LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Well they were looking at increased access to porn. While all men look at porn, you can look at how easy it is to get porn. In the most difficult of situations, a man would have to resort to drawing his own porn.

In the case of decreased arousal and only being able to be aroused by more and more extreme situations, that may be sped up by increased viewing of porn, but we can't say that that's what porn does. That might be something that just life does.

I also question A because it is completely ignoring women. Sure science treats the libidos of women as something wholly mysterious but surely they could have done some sort of study.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:31:55 PM by ohsointocats

Are there any women who don't look at porn?

I don't know. I can't speak for myself but it seems more likely that there may be women who do not look at porn than men who do not look at porn.

Yeah I just edited the thing that got lost on the last page. It's not really unique to porn. It's just how the brain responds to pretty much any stimulus it likes.

There's an argument to be made that sexual functions throw a whole lot of chemicals in your brain that make it hit harder in that specific case, but the basic mechanic is pretty much identical to any other psychological addiction — ritualization, obsession, and isolation.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:35:42 PM by Pykrete

Do you think that there might be some psychological drive to make sex taboo and therefore more enjoyable?

Eh. I wouldn't personally think so, but humans are weird enough to do that.

Sex as a generally taboo subject of conversation isn't really unique to religions that attempt to regulate it for moral purposes like Abrahmic ones do. But the reason is usually more along the lines of intimacy, familial stability, and/or temperance — and the second one is usually pretty crucial to stable society because we suck at herd mentality, at the very least once we settled down enough for notions of property to be a thing.

That's mostly the core reason conservative Christian denominations tend to freak out over gay rights, because the kind of "lifestyle" they tend to picture when they think of homosexuals goes against that, and those taboos mean that even discussing it honestly is seen as threatening.

edited 18th Oct '13 2:59:56 PM by Pykrete

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or asking that seriously. Because the tone makes it sound like everyone looks at porn? Maybe porn is accessible for everyone (hello internet, where almost nothing is censored or filtered), but not everyone has the sexual drive to go out looking for porn.

I expect there are about as many women who look at porn as men, roughly. So the idea that if you can't find enough men who don't to do a study you can look at women instead doesn't work because it would run into the same problems.

"I'm pretty sure that the mere existence of a dubious argument doesn't automatically win the debate for the other side, who can then declare victory and go home. (If it does, I'm really ticked ... because I've heard a hundred different arguments that I could have called a universal winner on and stopped forever.)"

No, but when that's your only argument - and bear in mind, we have adressed all issues that could pass as intellectual arguments, both theological and otherwise -, it stands to reason that you don't have anything more to offer.

More importantly, this argument basically not only denounces argumentation, period ("my interpretation of Yahweh works in nonsensical ways, henceforth you are sinful to my eyes, twiddleloo!"), but is also based on personal opinion, which hardly sets it as an universal standard.

If you desire to retread already adressed arguments, feel free to do so, but ultimately you're forced to ignore already adressed statements, making it evasion by default.

edited 18th Oct '13 4:46:25 PM by peryton

Was that directed to me?

If you wish it to be so.

I'm mainly wondering what defect exists within homosexual relationships according to you.

One that does not cause him to treat homosexuals any differently or vote against gay marriage?

edited 18th Oct '13 4:56:26 PM by Rem

That is not the answer to the question asked.

It seems important to note.

I just don't really see how it makes much sense, what with me believing that we were designed in a specific way. But again, I don't judge gays as being lesser or anything, and certainly don't hold anything against them.

edited 18th Oct '13 11:23:29 PM by LDragon2

We were designed a specific way for reproduction specifically, but sex is about more than just that. If God didn't want sex to be a recreational activity, he wouldn't have made it so damn enjoyable.

edited 18th Oct '13 11:51:55 PM by TobiasDrake

If sex wasn't enjoyable no-one would ever do it though.

What you're arguing is a philosophy called teleology. Essentially, it's a philosophy that things exist for a "final purpose".

For one, it's not a Christian concept — it's Aristotle, and it's only used in our circles because Middle Ages theologians had a huge hardon for Aristotle.

For two, while it was used in Aristotlean ethics as a tool to focus problem-solving methods, deductive reasoning, and study of nature, it did not originally have moral connotations. Even if one accepts the premise that things have an immutable final purpose, it's kind of a non sequitur to say any other use of that thing is morally wrong. By that logic, it's a sin to use my chair as a footstool while changing a lightbulb.

Amusingly, our use of teleology to dictate our moral constructs is a violation of teleology's teleology.

To extend that, if I were to take a coworker's programming code and extend it to do something it wasn't designed for, we don't call that a moral failing — we call it robust and flexible design, and it's a good thing that we encourage at every turn. Similarly, it seems rather arbitrary to pick a function of the human body and say "this was designed for X, so it's wrong to use it for anything that's not X". To the contrary, I'd say its ability to do Y and Z as well is generally a good thing.

edited 19th Oct '13 1:36:40 AM by Pykrete

I'd just like to note that if God did not want murder to be wrong, he would not have made it so useful. Just because it's fun/useful does not mean it is an ok thing to do.

X5 Why do you believe we were designed in a way that doesn't include homosexuality? Sure it's no good for procreation, but if all sexual activity that doesn't result in babies is a sin, than we've got a big problem.

are you trying to piss people of? I get your point but couldn't you choose a less inflammatory comparison? Like "if god did not want lying to be wrong than he would not have made it so useful".

edited 19th Oct '13 6:20:47 AM by SilasW

Thank you for sharing your views, L Dragon. I appreciate your patience.

You're confusing classifications of sin. Murder is considered a sin becausre you're harming others to bring gain to yourself. Homosexual behavior is considered a sin because...well, actually, I have no idea, but because God works in mysterious ways. Or something.

They're apples and zucchini. If you have a pragmatic reason why sodomy isn't an ok thing to do, I'm all ears. ^note That's a lie, of course. I'm mostly skin, bone, blood, and pink wobbly bits. But ears are involved somewhere.

Ooh, I know this one. Soban thinks Homosexuality damages your soul and/or the universe.

I think it's psychologically harmful and physically risky. Then again, I'd consider any sex outside of Marriage psychologically harmful and physically risky. What I want to point out is that using the excuse "But it feels so good" does not cut it when it comes to morality.

I fail to see how marriage helps in this regard.

Shouldn't you than be in favor of gay marriage? That would (in your logic) at least reduce the psychological harm and physical risk of homosexuality.