Homosexuality is not moral

[oldbadger]

I would say homosexuality is not biologically efficient.

What do you think about biologically inefficient partnerships, marriages or loves?

 

[blü 2]

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.

I agree that morality is about detriment / benefit.

But many religious people will add an alternative or second condition, that to be moral it must be (or, also be) pleasing to God X, who is said, on what basis I have no idea, to be the origin of morality.

 

[Meow Mix]

I agree that morality is about detriment / benefit.

But many religious people will add an alternative or second condition, that to be moral it must be (or, also be) pleasing to God X, who is said, on what basis I have no idea, to be the origin of morality.

Agreed, I understand that's part of their worldview. In a "get where they're coming from" sort of way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do you think about biologically inefficient partnerships, marriages or loves?

Same thing. Can't procreate.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But psychological variation facilitates useful specialization and skills, doesn't it?

Sure. I wouldn't have La Cage aux Folles to enjoy otherwise. ;0]

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Kit Kat are made under license from Nestle I believe. Not a great record on human rights abuses or environmental harm. Sorry.

 

[Meow Mix]

I would say homosexuality is not biologically efficient.

Homosexuals adopt and raise kids that otherwise might have languished; this also happens in the wild. It's not 1:1 with a fertile heterosexual couple, but does it need to be? What is the point of making this point?

 

[Truthseeker]

Agreed, I understand that's part of their worldview. In a "get where they're coming from" sort of way.

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.

Having an attraction for the same sex is not immoral, but engaging in sex outside of marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual is immoral In the Baha'i view. This includes heterosexual sex before marriage. I'm not interested in trying to prove this because we are advised that trying to prove this outside the Baha'i framework is fruitless. We are not to disdain or judge those who engage in this sex outside of marriage. Also marriage in the Baha'i framework is between a man and a women, but we don't seek to impose that standard on the rest of society.

I am married to a gay woman, and I just see her as a woman. Her being gay is irrelevant to me.

 

[Meow Mix]

Having an attraction for the same sex is not immoral, but engaging in sex outside of marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual is immoral In the Baha'i view. This includes heterosexual sex before marriage. I'm not interested in trying to prove this because we are advised that trying to prove this outside the Baha'i framework is fruitless. We are not to disdain or judge those who engage in this sex outside of marriage. Also marriage in the Baha'i framework is between a man and a women, but we don't seek to impose that standard on the rest of society.

I am married to a gay woman, and I just see her as a woman. Her being gay is irrelevant to me.

I have no problem with religious views that aren't forced or coerced onto others, that is perfectly fine in my book!

It just means certainly that Baha'i is not for me. As a gay woman, I'd never be able to have physical intimacy, and that's important to me. (I mean, aside from other, skeptical reasons). But again, more power to people that believe as they want while not pushing religion onto others.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The best way to not create tension between different genders would maybe be to not engage in discussion where non homosexual people telling homosexual people what to do

 

[Twilight Hue]

Homosexuals adopt and raise kids that otherwise might have languished; this also happens in the wild. It's not 1:1 with a fertile heterosexual couple, but does it need to be? What is the point of making this point?

From a strictly biological and practical standpoint. You require two sexes for procreation. One male , one female.

No procreation, no society.

I'm not making a moral argument here though.

Just pointing out the pitfalls of same sex relations based on that context.

It's probably why people see it as a threat and take it too far thinking homosexuality is like some disease that will eliminate society which is not true.

The subtile point I'm making is homosexuality is not really a threat, although people see it that way thinking it will go to an extreme where society will cease to exist or something as a result, so it becomes a moral argument when it's not in spite of it being true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Kit Kat are made under license from Nestle I believe. Not a great record on human rights abuses or environmental harm. Sorry.

Oh man. I see obsessed copyright lawyers making phone calls....

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

From a strictly biological and practical standpoint. You require two sexes for procreation. One male , one female.

No procreation, no society.

I'm not making a moral argument here though.

Just pointing out the pitfalls of same sex relations based on that context.

It's probably why people see it as a threat and take it too far thinking homosexuality is like some disease that will eliminate society which is not true.

The subtile point I'm making is homosexuality is not really a threat, although people see it that way thinking it will go to an extreme where society will cease to exist or something as a result, so it becomes a moral argument when it's not in spite of it being true.

I hope society kind of gets out of that mindset some day. For example, take me, transgender female identifying. I can identify as a woman and try to look like a woman as much as I want. But I can't get pregnant. The only problems that lack of pregnancy should cause is if the mate wanted a woman to conceive.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh man. I see obsessed copyright lawyers making phone calls....

At 1000 bucks an hour too.

 

[Kooky]

The right word is amoral. That means independent from morality, but saying it is not moral is misleading.

It's not misleading because that is literally what "amoral" means. The misunderstanding comes from the common usage of these terms, which does not distinguish between morally bad things and things that fall outside the framework of morality.

 

[Valjean]

From a strictly biological and practical standpoint. You require two sexes for procreation. One male , one female.

No procreation, no society.

I'm not making a moral argument here though.

Just pointing out the pitfalls of same sex relations based on that context.

It's probably why people see it as a threat and take it too far thinking homosexuality is like some disease that will eliminate society which is not true.

The subtile point I'm making is homosexuality is not really a threat, although people see it that way thinking it will go to an extreme where society will cease to exist or something as a result, so it becomes a moral argument when it's not in spite of it being true.

But why should everyone procreate? Haven't we already procreated ourselves into a mass extinction event?

Not all individuals need procreate to have a functional society. In some species it's only the alpha males and females that reproduce, leaving the rest of the society free to carry on with hunting, gathering and supporting the alpha couple's offspring.
Some take this to the extreme. In honeybees only a single individual out of the thousands reproduces.

 

[Estro Felino]

It's not misleading because that is literally what "amoral" means. The misunderstanding comes from the common usage of these terms, which does not distinguish between morally bad things and things that fall outside the framework of morality.

The word comes from Latin mos, moris which means custom, habit.
I guess it has lots to do with customs.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

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.

well, your critique was excellent, and well presented

 

[oldbadger]

Same thing. Can't procreate.

And......... so what do you think about them?
What do you think about marriages which cannot have children?

 

[night912]

I would say homosexuality is not biologically efficient. That I hope would go without saying.

Sorry that you were hopeful, but I do have to say something.

Men can't become pregnant. *grin*

Same as sterile women. Are gay men not physically able to impregnate women? Are straight men required to impregnate women?

Going by your reasoning, heterosexuality is also not biologically efficient.

My point is, homosexuality has nothing to do with biological efficiency. Just like it has nothing to do with morality.