Again, an action can do no physical harm but still be immoral.

Relationships between consenting adults can do no physical harm and still be immoral.

For example, two people who are closely related may marry. Nobody may be harmed there, but we would still condemn that because we recognize it is not natural.
There is no reasons to consider homosexuality as immoral. Whether it's natural or not does not even matter. It exist, period.

The immorality of a non natural state is pure nonsensical logic. There is absolutely no basis in the saying:

"X is not natural therefore X is immoral" Whether we talk about homosexuality, Cars, Trees, One Piece or the accaparation of the entire capitals of the planet by a few individuals.

If you want to judge the existence of something, you use ethics. Not morality that is completely religiously biased. This means understanding WHY something should be considered as immoral and unethical as a first place. And for that we look at the damage that said action can do.

In this case : 0. None. Nada. Nothing. Absolutely 0 damage whatsoever. So no matter if cars, trees or homosexuality are natural or non natural. It does not matter, what should be looked is what the existence of those things create and the effect on the social world.

Anyone with a brain and basic logic should understand that.

You could argue Trump is doing something that leads to gay marriage being banned by being against transgenders, but he formally he does not intend that at all. In his will, he is not against gay marriage
Intent is irrelevant in such ethical and political question. It's the political effect of the systemism of the oppression that matters.

We know, because it was documented, that the field of LGBTQI+ rights is interconnected by a fragile and highly volatile web, it's only a question of month for people who fight transgender now, to fight gay people later. It's a logic of transfert of oppression due to the overlapping domination system that are patriarchy, capitalism and ableism in this case.

It happens in other types of domination system as well. For ex I currently struggle with the same process in France:

The gov (and the social dem left) is trying to pass a law that allow for the assisted suicide of people in dire conditions. In theory, it's good news for people who are in pure torture.... but in practice, it's a pandora box.

We know - because it was documented and researched, once again - that if we allow such process under capitalism, capitalism, as a system of domination that works with ableism will produce enough pressure to push people with lesser and lesser problematic condition to seek the solution of ending their lives instead of helping them find new solution to live a better one.

It's a simple systemic logic (that is actually much easier to understand when we are thinking with po.. materialism). Rights, are interconnected, systems are interconnected, oppressions are interconnected.

So if we allow this in France tomorrow, the government or rather the institution willl push this:


In reality and practice, it means that the poorer you are, the easier will be to have access to assisted suicide... and by simple logic (if you already went through this, you will understand)...

.. The likelier you will be to end your life.
 
There is no reasons to consider homosexuality as immoral. Whether it's natural or not does not even matter. It exist, period.

The immorality of a non natural state is pure nonsensical logic. There is absolutely no basis in the saying:

"X is not natural therefore X is immoral" Whether we talk about homosexuality, Cars, Trees, One Piece or the accaparation of the entire capitals of the planet by a few individuals.

If you want to judge an action, you use ethics. Not morality that is completely religiously biased. This means understanding WHY something should be considered as immoral and unethical as a first place. And for that we look at the damage that said action can do.

In this case : 0. None. Nada. Nothing. Absolutely 0 damage whatsoever. So no matter if cars, trees or homosexuality are natural or non natural. It does not matter, what should be looked is what the existence of those things create and the effect on the social world.

Anyone with a brain and basic logic should understand that.


Intent is irrelevant in such ethical and political question. It's the political effect of the systemism of the oppression that matters.

We know, because it was documented, that the field of LGBTQI+ rights is interconnected by a fragile and highly volatile web, it's only a question of month for people who fight transgender now, to fight gay people later. It's a logic of transfert of oppression due to the overlapping domination system that are patriarchy, capitalism and ableism in this case.

It happens in other types of domination system as well. For ex I currently struggle with the same process in France:

The gov (and the social dem left) is trying to pass a law that allow for the assisted suicide of people in dire conditions. In theory, it's good news for people who are in pure torture.... but in practice, it's a pandora box.

We know - because it was documented and researched, once again - that if we allow such process under capitalism, capitalism, as a system of domination that works with ableism will produce enough pressure to push people with lesser and lesser problematic condition to seek the solution of ending their lives instead of helping them find new solution to live a better one.

It's a simple systemic logic (that is actually much easier to understand when we are thinking with po.. materialism). Rights, are interconnected, systems are interconnected, oppressions are interconnected.

So if we allow this in France tomorrow, the government or rather the institution willl push this:

But bro incest is also not natural so clearly homosexuality is
What do you mean those are two incredibly different things with one being an extremely creepy and disgusting practice which isn't comparable to two people of the same gender simply being in love
 
Why do YOU think incest is wrong then?
It seems I've made my point clear to you the problem in your logic: a relationship between two consenting adults can be immoral, even if nothing physically is harmful going on.

A relationship between two consenting adults may not be physically harmful (such as a homosexual one, or an incestuous one in the example I gave), but that doesn't automatically make it okay.

Incest is evil because it goes against the nature of human sexuality in some way, homosexuality also goes against this nature but in a different way.
 
I feel like in modern America, the parties have somewhat swapped sides again.

In that more and more, the Democratic Party actually feels like the Conservative Party, wishing to conserve traditional American values. Those being: immigration, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, and limited government.

Whereas the Republican Party is becoming a full blown fascist party. A party that wants: the 10 commandments in schools, mass deportations, free speech crackdowns, rewriting birthright citizenship, etc.

Genuinely feel like Bush-era republicans might be closer in ideology to modern democrats than current republicans.
 
There is no reasons to consider homosexuality as immoral. Whether it's natural or not does not even matter. It exist, period.
It doesn't exist. Actually, any evil action doesn't exist in of itself, but as a distortion of good.


But bro incest is also not natural so clearly homosexuality is
What do you mean those are two incredibly different things with one being an extremely creepy and disgusting practice which isn't comparable to two people of the same gender simply being in love
Your standard was, "two consenting adults that aren't harming each other".

Arbitrarily, you are OKAY with some form of this, but not another form of it. It's a contradiction in terms.
Post automatically merged:

And for that we look at the damage that said action can do
You have schizophrenia. There's plenty of examples of actions that don't do "damage" but are still immoral.

For example, acts of omission such as not saving a drowning person. Or consensual, incest relationships. Or white lies.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't exist. Actually, any evil action doesn't exist in of itself, but as a distortion of good.




Your standard was, "two consenting adults that aren't harming each other".

Arbitrarily, you are OKAY with some form of this, but not another form of it. It's a contradiction in terms.
Post automatically merged:



You have schizophrenia. There's plenty of examples of actions that don't do "damage" but are still immoral.

For example, acts of omission such as not saving a drowning person. Or consensual, incest relationships. Or white lies.
Because homosexuality is factually not hurting anyone in anyway
Incest is nearly synonymous with predatory behavior
Homosexuality isn't.
 
This guy really saying the incest relationships between consenting adults and when the kid doesn't have health problems are okay
:snoopy:

Fucked up if you ask me, I would say they're always immoral, not just if it's predatory or has health issues in the kid.

But when your moral framework is conditional or utilitarian as yours is, you are forced to morally support outliers where you know it's wrong even if all your conditions are met.
 
My brain is weird


I feel like in modern America, the parties have somewhat swapped sides again.

In that more and more, the Democratic Party actually feels like the Conservative Party, wishing to conserve traditional American values. Those being: immigration, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process, and limited government.

Whereas the Republican Party is becoming a full blown fascist party. A party that wants: the 10 commandments in schools, mass deportations, free speech crackdowns, rewriting birthright citizenship, etc.

Genuinely feel like Bush-era republicans might be closer in ideology to modern democrats than current republicans.
What is happening is sadly the result of decades over decades of leftism invisibilization.

Democrats took the place of progressive when they were never leftists in the first place, they used fake individualized tactics for years while pushing massive imperialistic politics at the same time. This prevented the US from having a strong counter power which pushed (in my opinion) the democrates to assume both the counter power of society and the conservatism of imperialist values at the same time of fighting a rising fascist power... thus completely splitting their personnality. They are now recolting the fruits of their own contradictions and all of this helped fascists to access power..

The US needs leftists (real radical ones) to access power. This should restore a form of balance placing democrates and republican on the same side with republican on the far left (as it's currently happening in France) and current fascist, maga and their neonazi friend into oblivion. With that, the US should be able to march forward, but this is gonna be a rough ride.


It doesn't exist. Actually, any evil action doesn't exist in of itself, but as a distortion of good.
This is not logic. This is religious moral. It's a fancy sentence that means nothing.

There is no good or bad in the material reality of our world, those are human and social concepts. There is only ethics. Meaning what can be seens as ethical or non ethical.

Homosexuality exist not as a good or a bad existence but as a result of the material and social reality of the world.

Just like planets simply exist as a material results of material conditions of cosmic process inside our galaxy, homosexuality is a simple result of the natural world in its social and possibly biological aspect. Just like everything else in existence. Homosexuality is not good or bad, It just is. It exist. Simple as that.

We are not special, we are not outside of the world. We and everything we are our everything we do is part of the natural process of reality and thus what you could consider "nature".

As such, searching to define "Bad" based on an unatural process is a nonsense as there is absolutely no such thing as "unatural process", our actions themselves are natural processes.

What you can do - on the other hand and on a human scale - is try to figure out what is the best way to maximize the happiness and development of our specie. This means looking at ethics and not religious morals.

And what does ethics tell us about homosexuality? >>>>> There is absolutely no ethical issue with homosexuality. It's just a different way to interprete social relationship.

-

In fact let me tell you a secret : homosexuality is an illusion.

Homosexuality, as a concept, is a result of heteronormativity, a sub domination system of patriarchy combined with and patriarchy. This concept emerged as a way to distinguish reproductives and unproductive bodies for the economy, capitalism and the heritage.

For patriarchy to function, the family unit (as an institution that is fundamental to capitalism) needed to be normalized in a set of values and situations:

- Raising children to make future workers
- The inheritance of properties and capitals
- The fundamental conservatist value that are necessary for the entire system to keep fucntionning without self questionning.
- A way to spread the wealth to normalized individuals

As such, homosexuality was the way those diverse domination system combined their "oppressive power" to CUT OFF populations that were (and still are) judged as obstacles for capitalism and patriarchy to function properly. (it's not the system on its own that created itself, it's the push of waves of human beings and waves of social change)


In other word:


If you think Homosexuality is immoral, it's not because it's bad or religiously a distortion of some good spark of spacetime...

It's because homosexuality is an obstacle for capitalism to function correctly.

And that's.. is actually a good thing
:yodaswag:
 
This guy really saying the incest relationships between consenting adults and when the kid doesn't have health problems are okay
:snoopy:

Fucked up if you ask me, I would say they're always immoral, not just if it's predatory or has health issues in the kid.

But when your moral framework is conditional or utilitarian as yours is, you are forced to morally support outliers where you know it's wrong even if all your conditions are met.
I never said incest is correct you stupid bitch
 
Top