Do philosophical theories

[bella88]

Re: Do philosophical theories

@psyah

From the conversation so far between bella88 and diwana is that …

Bella88 says consent is necessary for an act of sex with another to be allowed
consent for animals is not real
consent for children is not real
consent for diseased (indeterminate)
but consent for homosexual adults is real

this is based on the idea that consent determines whether another is being harmed

So if it is about harm then diwana says that does not apply to eating, because that is necessarily harm and no consent is required … But then that causes a discontinuity between harm of animal in sex to harm of animal for food he is asking why if harm is the criteria of right and wrong is sex not allowed with animals yet eating them is allowed?

what is your point psyah? in your opinion, is having sex with an animal the same thing as eating it?
diwana is desperately trying to speak against homosexuals without using religion and now you are doing the same thing.

Diwana is arguing for the right and wrong in sex not to be taken from the point of view of consent, but from what is natural in the sense that is serves a biological function which is not rooted in the psyche but in the reproductive order and in a biological majority for the species.

diwana thinks homosexuality is wrong as per his religion. but instead of using religion as the reason, he’s trying to use his own made up theories to justify why its wrong. sex is not done by heterosexuals for reproduction only and you know that very well. 90% of the time, even married couples have sex NOT with the intention of getting pregnant. so your argument is completely baseless

I wonder if bella88 thinks people who are sexually inclined to animals and children are sick or not? And if so, what makes them sick and homosexuals not? Inclination has nothing to do with the actual act … It is merely an impulse … Should homosexuals be allowed to nurture their inclinations through engaging in homosexual activity be considered acceptable while those of other inclinations deemed not acceptable, neither in inclination nor in the act … then there is a major inconsistency here.

again you’re mixing abuse and consenual sex together. no one is harmed in homosexuality, yet someone is harmed in pedophilia. so how can you compare the 2 ?

Why is it that bella88 has an opinion that is conforming to current view of modern western society which allows multiple heterosexual partners and homosexual activity … But not the other forms of deviation?

having multiple partners is somones personal matter, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be allowed to. if you dont like it, you dont need to do it, very simple. something that doesn’t affect or harm anyone shouldn’t be criminal. also in many cultures, polygamy is viewed very immoral. so you see, your standard of morality is very different from some other people.

Is it true that bella88 might simply be justifying the norms of today rather than looking for a philosophical answer to the question of homosexuality?

science has come a long way to recognize homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual orientation. you can deny all you want but majority of the scientists and psychiatrist agree with this. you can come up with all sorts of things to make it sound ‘wrong’, but as of right now, science disagrees with you. you have your reasoning and i have mine. yours is backed by faith, mine is based by science.
there is a reason why NO major medical organization considers homosexuality as a disease or psychiatric problem. you can disagree all you want, but there is a reason why psychiatrists donot view it as a disorder.

also, next time, instead of trying to analyze my argument with diwana, you should come up with your own argument.