Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
i watched this video the other day, on one of my subscribed channels:
i think the presentation is excellent
what say you?
i think the presentation is excellent
what say you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality is not moral
- Thread starter Jeremiah Ames
- Start date
I agree (disclaimer, already familiar with what he’s saying so I skimmed in 20 second intervals).
He made a clickbaity title when he could have just said “amoral” or “does not have moral connotation,” but I don’t blame him I guess: could attract the target audience to think.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I find a lot of those who oppose homosexuality tend to think in terms of their God wanting a theocracy, and them wanting what their God wants.
Its a good presentation, but he talks not only about homosexuality which as he says is amoral, but also about marriage equality which includes the practice of homosexual relationships.
I would assert that for homosexuals, the practice of homosexual relationships is moral because it is a concious choice and it improves their well-being as opposed to the alternative which is sexual repression.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
I do think that his argument contains a fallacious premise.
That is that homosexuality is strictly and orientation and not a set of behavior which include same sex relationship and same sex romance. It's an oversimplification.
In a consequentialist worldview of ethics and morality, to which the author the video seem to subscribe, thoughts and personal feelings are by definition amoral. If one defines sexuality as purely a set of impulse in regard to sex, then all forms of sexuality is amoral, but I don't think it's fair or even reasonable to reduce sexuality to thoughts and impulses alone. We have a host of behavior that are qualifiable as "sexual" in nature that ranges from seduction, to intercourse passing by romance and others. A person who lives his or her sexuality will express a variety of those behavior. Since those behavior have an impact on others and are the product of conscious choices, they enter the moral sphere.
To make a long story short, it's very easy to take an issue, any issue, reduce it to a barebone caricature of itself and then claim to have solved the problem in a firm and definitive way.
I'm not impressed by 2 cent philosophy.
That is that homosexuality is strictly and orientation and not a set of behavior which include same sex relationship and same sex romance. It's an oversimplification.
In a consequentialist worldview of ethics and morality, to which the author the video seem to subscribe, thoughts and personal feelings are by definition amoral. If one defines sexuality as purely a set of impulse in regard to sex, then all forms of sexuality is amoral, but I don't think it's fair or even reasonable to reduce sexuality to thoughts and impulses alone. We have a host of behavior that are qualifiable as "sexual" in nature that ranges from seduction, to intercourse passing by romance and others. A person who lives his or her sexuality will express a variety of those behavior. Since those behavior have an impact on others and are the product of conscious choices, they enter the moral sphere.
To make a long story short, it's very easy to take an issue, any issue, reduce it to a barebone caricature of itself and then claim to have solved the problem in a firm and definitive way.
I'm not impressed by 2 cent philosophy.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
In my honest opinion, if you think you can do a better video than him, you should. It might be relevant and benefit some people.
epronovost
Well-Known Member
I might be able to muster a whole 5 cent philosophy essay, but I have no webcam, no editing and not much interest for vlogging in general. I'll unfortunately have to stick to critique.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I would say homosexuality is not biologically efficient. That I hope would go without saying.
I think people confuse it as being a moral issue when it's really just a sexual issue that has no bearing on the person's themselves as it pertains to one's own moral character and demeanor.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Why is that?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It always does seem to gravitate toward religious connotations.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Men can't become pregnant. *grin*
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Population can get too high to sustain things, too.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's true.
My hot take on this is just this: any action can be construed to be within the moral sphere. If I go to the counter at the gas station and purchase a kit kat, we can find some way in which this has moral ramifications: maybe I didn't do my due diligence to find out whether the chocolate didn't use slave labor, for instance, and I've now perpetuated that situation by a careless purchase.
So, I think we find ourselves in a heap of sand situation: adding grains of sand one at a time, when does it become a heap of sand? Likewise, how much "moral impact" does something have to have until we consider it a moral issue?
I am sympathetic to the argument that there just aren't enough moral grains of sand in consent-based (this is obviously a big hidden premise) sexuality to call it a heap -- to call it a moral issue. That isn't just because I'm a lesbian, either; given the amount of times we are told we are immoral, I've taken the time to try to think about it while checking bias.
stvdv
Veteran Member
I totally agree with him here. Homosexual act is not immoral
On the other hand
The person imposing guilt on a homosexual telling him, that he is immoral, qualifies for acting "immoral"
The right word is amoral. That means independent from morality, but saying it is not moral is misleading.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
God statements are creative science themes.
Teaching philosophy stated two humans own life continuance as the two X two process. Two human bodies create two variable human babies.
So if you did a genetic review about why life as it's natural self which is highest balanced form changed then the occult detailed that the law and seal of stone had changed.
In science that status is radiation increased.
Stating it had arisen out of God unsealed.
God being the product earth for all scientific practices.
Pretty basic explanation science had broken natural law causing in criminal science causes human life balances to change by seen observed human conditions.
Cannot own a topic in life to discuss unless you SEE it.
Teaching philosophy stated two humans own life continuance as the two X two process. Two human bodies create two variable human babies.
So if you did a genetic review about why life as it's natural self which is highest balanced form changed then the occult detailed that the law and seal of stone had changed.
In science that status is radiation increased.
Stating it had arisen out of God unsealed.
God being the product earth for all scientific practices.
Pretty basic explanation science had broken natural law causing in criminal science causes human life balances to change by seen observed human conditions.
Cannot own a topic in life to discuss unless you SEE it.
You've never taken an anthropology course, have you?
Homosexuality is utilitarian, and all diversity is selectively advantageous to a species.
How does it pertain to moral character? It's just a normal variation, like left-handedness or blue eyes. It's found all over the animal kingdom.
But psychological variation facilitates useful specialization and skills, doesn't it?
