Is there a philosophical argument against homosexuality?
>>1241163
its pretty fucking gay desu
>>1241163
No. There are philosophical arguments against valuing homosexuality and putting it on the same level as normal sexuality but not against homosexuality itself.
>>1241163
Not really - philosophy encourages individualism and negative freedom.
At least this is the philosophy of last 300 years.
>>1241228
>philosophy for the last 300 years has been monolithic ideologically
No. Predominately, maybe, but hardly totally.
>>1241178
Yes you can.
>>1241228
>At least this is the philosophy of last 300 years.
Philosophy is so much more than what your lesbian Jewish college professors tell you, cuck.
>>1241248
>but hardly totally.
Today we're in the midst of an global attempt of cooking a new philosophy - we don't know yet if individualism will still hold the center or a form of collectivism will be the future.. can't really know we have to stay calm and observe ... patience.
>>1241255
I haven't got to college, but you tried.
>>1241163
Homosexual couples make weaker children because the child is not exposed to the complexity of a happy man-woman relationship growing up.
Homosexuals are deviations from society which impacts their psychic stability. They often deal with depression because they can't handle being different from most of the world.
Homosexuals can be said to be cowards that failed to become interested in the opposite sex as a response to their inept personality.
Man on boy homosexuality can be said to be a result of hypermasculinity. In rare cases homosexuality can be a bizarre form of narcissism.
Homosexuality can also be rebellion against norms. This is where it becomes cultural decadence.
>>1241341
>Homosexual couples make weaker children because the child is not exposed to the complexity of a happy man-woman relationship growing up.
Homosexual relationships can be pretty complex
>>1241353
Not necessarily in a good way and never in the same way. Cultures that embraced many types of people have always been stronger than ones that remained monocultural.
>>1241163
it's too hawt
>>1241169
Could you summarize it?
>>1241341
I'll take "Unsubstantiated bullshit" for 400, Alex!
>>1241460
Believe what you want. They are a minority either way, with severe limitations compared to heterosexuals in this world.
>>1241341
How could you have missed an appeal to nature
>>1241163
I suppose you could be a huge faggot and argue it's detrimental from a purely utilitarian viewpoint because those people aren't reproducing.
>>1241402
It's an attempt to formulate a secular sexual morality which cares about more than just consent (which the author says is a general ethical principle, not sexual, and therefore doesn't count as any sexual ethics). He argues that sex's fulfillment is in heightening intimacy with alterity, and that sexuality which isn't concerned with this promotes a narcissistic eroticism.
>>1241469
>with severe limitations compared to heterosexuals in this world.
.. yeah, almost all of which are placed on them by an unaccepting society.
>>1241341
>Homosexual couples make weaker children
In fact, they don't make children at all.
>>1241480
>sexuality which isn't concerned with this promotes a narcissistic eroticism.
>"bla bla bla, my feelings are objectively true"
wow, you're one thick skulled retard. Shouldn't you appreciate the reason "god has endowed you with", instead of letting it shrivel in favor of dogmatism?
>>1241163
Anal sex is aesthetically loathsome.
>>1241501
But in what society is your ability to produce children the standard of respect given? Would a deadbeat criminal be given more respect than an infertile pastor?
>>1241477
Well in that case you wouldn't be a huge faggot because you'd be arguing against being one
>>1241507
>loathsome
woops, I meant "lewd"
>>1241502
Dude, everyone hates Constantine, but he was just summarizing a book this time. Leave it be.
>>1241525
>But in what society is your ability to produce children the standard of respect given?
Not being able to produce children on their own itself affects them; it's got nothing to do with the respect or lack of that they're given. It also strengthens the views of many anti-homosexuals, furthering their separation from society.
>>1241163
AIDS
>>1241507
I'm gay and I agree desu. I can't stand ass at all. I guess that's why I'm single.
>>1241552
AIDS isn't a gay specific virus. also condoms are a thing
>>1241552
You can avoid AIDS if you're not a dumbass and you don't fuck aimlessly. Even then, I've known people who frequent craigslist who basically ask everyone they fuck to test themselves.
>>1241566
>The CDC reports that in 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections and that MSM who had a history of recreational drug injection accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. Among the approximately 784,701 people living with an HIV diagnosis, 396,810 (51%) were MSM.
Other people can get AIDS, but men who have sex with men get it at a ridiculously higher rate than any other group.
>condoms
Most people do not use condoms, those who do rarely use them correctly.
>>1241543
>everyone hates Constantine
t b h I appreciate all his knowledge about theology
Are there any homosexual arguments against philosophy?
>>1241623
philosophy is gay, so no
>>1241623
Milo Yiannopoulos is pretty much a walking homosexual argument against any type of rational thought.
>>1241620
I used to get mad about Constantine but then I realized how funny it is how much one poster can achieve that much infamy and hatred across boards for basically having a name and posting about theology
>>1241623
Pretty much every STEM fag attempting to contribute to a philosophy thread results in this.
>>1241646
STEMFAGS ON SUICIDE WATCH HOLY SHIT
>>1241646
Daily reminder that Wittgenstein, Russell and Pascal were all STEMfags.
>>1241645
>I used to get mad about Constantine but then I realized how funny it is how much one poster can achieve that much infamy and hatred across boards for basically having a name and posting about theology
He basically became so obsessed with a trap he drove them off the board then assumed their tripfaggot identity out of guilt or some shit.
>>1241654
And they were some of the biggest gaylords of philosophy.
>>1241654
>Pascal's wager
>The most autistic philosophical argument in history
>>1241641
Heh
>>1241684
Sorry about that last weird reply part. Phone poster.
>>1241163
I came up with this one huge argument against it and provided several details and comparing it to other taboos but I am too lasy to do type that shit up.
>>1241341
Your first premise argues about homosexual couples rearing a child and not the actual relationship between the two fo them
Is there anything that's normal? If it was then it would all be the same thing
>>1241163
Not being able to have kids is a pretty big concern senpai-not-blood-senpai. I'd argue it avoids the purpose of love.
>>1241163
>Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
CCC 2357
>>1242087
>grave depravity
bullshit
Homosexuality threatens to undermine the most fundamental of all human relationships - man and woman, husband and wife, father and son... It's socially corrosive. This is why it has been condemned by most societies and religions in most places and at most times throughout history.
It is no coincidence that homosexuality is so prevalent in the USA - a nation with a decaying social fabric and dysfunctional family
unit
>>1242147
>prevalent
The word you're looking for is "glorified" and it is the case in every protestant nation.
>>1242228
>that pic
fuck
>>1241164
Kek
>>1241163
All arguments for or against homosexuality are "philosophy" because psychology isn't exactly a science, but the "philosophy of the mind". There are actual brain chemicals released, of course, when one enjoys somethings, there is the physiological basis for production of progeny being and important aspect in the existence of a descendancy, but why one chooses to "get one's rocks off" with a person of similar gender, why that feeling becomes more important than the mechanical reproductive process, or indeed more important in the face of given risks, is grounds for philosophical speculation.
Of course, this logically follows with any similar heterosexual promiscuity. Is "because it feels good" always an acceptable answer? The value of self-serving behavior is possibly the very basis of many of our drives, as we're in constant struggle to make ourselves more comfortable, the only question to this becomes to what extent. "If it doesn't harm anyone else"? How can we truly know when or how our actions adversely affect others, and when should this be considered a varying value?
These are a few ways. Truly, if we were just as base animals, we'd eat, poo, sleep, procreate, fight over territory. But we're not base animals, and honestly we don't entirely understand why one would actively, by choice or even by nature, "be" homosexual. There's an apparent fact that "the condition exists", and so we "deal with it", and while it's clearly not preferable in nature, because it leads to evolutionary "end", we should ask ourselves, "does the value of our existence within nature necessarily need to define the value of our existence?". The knee-jerk answer seems to be "of course not", but is that our own drive to pleasure ourselves "talking", or is that truly some universal wisdom?
That was one conscious flow of thought. Not pasta, maybe not overly productive, but also not bullshit.
>>1241163
Kant believed that sex for any other reason was ultimately using someone else's body as a means to an end, which he believed was poor morals.
Since gays/lesbian can't reproduce through fucking, I'd imagine he'd make a good case about it.
>>1241163
That makes no sense. Homosexuality isn't a proposition, it's a fact.
You might as well ask if there are any philosophical arguments against the sun.
>>1241480
Damn, this is my precise idea of sexuality.
To me, homosexuality is also inherently narcissistic because the alterity is lacking.
Have 58 minutes of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkL3lT95vOU
You can't. The only argument that is even worth recognising is that it's useless to pay people to be together (that's basically what marriage is) when they don't produce kids. But the societal benefit of marriage has changed over the years.
Back in the days marriage was a means to ensure that the population growth rates stay sufficient to supply the state's army/workforce. Today a country's economic output in the West is based much more on intellectual/creative performance, especially concerning the jobs the gay male dempgraphic usually has. And working is no longer a requirement for survival, meaning that depression/unhappiness wil lead to substantially lower economic outputs. No matter how you look at it, happines is a very real factor in economic performance and having your realtionship recognised, accepted and supported is benefical to happiness. Also, enough children are born today, but this way less kids will grow up in shitty state institutions. Ignore pol propaganda, if they aren't mentally ruined by a terrible society, gay parents will raise kids just fine.
Is there a difference, philosophically, between homosexual behavior of men and women? it seems that the female side is often ignored in the debates and it's quite amusing.
>>1242705
I agree with this posit but I'm having trouble truly legitimizing it, because we all have some degree of self-preservation which extends to others, thus we become more protective or affectionate with those with whom we identify. If "all" have some value of narcissism, it becomes like a residual noise, and pointing to specific narcissism becomes a possible matter of confirmation bias. There are people clearly in love with themselves and place the value of their aesthetic over the value of others' needs, and I don't think that's quite what homosexuality is, but I'm also not ready to rule out the concept "people love same gender because this identifies with profound love of self". I mean, how often, when we're having sex with anyone, are we not practically using the other person as a sort of masturbatory tool? I don't know. I don't think we even know enough about human sexuality to get to the bottom of that.
>>1241163
Maybe that humans were designed only to have intercorse or a relationship between two memebers of the opposite sex. And that intercorse should only be used to reproduce, but its ultimately ones opinion
>>1241341
>Homosexuals can be said to be cowards that failed to become interested in the opposite sex as a response to their inept personality.
So in those societies where homosexuals are obviously extremely brave - at times suicidally brazen - to act on their desires, e.g., islamic countries, or the west up to, say, the 1970s - places where they'd often be murdered for being homosexuals, which in my book is a much braver act than "talking to girls", something which for normal people is not at all requiring of courage, homosexuality would, by this "argument from cowardice", be preferable?
>>1242856
Humans were not, in fact, "designed" for anything, and there is no God who says intercourse "should only be used to" this or that.
>>1242705
I find that male homosexuality is inherently narcissistic as the rejection of the female as a sexual and romantic partner is just another manifestation of male misogyny- most gay men I've met have a deep internalised hatred of women and often can be abusive of women in the gay scene.
I think female narcissism in the homosexual sense is often visualised as different due to the general oppression of women throughout the ages, so the act of loving a woman (and by extension, the self) is not as negative a concept.
>>1241596
so philosophically lesbian sex is the most acceptable?
>>1242895
No gay men I have ever met are like this. All the lesbians I know are okay with men.
>>1242906
You probably havent met many gay men. Also, I never said lesbians aren't okay with men. I'm a lesbian though, so you might clock a bias.
>>1242872
Being a bumfucker was indeed very edgy in Victorian England. Even for straight people, doing anal makes you seem more wild.
>>1241477
But we already have a problem with overpopulation so its a better thing.
>>1241164
mint post
>>1242895
>most gay men I've met have a deep internalised hatred of women and often can be abusive of women in the gay scene.
I think this is just society training men to be misogynistic mixing with gay mens appropriation of femininity mixing in a strange way....tho I think it makes a kind of sense
>>1242895
I think a stereotypical gay man is not misogynistic at all and often has platonic female friends, where as lesbianism is often associated with man-hating feminists. Now that's just the stereotypes though and not much of an evidence, but I haven't seen any evidence for that gay men are misogynistic either.
fking yes
>>1242872
I thought it was obvious in that post that none of those statements are meant to be applied to all of homosexuality. Homosexuality has many forms. The thing is, pretty much all its forms are symptomatic of some kind of mental disease.
>>1243206
>I thought it was obvious in that post that none of those statements are meant to be applied to all of homosexuality. Homosexuality has many forms. The thing is, pretty much all its forms are symptomatic of some kind of mental disease.
And some are symptomatic of bravery?
>>1243222
Sure. Though, it seems kinda weird to want a dick in your ass just to make a statement.
>>1241163
Yes. What the fuck are you doing?
>>1243225
A good bit less weird than how upset others get about how some random dude they've never met might like a dick in their ass.
I have heard that at times, people get so amazingly upset about how some random guy wants to put a dick (not their dick!) in their ass, they actually murder that man. That's weird, isn't it?
>>1243279
In some cases that's symptomatic of mental disease too. Everyone's got problems.
It clearly fails the categorical imperative. And running up societies medical bills by promoting these lifestyles is not congruent.
>>1243309
What else can it be symptomatic of? Being a reasonable person who's aware of the philosophical argument for why it's perfectly moral to kill a man because he wants gay sex?
>>1243325
Sincere moral belief as you said.
>>1243340
So it can be moral to murder a man for wanting gay sex?
>>1243572
Why can't it be? Anything can be made moral, like gay sex among a species biologically designed for heterosexual relationships in order to survive.
>>1243770
What actual murder of gay people, in a real society, was just?
>>1243784
That's a loaded question. The "just" part is only valid from WITHIN any such society. For example, Nazis persecuted homosexuals and banned anything regarding them, arrested many and sentenced many to death. Outside of the situation you might think that was unjust, yet all of the Nazis found it just as this was aligned with their overall ideology and vision for the future of humanity.
Sorry, but the discussion is just not black and white like you seem to want it to be. Note that I'm not admitting to agreeing to Nazis or anything. I don't mind the proliferation and happiness of gays but I think there are plenty of philosophical reasons to persecute them as a group, like ANY group is susceptible to.
>>1244257
>That's a loaded question. The "just" part is only valid from WITHIN any such society.
So you do not believe there are absolute moral truths - you are a moral relativist - including when it comes to Nazi Germany.
>I think there are plenty of philosophical reasons to persecute them as a group, like ANY group is susceptible to.
It's an undeniable fact of anthropology or history that some people have reasons for doing so. The question is if you accept these reasons as philosophically valid.
Foucault in History of Sexuality was against homosexuality - a group of people defined by their sexual desires which are seen as essential to the person.
Vote lads
http://www.strawpoll.me/10407759/
>>1241250
profound
>>1244377
That's not an argument against homosexuality, that's just an argument against a gay subculture or nation.
