dk

I would argue the property of same sex attraction “homosexuality” confers prejudice upon gays and lesbians, hence is problematic and incidental, and generally lacks discernment. In fact gays and lesbians have little in common culturally or socially. For example women are seldom rapists or pedophiles, lesbians tend to be serial monogamists where men tend to be flamboyantly promiscuous. In fact it would be ethical to make homosexuality a plural word meaning “homosexualities”.

Bill Snedden

A priori? Does that mean that you hold moral judgements as axioms? Prior to rational thought? That would definitely leave us with little common ground...

Still, what's the fun of engaging in discussion only when you agree with all the participants? You might at least try to limn your reasoning. If it's simply axiomatic, then I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. However, there are certainly others here who might find it interesting as well...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bill Snedden

Your question is still a non-sequitur. The free and willful acts of all people destroy the lives of billions of people and cost trillions in public funds. Smoking and alcohol abuse alone cost our society much, much more than HIV/AIDS. To that total you could add people who drive SUVs instead of gas/electric hybrids, people who choose to eat at MacDonalds and weigh 450 pounds, people who gamble away their life savings and have to go on welfare, the list is literally endless.

Not to mention that HIV/AIDS is only one of a host of sexually transmitted diseases, all of which are endemic to and rampant among the heterosexual population as well.

In the complex and modern society in which we live, nothing that we do is devoid of effects, possibly adverse, on the lives of others. Your assignation of negative moral status to any activity having a possible unintended negative consequence is a non-starter unless you want to argue that virtually all human activity is unethical.

In addition, you are speaking of the acts of gay men as though every sexual contact involved a necessary transmission of disease. But this simply isn't the case. I would agree that unprotected sexual contact is unethical, regardless of sexual orientation, but it is obviously true that the decision to have unprotected sex is not restricted to homosexuals and thus cannot be used to demonstrate a negative moral status for homosexuality.

I have no idea what your last sentence means, but the first part of this paragraph, as Fr. Andrew noted, displays a material lack of knowledge of male homosexuality, not to mention completely ignoring female homosexuality. However, were we to continue with the line of reasoning you are trying to develop, you've still framed the question incorrectly. The correct question would be, "is it ethical to stick one's penis up a consenting male partner's anus without taking any precautions whatsoever to prevent the spread of infectious disease?" The answer to that is a resounding "NO", but of course that has nothing necessarily to do with homosexuality, which is the topic of this thread.

Not quite. Consider driving your car. By doing so you take on a high degree of responsibility. You could, at any moment, lose control, through no fault of your own, swerve suddenly and smash into oncoming traffic. Does that mean that it is unethical to drive a car because the very act of doing so puts your life and the lives of others in danger?

No, of course not. People who drive assume the risk (or should). They get into their cars and onto the road knowing that there is a minute possibility that something could go wrong. However, they take every precaution (or should) to ensure that nothing will. And other drivers depend upon this being the case. IOW, they consent to a level of danger to their own lives based upon the reasonable assumption that you will behave in a responsible manner.

Now, consider a car that has never been serviced or maintained. Suppose further that you never had driving lessons. Suppose further that you couldn't read traffic signs. And finally, suppose you had been up drinking all night. Would driving a car in this condition be unethical?

Certainly, because you would be introducing a dangerous element beyond the knowledge or consent of the other people in the equation.

Consider further the case of a military general who must order his men into combat. He knows that some of them will die, but still he compels them to go. Is this an unethical act?

Not at all, because the men under his command understand and accept the danger.

Therefore, I would have to amend your synthesis thusly:

It is unethical to knowingly put another person's life in grave danger without their knowledge or consent and it is ethical to avoid acts that put others in danger without their knowledge or consent.

Well, no because heterosexual sex is not immune from the same line of reasoning:
[list=1][*]Males and Females who have sex with each other (OSM) are essentially heterosexual
[*]Incidence of OSM kills, exposes, and spreads deadly diseases across the US (HIV/AIDS, gonorrhea, syphillis, herpes, etc).
[*]The epidemic poses a threat to the whole nation, costs irreplaceable resources...human and capital.[/list=1]

Heterosexual sex must be stopped at all costs!

Not true, for reasons already covered. The mere possibility of danger does not render an act unethical or almost every human activity would be unethical.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

tabs

Homosexuality is only a description of who one is sexually attracted too, not of the behaviours generally associated with that attraction. The latter is split from the general word homosexuality into lesbian and gay.

I see no reason to also split homosexuality unless heterosexually is also split. Heterosexual men and women both approach relationships and sex differently, in much the same manner as many gays and lesbians approach them differently. It's more a matter of sex than sexuality.

The OP asks for the morality of homosexuality, which is it's general use relates to both lesbians and gays. Even if one tends to get ignored in these type of conversations. Considering that you are basing whether it's moral on the current danger of the actions of one half of the homosexual population it's understandable that you wish to separate them. That however doesn't change the OP question, or that they have already been split. Or that you've ignored half the topic.

dk

Hi Tabs,

tabs: Homosexuality is only a description of who one is sexually attracted too, not of the behaviours generally associated with that attraction. The latter is split from the general word homosexuality into lesbian and gay.
dk: That’s a problem. Pedophiles only attracted to prepubescent boys would therefore be homosexuals?

tabs: I see no reason to also split homosexuality unless heterosexually is a form, whereas homosexuality is a concept, gays being one form, and lesbians being another. Heterosexual men and women both approach relationships and sex differently, in much the same manner as many gays and lesbians approach them differently. It's more a matter of sex than sexuality.
dk: Heterosexuality is a form, homosexuality is a concept with two distinct forms, gay and lesbian. In fact both terms heterosexual and homosexual were coined by Freud, and have little if any relevance to the terms people use today. Were I to use the terms as Freud defined them today, I'd be considered a homophobe.

tabs: The OP asks for the morality of homosexuality, which is it's general use relates to both lesbians and gays. Even if one tends to get ignored in these type of conversations. Considering that you are basing whether it's moral on the current danger of the actions of one half of the homosexual population it's understandable that you wish to separate them. That however doesn't change the OP question, or that they have already been split. Or that you've ignored half the topic.
dk: Actually he asked if homosexuality was unethical. I point out that the term homosexual is unethical as the basis of an ethical disernment, and was ethically bound to distinguish the two.

Monkeybot

yguy
Stipulating for the sake of argument that there is none, harm is done when evangelistic homosexuals...

Dare I even ask?! I live in a pretty gay-friendly town and I've never been "evangelized." I've had more Jehova's Witnesses attempt to convert me than gays. (I think I'd rather join the latter)

...succeed in intimidating people to the point where they're afraid to look at a drag queen as if he is a freak.

You poor, poor baby. You can't even gawk rudely at a stranger anymore. How mean of those nasty gays!

I'm sure your suffering is just as gutwrenching as a gay man who's not allowed to see his dying partner in the ICU. I'm sure it's just as deep as a lesbian who gets the living hell beaten out of her for daring to hold her girlfriend's hand in public. I'm sure it compares to what Mathew Shepard must've gone through in his last hours. My heart is breaking here. Truly.

Monkeybot

Originally posted by dk

• Incidence of MSM kills, exposes and spreads a deadly epidemic across the US
• the epidemic poses a threat to the whole nation, costs irreplacable resources... human and capital resources.

According to the World Health Organization, 0.6% of adults in the U.S. are infected with HIV.
WHO Fact Sheet

In some countries in Africa, the infection rate is 1 in 4 adults. In fact 2/3 of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide are in Africa. Many of Africa's AIDS cases come from heterosexual sex, or children being born to HIV infected mothers (which kind of indicates that some sort of heterosexual sex went on).

How does this fit in with your idea of MSM spreading a horrible epidemic?

Machiavelli

Homosexuality is genetically deviant.

Flame Away...

abe smith

... your immmmediately-previous post here states (merely) :
*Homosexuality is genetically deviant.*

Do you REALLY think you're going to get away with THAT assertion here, Pal? That assertion of yours is unsubstantiated bullshit. Now substantiate it. Abe

Daleth

There's no reason for Machiavelli to substantiate it, abe, at least not on this thread. That statement had nothing to do with ethics, unless Mach's suggesting that carrying a certain gene can be unethical.

Plain silly off-topic assertion, that's all.

Dal