What is sexually immoral?

[Storm]

I doubt he is doing that. To be fair... he has a point on all accounts.

Societal Taboos vs Religious Taboos

Once someone admits the things he bragged about in that thread, I have every right to suspect trolling when they start defending necrophilia and comparing it to sexuality. Don't blame me for his destruction of his own credibility.

Necrophilia doesn´t really hurt anybody. It can hurt the people alive that are sad or perturbed because of what is being done to the body, but that is indeed akin to someone protesting against homosexuality because it perturbs him, even though he is not the one having homosexual sex.

Except for that pesky consent issue.

Now, when you have legal control of a body, you do can get picky about it. I don´t know how laws with this things work, but I think if you are family you get to say where the body goes or something like that?

Of course another shade of gray would be: what if the person (say, grandma) agrees that grandpa can have sex with her diseased body?

I mean sure, all of these is gross, I am not saying it is not... but is someone being hurt?

Yeah, all the people who give a rat's *** that you just raped their loved one's corpse.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm not sure it's worth arguing with someone who freely admits to changing his position to whatever ****** people off most.

How do I freely admit to that?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Societal Taboos vs Religious Taboos

Once someone admits the things he bragged about in that thread, I have every right to suspect trolling when they start defending necrophilia and comparing it to sexuality. Don't blame me for his destruction of his own credibility.


Except for that pesky consent issue.


Yeah, all the people who give a rat's *** that you just raped their loved one's corpse.

I assure you... I never troll in debates. Now instead of bullying a member, as a moderator, how about a civil debate?

 

[Storm]

How do I freely admit to that?

Societal Taboos vs Religious Taboos

Would you like specific quotes?

 

[Storm]

I assure you... I never troll in debates.

Well, gee, that totally cancels out everything you said when you thought nobody would notice.

Now instead of bullying a member, as a moderator, how about a civil debate?

How exactly am I bullying you, and when did I pull rank?

Or did you expect me to meekly apologize for having a memory?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, gee, that totally cancels out everything you said when you thought nobody would notice.

Um... No? I still publicly offend people, but I don't see why you'd just draw the conclusion now when we were already IN a debate, especially since I haven't offended you in this debate, or never attempted to in most of my debates in RF.

How exactly am I bullying you, and when did I pull rank?

Or did you expect me to meekly apologize for having a memory?

Well not only are you breaking the bullying rule (which includes ridiculing as you are now) you are going off-topic which is also a rule.

 

[Storm]

Um... No? I still publicly offend people, but I don't see why you'd just draw the conclusion now when we were already IN a debate, especially since I haven't offended you in this debate, or never attempted to in most of my debates in RF.




Well not only are you breaking the bullying rule (which includes ridiculing as you are now) you are going off-topic which is also a rule.

How am I bullying you? "You're breaking the bullying rule" means absolutely nothing unless you can say how.

All I said was I wasn't convinced it was worth arguing with you in light of your own recent statements. You're the one who insisted on justification, which I provided.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Except for that pesky consent issue.

But there isn't the lack of consent, and the only person who can consent or not is the living body, which obviously does, and there is no negative or positive consent of the dead body.

Yeah, all the people who give a rat's *** that you just raped their loved one's corpse.

All the people who give a rat's *** that you just had sex with the same sex.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How am I bullying you? "You're breaking the bullying rule" means absolutely nothing unless you can say how.

All I said was I wasn't convinced it was worth arguing with you in light of your own recent statements. You're the one who insisted on justification, which I provided.

Is there a necessity to point it out? Nobody cares the reason you don't wish to debate me, you seem to be protesting

 

[Storm]

But there isn't the lack of consent, and the only person who can consent or not is the living body, which obviously does, and there is no negative or positive consent of the dead body.




All the people who give a rat's *** that you just had sex with the same sex.

Again, you ignore consent. Please don't bother to reply to this post, as I have no patience for your attempts to create drama.

 

[Drolefille]

Is there a necessity to point it out?

If one wants to point out the futility of debating with someone who is simply trying to be offensive. Yes.

Hence your continued comparison of homosexuality and necrophilia. They are not comparable psychologically or physically, and as someone who is attracted to the same sex I ask that you stop.

 

[Storm]

Is there a necessity to point it out? Nobody cares the reason you don't wish to debate me, you seem to be protesting

Seems you care quite a bit.

 

[Me Myself]

Societal Taboos vs Religious Taboos

Once someone admits the things he bragged about in that thread, I have every right to suspect trolling when they start defending necrophilia and comparing it to sexuality. Don't blame me for his destruction of his own credibility.

Except for the reality that his arguments make complete sense. He is giving you actual arguments and making valid questions about your reasoning.

Except for that pesky consent issue.

Which? It´s a corpse. There is no ghost in the shell. It has no legal rights. It is an "it" for crying out loud.

It doesn´t have a consent to give, nor a "beingness" that can still be "owning" the body.

Yeah, all the people who give a rat's *** that you just raped their loved one's corpse.

1-you cannot rape a corpse. It most at least be a "being" so it can be raped.

2-So what? If I were gay and my family chose to be disturbed about it, would my boyfriends be immoral by having sex with me?

If someone bought a house and had sex with the furniture, would that be immoral to the previous owners?

 

[Storm]

Except for the reality that his arguments make complete sense. He is giving you actual arguments and making valid questions about your reasoning.



Which? It´s a corpse. There is no ghost in the shell. It has no legal rights. It is an "it" for crying out loud.

It doesn´t have a consent to give, nor a "beingness" that can still be "owning" the body.



1-you cannot rape a corpse. It most at least be a "being" so it can be raped.

2-So what? If I were gay and my family chose to be disturbed about it, would my boyfriends be immoral by having sex with me?

If someone bought a house and had sex with the furniture, would that be immoral to the previous owners?

A corpse is not an "it." A corpse was once a person. And if you don't get consent, it's rape.

 

[Me Myself]

If one wants to point out the futility of debating with someone who is simply trying to be offensive. Yes.

Hence your continued comparison of homosexuality and necrophilia. They are not comparable psychologically or physically, and as someone who is attracted to the same sex I ask that you stop.

Every time anyone says "this is just not comparable because this is just not comparable" I lose a lot of credibility to their capacity to have well thought answers.

Ideologies can be compared to geometric figures. Comparison is not the same as saying 2 things are exactly the same. In this case comparison is working so that we explore in which ways they are different. Possibly one or many of his ways would be what makes homosexuality morally okay and necrophilia not, but we cannot know unless we compare them with intellectual honesty.

I am not nor have I ever being against homosexuals, and necrophilia grosses me out, but I have to be intellectually honest when debating about this things, and I´ve yet to see a way in which necrophilia would be immoral but homosexuality would not be. (and again, I do not oppose homosexuality nor have I ever)

 

[Me Myself]

A corpse is not an "it." A corpse was once a person. And if you don't get consent, it's rape.

No longer a person. It´s like saying that I am stealing something because this something once had an owner, even though it had no owner when I took it.

It´s an it.

 

[Storm]

Every time anyone says "this is just not comparable because this is just not comparable" I lose a lot of credibility to their capacity to have well thought answers.

Ideologies can be compared to geometric figures. Comparison is not the same as saying 2 things are exactly the same. In this case comparison is working so that we explore in which ways they are different. Possibly one or many of his ways would be what makes homosexuality morally okay and necrophilia not, but we cannot know unless we compare them with intellectual honesty.

I am not nor have I ever being against homosexuals, and necrophilia grosses me out, but I have to be intellectually honest when debating about this things, and I´ve yet to see a way in which necrophilia would be immoral but homosexuality would not be. (and again, I do not oppose homosexuality nor have I ever)

Really? I've said "consent" at least 3 times already.

No longer a person. It´s like saying that I am stealing something because this something once had an owner, even though it had no owner when I took it.

It´s an it.

Which is why we have inheritance laws and squatting is illegal.

 

[Me Myself]

Really? I've said "consent" at least 3 times already.


Which is why we have inheritance laws and squatting is illegal.

inheritance laws are good for "its" not for "hes and shes" .

So, grandma dies and allows grandpa to do what he wants with the body also explicitly allowing sexual stuff if grandpa wants.

Why is it immoral?

 

[Drolefille]

Every time anyone says "this is just not comparable because this is just not comparable" I lose a lot of credibility to their capacity to have well thought answers.

Ideologies can be compared to geometric figures. Comparison is not the same as saying 2 things are exactly the same. In this case comparison is working so that we explore in which ways they are different. Possibly one or many of his ways would be what makes homosexuality morally okay and necrophilia not, but we cannot know unless we compare them with intellectual honesty.

I am not nor have I ever being against homosexuals, and necrophilia grosses me out, but I have to be intellectually honest when debating about this things, and I´ve yet to see a way in which necrophilia would be immoral but homosexuality would not be. (and again, I do not oppose homosexuality nor have I ever)

Where did I say your quoted sentence?
They're not comparable because a same-sex act involves two consenting adults whereas a necrophilic act involves at best an object and at worst the remains of a non-consenting person. We assume that people have some say in the disposition of their bodies, hence funeral arrangements, cremation requests or refusals and the like. Necrophilic acts violate these wishes.

Psychologically necrophilia is a paraphilia and if the fantasy significantly harms the individual's life then a diagnosis may be made. As noted in the research below, it is not a natural orientation, but often a reaction to poor-self esteem and perceived lack of romantic/sexual prospects. Wanting a "non-resisting partner" is not a healthy state of mind.

In 1958, Klaf and Brown[4] commented that, although rarely described, necrophilic fantasies may occur more often than is generally supposed.
Rosman and Resnick[1] (1989) theorized that either of the following situations could be antecedents to necrophilia (pp. 161):

1. The necrophile develops poor self-esteem, perhaps due in part to a significant loss; (a) He/she is very fearful of rejection by women/men and he/she desires a sexual partner who is incapable of rejecting him/her; and/or(b) He/she is fearful of the dead, and transforms his/her fear — by means of reaction formation — into a desire.
2. He/she develops an exciting fantasy of sex with a corpse, sometimes after exposure to a corpse.

The authors also reported that, of their sample of 'necrophiliacs,':

• 68% were motivated by a desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner;
• 21% by a want for reunion with a lost partner;
• 15% by sexual attraction to dead people;
• 15% by a desire for comfort or to overcome feelings of isolation; and
• 11% by a desire to remedy low self-esteem by expressing power over a corpse (pp. 159).

At the end of their own report, Rosman and Resnick wrote that their study should only be used like a spring-board for further, more in depth, research.

Hopefully that satisfies your "this is why they're not comparable" desire.

Same-sex acts are not comparable, they're consenting, they're part of health sexual expression and homosexuality itself is a sexual orientation.

 

[Storm]

inheritance laws are good for "its" not for "hes and shes" .

So, grandma dies and allows grandpa to do what he wants with the body also explicitly allowing sexual stuff if grandpa wants.

Why is it immoral?

It's desecration, that's why. Respect for the dead is a hallmark of sapience, rational or not.