Is it wrong to be gay?

[MissClock]

Originally Posted by fido123

You could also say that about girls who give oral to guys. I'm pretty sure Scientists would also tell you that it doesn't matter what it's "made for". If I use an old shirt as a rag am I doing anything wrong? That shirt was made for wearing, however since I don't care to wear it any more and have no other use for it am I doing anything "wrong" by using it as a cloth?

The scientists being scientists would still say, it's not what it was made for.
Girls who give oral to guys is a preference there mouth is not existent to perform oral intercourse.
So I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

[ScylaX]

I'd prefer to know where you're trying to get at by writing this. I don't want to make risky conjectures, so at least develop your thinking please.

[fido123]

Originally Posted by MissClock

The scientists being scientists would still say, it's not what it was made for.
Girls who give oral to guys is a preference there mouth is not existent to perform oral intercourse.
So I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what it was "made for". Pretty much everything SkylaX is saying.

[MissClock]

Originally Posted by fido123

I'm saying it doesn't matter what it was "made for". Pretty much everything SkylaX is saying.

The fact that people say, it doesn't matter is up to them. Because in the end, no matter how much IT DOESN'T MATTER.
It's still, what it was made for.

And I never said these were wrong, it's just it wasn't made for those things, so you're mis-using it. If a wheel barrow was MADE for transporting things while reducing as much weight and strain on the human body as can but then people use them for racing .(I love wheel barrow racing)

It's not what it was made for, AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE THAT (unless they make a brand of wheelbarrow labeled for racing)

That's all I am trying to say. As for what I think about people being gay to relate back to my original post. Go read it if you're wondering.

But to say "it doesn't matter what something is made for" Is reckless and ignorant. Realize what things are made for, but you don't have to think negatively of it.

I know people may have anal intercourse. YES Your bum was not made for a penis but people still do it. I am just saying I recognize what things are made for, thats all. Maybe to you "It doesn't matter" But you still have to know.

[PlayTrumpet]

That's actually an interesting topic for discussion and debate that could warrant its own thread - What things seem to be meant for, and why it does or does not matter. You might've sparked something here.

Though, I think that specific discussion veers off topic in this thread. To relate this idea, "What are things 'meant' for and does it matter" to the "Is it wrong to be gay?" question, you must come to a conclusion or belief through a separate discussion on the former subject to properly form an argument in this one.

[rushyrulz]

Viagra wasn't made for erectile dysfunction, it was a heart medicine. Now it has multiple purposes (assuming some people still use it for heart medication). It IS possible for something to be made for one thing and then adopt a new use later, you know.

[ScylaX]

And I never said these were wrong, it's just it wasn't made for those things, so you're mis-using it. If a wheel barrow was MADE for transporting things while reducing as much weight and strain on the human body as can but then people use them for racing .(I love wheel barrow racing)

Oh wait, just answer this question, I'll develop it after that :
Since the penis is made to impregnate, is masturbation a mis-use of that organ ?

[MissClock]

Originally Posted by ScylaX

Oh wait, just answer this question, I'll develop it after that :
Since the penis is made to impregnate, is masturbation a mis-use of that organ ?

Yes, it is.

[ScylaX]

You have no idea how wrong you are, then.
And this is a good example of why keeping a stricto sensu opinion on the things you think are meant to have "only one utility" is basically just a way to neglect other facts for the sake of "natural proof" (Like, you just have to go in a forest and see animals fornicate to show that this is made for that use), you have to know that us, humans, don't essentially lie on a "reproduction desire", it's more archaic I'd say, we're driven by sexual desires that aren't solely based on the need to procreate, that kind of desire doesn't only count as a sole matter of usefulness for the sustainability of the human race. It's not as "steady" as you would think.

Sure, reproductive organs are made to reproduce, that's their main use in the circle of life, however, it carries other purposes and that's the main cause on why humans (and some monkeys if I recall) are driven by sexual desires before the need to procreate (because, hey, if I follow your logic, love is just there for the sake of getting children, you're minimizing the effects of the cause a lot and forget that the human being can live without that and it's plain normal, since wanting a children is also a desire that is more constructed on the social situation of the family and the intentions of each member of the couple for his life in the near future can have a very high influence on the matter, they're not having any anomalies of some sort, all the things you neglect are a lot more fundamental and complex than what you're probably thinking currently). But there, I would have to define sexual psychology I think, so try finding some books on the matter, like Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality by Sigmund Freud. Of course, the subject progressed a lot since 1905, but Freud's ideas are easy to read and fundamentally right (well, neurology proved many of Freud's theories wrong, sure, but I can tell you that the theory of sexuality isn't some fabrication and is one of the least objected ideas of him)

EDIT : Thinking about it, maybe that idea will help most people that doubt of the "legitimacy" of homosexuality

[fido123]

Originally Posted by MissClock

Yes, it is.

Would having sex with a condom be misuse of that organ as well? If you're not using it for reproduction, you're using it out of sexual desire or to feel good or whatever and anyway you would satisfy that would be proper use of that organ.

[devonin]

As we rocket down the path to being moved to TGB, lets at least -try- to keep the conversation on task and appropriate.

[PlayTrumpet]

Originally Posted by devonin

As we rocket down the path to being moved to TGB, lets at least -try- to keep the conversation on task and appropriate.

People seemed to just gloss over my post.

Oh well. Pretty sedate thread anyway.

[TheNoSoMan]

I can't really answer this since it is such a very sensitive issue, but I will state my position.

I am a homophobic and I have a great fear of meeting a trap women. I have my reasons but I will not state them due to their "ignorant" nature. However, it is up to them to do what they feel is best for them and I can't tell them to do what I think is right.

[RubiedCross]

I'm throwing myself a bone and revisiting this thread for extreme nostalgia (because I'm too lazy to find my old thread I made and read through every single post).

Yes, this is a bump and is reviving a thread that should not (I believe) have been allowed in a critical thinking thread because to "think" is to use "reason". Reasoning requires logic and justifications that should inherently be objective if they are to be discussed (which, in discussing objectivity we'd come to a conclusion much faster than is seen in this thread). Opinions - such as the majority of what I posted over a year ago now - are welcome on this website, but should be limited in a section such as this. Lovers of opinion (i.e. pretty much the entire human race) should find it hard to discuss a topic here, because to discuss logic with anything but logic is just silly. However, it has been discussed and (possibly) will be discussed further, no thanks to my post.

Thus, in answering the title, we should ask what "scale" of "right and wrong" we should use here. If I were to use my own opinion (which I now avoid when discussing anything that requires more than the basic level of thought required to operate in contemporary society), I would base use my own reference of "right and wrong": the Christian Bible. HOWEVER, I will not go any further into that because my faith and reasons for believing the Bible are in progress and are not for me to argue on a level of critical thinking. I've yet to discern the Bible thoroughly enough to truly say I understand it; I would never denounce it though, because of some of the few basic principles that I do believe. Dogma and brainwash, I know, I understand - that is why I'm going to, for my own sake, read and study it further and find the logic and reasoning behind it. I will take from it what I can, as I would expect anyone else who's willing to do so would. Therefore, I will abstain from discussing an answer to this question based on the Bible and some of my old viewpoints from it (A big thanks to Rubix/Fido/Robertsona for arguing with me. You were right, I had no foundation).

How else can we look at this, then? What other scales can we use? Since I believe your target audience is wider than just individuals, we'll broaden it to a country - America. According to "America's 'rights and wrongs'", is it wrong to be gay? Well, I would assume that, in discussing the opinion of a country, you would look at its foundations. We'll take a big leap over discussing a lot of the Bill of Rights and just jump to a conclusion that no, it is not wrong (this could be discussed in an entirely different topic, if you believe differently. For example, the idea that this Bill of Rights was written for the common man, for "everyone who is created equal". It is written for the beast that is society, a beast that is, according to Plato's account of Socrates' thoughts, deaf and dumb and stupid [I have just recently read a segment from the Republic and find Socrates very intriguing and a worthwhile person to study]. Thus, from this, I'd expect the Bill of Rights to be generic, human, and imperfect. I would also expect society to oppose that which rules it half the time, if only because it really can't, as a whole, be capable of reasonable thought. This creates many yes and no answers and really exemplifies how interesting of a discussion this could be logically and with opinions if one so chooses).

Let's look at it scientifically. First of all, science is objective and not opinionated. There is no "right" or "wrong". Biologically, according to evolution, we reproduce with the best, try to extend our genes' lives, etc. Rubix explains a good deal of this very briefly on page 17 on so. Purely biologically and evolutionarily, homosexuality does not benefit ones' genes. However, we are advanced creatures; we have intellectual and emotional capacities that do not limit us to evolutionary goals. That would be delving into psychology and behaviors, though.

Let's look at psychology, then. Freud, for example. According to Freud, ANYTHING to produces bodily pleasure. Therefore, eating is sex. Breathing is sex. Sex is sex. If homosexuality brings you physical pleasure, you're just bringing pleasure to your body. It is your eros, a part of your primitive part of the brain, that controls these. Mind you, this is all part of the "Id", which is basically a subconscious part of your brain that people consider to be an animal-like way of behaving. It is up to your Ego to decide whether these drives are done or not, and your Superego to decide whether or not they are "right" or "wrong". Your Superego is developed by your morals, culture, and society. So, according to Freud, wanting to participate in pleasure is fine; it is YOU who decides whether it is wrong or not (and by you he means your Superego, which is defined by your culture, which refers to many different areas that can't be pinpointed). Basically, we'll say that it's not wrong according to Freudian psychology. Just know that a lot of his ideas aren't widely used by professionals today, only studied, which is why Freud is a common and well-known name. I can't personally get into any other modern psychological analyses of this since I have not studied them and am not fit to discuss it; that's where this sort of thread comes in handy and someone else does it for me, so I don't have to spend time researching it on my own (which I would inevitably do if I was discussing it so that I would not be misinformed).

The answer should be, for the intents and purposes of this thread, no. I should hope there is another thread in here that does discuss "right" and "wrong" (I think I saw one years ago but was more than likely overwhelmed by what was there). That's where you would go to really answer your question, but let's just keep it (fairly) simple for now.

I would recommend to ALL of you, however, that you attempt to find out for yourselves what really "is". Set your opinions aside for a while and try to discern facts, ideas, concepts, etc. Think critically. If you don't enjoy it, maybe it's not for you, and that's not bad. Things like philosophy and "critical thinking" are not meant for everyone. Take a philosophy class if you're really interested in this stuff. Even if it's not for you, you will learn. Don't be put off by ideas if they offend you; think about why they offend you. Learning something new should be a pain (it's kind of like exercising physically - no pain no gain). Again, it's not for everyone, but if you're reading this, then maybe you'd be willing to give it a shot.

That's my two cents. I probably won't be back for another year or so, so I hope you all take care and learn something new each day.

[UnkownMan]

If it is wrong to be gay, would it be wrong to be straight? After all, being gay is a sexual preference.
INCEPTION.

[leonid]

Is gay straight wrong?

[fido123]

Thanks for that post RubiedCross. Really glad you'be adopted such a great thought philosophy.

[The_Toymaker]

It's wrong to be gay because it offends me. There ya go. :monkey:

[rushyrulz]

This is Critical Thinking, not chit chat, Toymaker. If you're not prepared to make a critically thought out post, don't make one at all.

That aside, I will agree with fido that your post was very well-informed and didn't portray tunnel vision or a heavily religious standard, RubiedCross.

[rayword45]

(Gay rights supporter) I challenge any homophobes here to make a legitimate non-religious argument.

Seriously, I cannot see why gay marriage is still banned in most states. Discrimination at it's most recent.

Also, relevant pic: