unapologetic

Autumn wrote:
With regard to inmates specifically, concerns about disingenuous claims regarding gender identity could warrant a policy specific to the situation. While such a move would likely be challenged in a court of law, applying standards such as a documented history of treatment for gender dysphoria is not intrinsically discriminatory for…

[Read more]

_Robert_ wrote:
I don’t see any gender as being morally superior.

It’s not possible to compare which is “superior” to the other.  There are broad differences, that’s all.

I can see both sides of the argument, of women vs. trans women over traditionally cisgendered female safe spaces.  I assume that 1) trans women need domestic violence refuges just as much as cisgendered women; 2) trans people have a need like everyone else to be considered on equal terms.

However this doesn’t factor in the enormously predatory…[Read more]

Immanuel Kant apparently said that masturbation is wrong but he didn’t know why.  Probably because it’s sexual behaviour outside of the male-female pair bond.

Masturbation is in some ways a worse vice than the horror of murdering oneself, and “debases [the masturbator] below the beasts”. Kant writes:

But it is not so easy to produce a rational…

[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
it doesn’t offer up much explanation of why the Abrahamic faiths became such hardliners on the issue in itself.

There must be some reasons why the Abrahamic faiths condemn homosexuality so heavily, when it is alive and well “in the wild”.  For example, chimpanzees and bonobos often engage in same-sex activity.

I think it’s a co…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
I agree with your earlier statement that misogyny is a significant factor in present-day homophobia. Perceivedly ‘effeminate’ behaviour in men is maligned, and women’s sexuality is shuffled off into the margins as a possible holdover from women being treated as chattel throughout parts of our history.

It just strikes me that any s…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
Why?

You talk as if there was the Torah, then the Bible, then nothing happened or changed until the 20th century.  I’m saying that during the intervening time, religion went overboard culturally in oppressing “deviants”.

Autumn wrote:
The sanctification of marriage in our contemporary sense may be a much younger concept, perhaps half a century ago or so when requirements for clergy to officiate marriages began to appear.

How do you account for the vilification of homosexuality in the middle ages?  Between biblical times, and now, religion has taken on a life of…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
Reproduction is a tenet of the Abrahamic faiths. It’s right there in Genesis. A number of the rules established in Leviticus appear to be more practical in nature. And Exodus definitely has elements of cultural preservation and tribal unification.

When conservatives speak against homosexuality, they say, for some unknown reason, t…[Read more]

Autumn wrote:
Non-reproduction, as a moral consideration, was likely a more valid concern in times when bolstering a tribe’s population was paramount for that tribe’s survival. While that doesn’t preclude homosexuality (you can make babies and still find ample time to be gay), you can still speculate why blanket prohibitions might have seeme…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
a kind of disorder of sexuality, in that nature would not wish anybody to be this way, since there is not much chance of any resulting reproduction.

We could make exactly the same argument against homosexuality, and we don’t condemn that morally.  We condemn paedophilia morally because, as you say, it causes harm in itself,…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
My take on harmful sexual behavior in humans is that it is a human flaw, with probable genetic influences.

I think it can be an atypical genetic variation whereby someone is naturally born to be a pedophile in a small minority of men and women.  It probably doesn’t have any survival value at all – rather, it’s a kind of d…[Read more]