OK, Let's Do This: Homosexuality

[blackout]

I think the non okay-ness of certain forms of sexuality, where consent is involved, has to do with why some people feel homosexuality may not be okay.

When people add in claims of "harm" with other non-okay forms, that could be applied to homosexuality. In fact, when it is, some proponents will say, "well that is not exclusive to homosexual activity." So, the non okay-ness of other forms deemed not good / healthy (in some or majority of situations) because of perceived harm is turning that logic back around on proponents of homosexual rights / practices.

IMO, it is not an irrational strategy, even while it may be laced with logical fallacies. Also IMO, unless the activity is clearly abuse intended by one of the parties where other party (or parties) is being made a victim, with little to no care involved, then I think it ought to be allowed. But I'm super tolerant like that. Homosexual rape between two individuals of consenting age is as wrong as heterosexual individuals (regardless of gender). It is the abuse that is wrong and that we can almost all agree on. But there are lots of fine lines to sexuality and is why holes are attempted to be poked in logic of "perceived harm / perceived unhealthiness / perceived mental defect."

If you're going to talk about the percieved harms of sex in general, fine.
If you're going to talk about the percieved harms of heterosexual sex, fine.
If you're going to talk about the percieved harms of homosexual sex, fine.
If you're going to talk about the percieved harms of abstinance (the eunich), fine.
If you're going to talk about the percieved harms of monogomous sex, fine.
If you're going to talk about the percieved harms of polyamorous sex, fine.
.............................................................masterbation, fine.
.............................................................casual sex, fine.
.............................................................incestuous sex, fine.

But these things are NOT the same.
And each one specifically,
is a thought process/unique and particular scenario UNTO ITSELF.

 

[McBell]

So don't make absolute statements that are only based on a biased opinion.

YOU would do good to follow your own advice.

 

[Acim]

But these things are NOT the same.
And each one specifically,
is a thought process/unique and particular scenario UNTO ITSELF.

Perceived harm, in principle, is the same. In circumstance of hypotheticals, they will be made to seem as if they could never ever be connected and to do so is logical fallacy, and please don't do it, because I like to have my cake and eat it too, but you can't do the same. Because I said so.

So there.

 

[McBell]

Perceived harm, in principle, is the same.

Perceived harm is not the same as actual harm.

Seems to me that the "perceived harm" of homosexuality is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Unless of course some one can finally present a harm caused by homosexuality that does not also apply to heterosexuality.

 

[gnomon]

Perceived harm, in principle, is the same. In circumstance of hypotheticals, they will be made to seem as if they could never ever be connected and to do so is logical fallacy, and please don't do it, because I like to have my cake and eat it too, but you can't do the same. Because I said so.

So there.

Your hypotheticals are absurd.

Admitting an argument is full of logical fallacies and claiming the argument is rational as well is absurd.

 

[Acim]

Perceived harm is not the same as actual harm.

Agreed, and is not denying what I said.

Seems to me that the "perceived harm" of homosexuality is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Very much disagreed. Perceived harm of homosexuality is that it (not necessarily it alone, but it) can be a spread of STD's.

There are many things I could cite. And is akin to "pick a type of sexual activity, any sexual activity" (especially one you disapprove of) and the perceived harm in that, is deemed "legitimate reason to deny all who wish to participate in this behavior."

Unless of course some one can finally present a harm caused by homosexuality that does not also apply to heterosexuality.

A ha. That is where I went before, and is for some deemed "off topic." So arguably, if there is harm in both, then logic might say do neither, unless harm is perceived, in certain ways, as "eh, okay, I can live with that."

 

[McBell]

So arguably, if there is harm in both, then logic might say do neither, unless harm is perceived, in certain ways, as "eh, okay, I can live with that."

If they "can live with that" then what is the issue?

 

[blackout]

The EXACT same harms that exist for homosexual sex
exist for heterosexual sex,
and AS WELL the EXACT same precautions
against those very same possible harms
would be taken in either case.

If ANYTHING (comparatively) heterosexual sex
brings with it MANY more potential (actual) harms
(than homosexuality)
as they relate to pregnancy.
As such the GREATER possibility of (actual) harms
lies with heterosexual sex.

 

[Acim]

If they "can live with that" then what is the issue?

For them that can live with it = none.
For concerned / judgmental members of society = finite list of objections that may be argued with no limit in sight.

 

[Acim]

The EXACT same harms that exist for homosexual sex
exist for heterosexual sex,
and AS WELL the EXACT same precautions
against those very same possible harms
would be taken in either case.

If ANYTHING (comparatively) heterosexual sex
brings with it MANY more potential (actual) harms
(than homosexuality)
as they relate to pregnancy.
As such the GREATER possibility of (actual) harms
lies with heterosexual sex.

Agreed, and so really actual harm is not the issue.

Perceived harm, mixed with sense of superior knowledge, is why argument persists and/or why things are deemed righteous if they are prevented within society.