalism.
Quite agree.The Voice of Time wrote:Obviously those philosophers have not been doing their job if society has virtually stood still on this area for 50 years. No wonder they call the present congress the least efficient one for a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time.Blaggard wrote:but I suppose that is why ethics exist and why philosophers still have a place in society..?
EDIT: measured in the amount of laws passed, that is
That is up to each and every person what they want to do in sex. You have no authority to speak on this, to claim purpose or moral truth.WanderingLands wrote:1) Sex is primarily about procreation
You have a somewhat naive view of America. That's not an insult, but it is obvious from your posts. I traveled in Europe when I was young and a friend I had made later came and visited me in America. He wanted to visit Miami, California, the Grand Canyon, and New York City. I told him it was two thousand miles to California AND one thousand miles to Miami, AND fifteen hundred miles to the Grand Canyon. The good news was, it was only a couple hundred miles to NYC and Washington DC, so he settled for that.Obviously those philosophers have not been doing their job if society has virtually stood still on this area for 50 years. No wonder they call the present congress the least efficient one for a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally long time.
I'm struggling to think of any such country. I spent part of my childhood in Holland, a country it wouldn't surprise me to discover fits inside the Grand Canyon. I lived in Gelderland where they spoke very differently to my big city cousins in Utrecht, 25 miles away. Up in Friesland, they speak a different language. Belgium is split between the Vlaams and the Walloons, France, a big country by European standards, has Breton in the north, Basque in the south, which it shares with Spain a country that had a civil war in living memory. Much the same is true in London, where I now live, there are distinctive attitudes and dialects to different parts of the same city that is the capital of a nation that is divided into very distinct nationalities.Wyman wrote:So, if you live in a socially homogeneous, small European country governed by one set of statutes decided by one set of political leaders, you live a much different society than America. And don't worry, it is easy to live in New York or San Francisco or any number of large, progressive areas if you wish. What is difficult is generalising about one 'American' culture or sensibility.