/lit/ - Literature

if you want to know about gay read Vic Raymond's High Steaks

>>6729276
>So what is your opinion on homosexuality

Fingering taut boy arseholes down the Y dripping mucus so nasty, bronze Tamghisian boys parachuting into the combat zone, their hard cocks leaking already for the fighting Blonde boys hanging by the necks piss jerking sperm over girls teats so nasty Pirate boys flicking the tips of their condomened cocks scissoring the ends spilling down the aisles dirty French banlieu boys browner than that wrinkled arsehole pulling up their balls ready to cum jerkin their arses.

>>6729276
God forbids homosexuality, friend.
>Greeks
>rabid homosexuals
>get conquered
>conquered some more
>become short, hairy turks
>eternal debts
See for yourself, the Lord will punish those who act against nature.

>>6729276
>muh identity politics

fuck off neoliberal shit

>>6729303
thats the longest porn title i've ever read

>>6729276
it seems to be a recurring sexual mutation in sexed animals without a moral component of any sort

>>6729325
There are longer titles from the 17th and 18th century.

>>6729303
This post made me physically ill.

>>6729310
God is dead, friend.

>>6729311
This has nothing to do with identity politics, with any politics actually. I am talking mainly whether it's morally right or wrong for a man to love and make love to another man.

>>6729327
So it is a deviation from the healthy practice and thus wrong?

There is nothing inherently immoral with same-sex attraction or even same-sex relationships, it's the modern ideology that surrounds homosexuality that is cancerous.

>>6729325
>he's too young to remember limewire and aresgalaxy

britneyspearsavrillavignebikinilesbianQWERTYbeachdogfuck12yo14yoplayswithself.exe

>>6729276
Natural law theory say it is morally wrong

>>6729335
Are you a faggot?

>>6729355
No, I am a straight as a spring young white gentleman, but I wish to rationalise properly my hatred for faggots.

>>6729366
Are you sure you're not a faggot?

>>6729335
>This has nothing to do with... politics
>I am talking mainly whether it's morally right or wrong

You're a cretin.

>>6729370
I swear, d00d.

>>6729372
Politics concern the structure of governance over a group of people and it's completely independent of morality and ethics.

>>6729366
>I wish to rationalise properly my hatred for faggots.

You should address the reason for your pathological hatred

>>6729276
>No religious rubbish, please, take it back to /pol/.
I don't think you want an actual discussion, OP.

>>6729335
>morally right or wrong
>a deviation
>the healthy practice

The only ethical system under which it could even potentially be wrong is certain conceptions of natural law theory but those theories are kind of flimsy in my opinion. The main claim is that the purpose of sex is procreation and any deviation from this is against nature and therefore wrong. However, I see no way of assigning inherent purpose to things beyond what individuals use them for, and individual humans have sex to reach many different ends, most of which can be achieved through gay sex.

>>6729384

A political decision will usually be linked to morality and ethics.

>>6729276
Has there been much written on the Oedipal phase within a child raised by homosexual couples?

>>6729417
I feel like homosexuals diminish the potential of the human race, not only with their inability to reproduce but also with all their health problems (and hazards for all normal people).

>>6729426
>I see no way of assigning inherent purpose to things beyond what individuals use them for
Except that procreation has the purpose to create more of you, which should be quite obvious. So there is an inherit purpose to it. I think the issue runs a lot deeper than that. Homosexuality is obviously some sort of mental disease, but even then it's a choice to a certain extent, often entirely. Therefore this purposeful deviation from the norm, a kind of rebellion, is not grounded in reason but in feelings, which makes it wrong.

>>6729442
I have no idea.

>>6729426
>However, I see no way of assigning inherent purpose to things beyond what individuals use them for
the individual's intention is irrelevant
the fact is that the use of the sexual faculty DOES result in reproduction and union and there's no way to make sense of it unless it's final end is reproduction and union

>>6729335
>without a moral component of any sort

Why don't you just go to /pol/?

They'll have youtube videos, infographics, and jpgs confirming whatever you want to believe about this 'mental illness degeneracy'.

I don't think homosexuality is wrong, at least not by any secular standard. Same-sex marriage is ridiculous, though.

>>6729458
>nature is teleological

kekekek

>>6729458
>>6729475
i believe he comes from /pol/ and he believes all of the health hazards (which is mostly an issue of promiscuity, but is closely tied with homosexuality)

but he does have a grasp on why homosexuality is wrong

>>6729424
Deviation tells us nothing about morality or health. I could deviate from the norm as an American and exclusively eat in a way which is conducive to my health and spend regular time exercising. This would be deviant but it would also be healthy. I could be deviant by never telling a lie, something pretty much everyone does, but this would be both deviant and moral by many standards of morality.

>>6729426
Exactly. The argument always has to come around to, "well it's the purpose which God intended for those organs," at which, contrary to what some people in this thread think, it's no longer a philosophical discussion.

>>6729458
Homosexuality doesn't make a person unable to reproduce, infertility does. What sorts of hazards do you have in mind?

>procreation has the purpose to create more of you

No, that's just a translation of "procreation" which is cited as the purpose of something, in the case the genitals. No one denies that procreation can be the purpose of something, but it isn't at all obvious that it need be. It also isn't obvious that homosexuality is a disease (it's obvious you don't know what a disease is though), and I'm assuming you're trolling or have latent homosexual desires that you're struggling with if you think you can just choose to start or stop being attracted to a certain sex.

>>6729464
>there's no way to make sense of it
People use them for pleasure. That makes perfect sense and sexual activity doesn't result in reproduction except in a minority of cases.

>>6729276
You'd have better luck elsewhere. 4chan is more interested in either completely ignoring the content of your post and/or derailing the conversation into something they typically know nothing about.

>>6729482
i dont think you can hold both opinions without having some kind of cognitive dissonance, no offense, thomas

>>6729485
>nature isnt teleological
kek

>>6729458
>Except that procreation has the purpose to create more of you, which should be quite obvious.
yes, but why is the inherent purpose of sex procreation?

>Homosexuality is obviously some sort of mental disease
I don't think that's obvious at all. How do you tell which mental states are diseases and which ones aren't?

>>6729464
>the fact is that the use of the sexual faculty DOES result in reproduction and union and there's no way to make sense of it unless it's final end is reproduction and union
the sexual faculty can also result in deadly diseases. I think it's very simple to make sense of sex without those things. It's a pleasurable activity involving two people. a dick goes into a vagina or a butt or a mouth or something even different from that happens.

>>6729472
So you concede that it's not healthy but you don't think that morality should be involved in the discussion?

>>6729475
Why are you so defensive? If you don't like the thread then don't post in it.

>>6729482
What about pragmatism or teleology. Both would consider homosexuality wrong.

>>6729485
>implying it isn't

>>6729498
>Homosexuality doesn't make a person unable to reproduce
It does. Mating requires mutual attraction and also sleeping exclusively with people of the same sex cannot create babies. To reproduce, you have to stop being a homosexual, even if just for a night.

>>6729498
>People use them for pleasure.
again, what people use them for is irrelevant
>sexual activity doesn't result in reproduction except in a minority of cases.
what happens=!what should happen

>>6729503
I do. Just like I don't think fucking around a lot can be deduced as wrong from a purely secular standpoint, but making marriage and open door contract that can accommodate fifty people is ridiculous.

Homosexuality is wrong from a religious viewpoint, though, because it cannot involve sex which is *open* to reproduction. That's not any worse than heterosexual sex that isn't open to procreation, though.

>>6729512
>What about pragmatism or teleology. Both would consider homosexuality wrong.
Pragmatism doesn't consider non-reproductive sex, or even a small portion of the population to be devoted to that to be wrong.

Teleological biology, today, is only teneable from a theological point-of-view, and even in theology is is contentious (MacIntyre totally rejects it, despite his support for Aristotle in theology). OP specifically said he didn't want to hear religious arguments.

>>6729508
>yes, but why is the inherent purpose of sex procreation?
Because we have evolved in such a manner. It's the same as asking me why we have two hands and not three. It's just how things came to be, for one reason or another.
>I don't think that's obvious at all.
I think it's pretty obvious. Also, mental diseases are obvious states that are highly contageous and can easily influence people.

>>6729508
>the sexual faculty can also result in deadly diseases.
but this diseases result from an unhealthy individual, it is not a normal case

> I think it's very simple to make sense of sex without those things
yes, it's called delusion

>>6729521
1/10

>>6729512
Being a homosexual requires that one be predominantly attracted to the same sex. Being able to reproduce requires that one have sperm cells capable of fertilizing an egg or eggs capable of being fertilized. People who die virgins and never took advantage of artificial insemination never reproduced but that doesn't mean they were unable to reproduce.

>>6729513
>what people use them for is irrelevant
Not if you're wondering what purpose something could have which is exactly what you were talking about.

>what happens=!what should happen
But you haven't established what should happen. You've simply asserted that reproduction should happen without any supporting reason.

>>6729515
>>6729520
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle considered homosexual acts to be inmoral

>Teleological biology, today, is only teneable from a theological point-of-view
wrong, natural law theorists hold that teleological ends can be studied without reference to God, and do not depend directly on him.

>>6729303
would read more
>>6729335
i am pretty sure that if someone taught a course on identity politics, the first passage you quoted would be in the textbook
>>6729503
normally i wouldn't recommend someone read de rerum natura because it's so outdated but when you're literally presenting phaedonic arguments i don't know what else to do

>>6729520
>Pragmatism doesn't consider non-reproductive sex
Because it considers it a wrong thing, duh.
>Teleological biology, today, is only teneable from a theological point-of-view
What? Complete rubbish. I don't even understand why you try to bring theology into this.

>>6729526
>Being able to reproduce requires that one have sperm cells capable of fertilizing an egg or eggs capable of being fertilized
No, that's only a sign of fertility. Reproduction requires also the actual execution of the act.

>>6729538
>would read more
It's a filk of WS Burroughs cities of the red night

>>6729526
>Not if you're wondering what purpose something could have which is exactly what you were talking about.
you are assuming that final causes aren't mind independent, which is wrong
>>6729526
>But you haven't established what should happen. You've simply asserted that reproduction should happen
i gave supporting reasons, that you want to understand them is another issue

>>6729512
>To reproduce, you have to stop being a homosexual, even if just for a night.
wrong. You could, for instance, masturbate into a syringe and then inject it into a woman's vagina.

>>6729521
I don't see how we've evolved in such a way that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Diplomacy could be a reasonable purpose of it given that it is pleasurable and we are social creatures.

that's not a very clear description of disease. Are all contagious mental states diseases?

>>6729531
>Socrates, Plato and Aristotle considered homosexual acts to be inmoral
Right, but the former two it was for religious reasons, and with Aristotle it was for teleology.

>wrong, natural law theorists hold that teleological ends can be studied without reference to God, and do not depend directly on him.
Teleology in society, but not *biological* teleology, at least I don't think many thing that since Darwin.

>>6729543
thanks baby doll

>>6729539
>Because it considers it a wrong thing, duh.
That's not necessarily true, see James Steuart. He didn't endorse non-reproductive sex, bu the did considered population growth to be excessive and something to be curbed.

>What? Complete rubbish. I don't even understand why you try to bring theology into this.
Because you did here
>>6729512
>What about pragmatism or teleology. Both would consider homosexuality wrong.

>>6729550
>You could, for instance, masturbate into a syringe and then inject it into a woman's vagina.
That's a very straight thing to do and therefore would be against the homosexual dogma. And in the case that you are not the one sticking a syringe in a woman's vagina, then you aren't the one reproducing. The woman's offspring will bear your DNA, yes, but you wouldn't have taken part in the reproduction.
>I don't see how we've evolved in such a way that the only purpose of sex is procreation.
It's easy, we needed some stimuli to promote procreation and thus sex came to be. That's a very simplified explanation, of course.
>Are all contagious mental states diseases?
Yes.

>>6729539

Reproduction requires the actual execution of the act but the ability to reproduce does not. You explicitly stated in >>6729458 that homosexuals are unable to reproduce, which is false. They, in most cases, are able but unwilling or uninterested and, in many cases, are able and have actually reproduced with a member of the opposite sex while they were still in the closet and, in many cases, are able to reproduce and have done so by taking advantage of artificial insemination.

>>6729544
It's a mind independent fact that certain forms of stimulation will create pleasure in certain organisms. It's not clear to me why that's important to you though. You've yet to actually give an argument for your position.

>I gave supporting reasons
No, you said that homosexuality is wrong because penises and vaginas are exclusively for reproducing which isn't a reason because it's blatantly false.

>>6729531
>wrong, natural law theorists hold that teleological ends can be studied without reference to God, and do not depend directly on him.

they obviously have to replace God with some other idea that functions in the same way, i.e it subjugates your will and ends to a higher order.

My 'teleology' is my own will, there is nothing higher than my own ends.

>>6729559
Are you per chance dyslexic? There's a difference between teleology and theology, even if they are spelled quite similarly.

The natural purpose of mouths is to eat food, any other function besides this is unnatural and irrational.

>>6729569
I know there is. I said BIOLOGICAL teleology doesn't have any application outside of theology today, because it lost any secular basis with Darwin. There are other things you can apply teleology to, such as society or art or whatever, but we're talking about biological teleology.

>>6729552
>Teleology in society, but not *biological* teleology, at least I don't think many thing that since Darwin.
there have been defenses of biological teleology (like etienne gilson) and some have come to the conclusion that Darwin did not "end" biological teleology but merely, relocated it to another place.

>>6729563
Inserting a syringe into someone's vagina and pressing the stopper doesn't sound like sex to me.

>It's easy, we needed some stimuli to promote procreation and thus sex came to be. That's a very simplified explanation, of course.
that doesn't explain why it's the only purpose, only that it is *a* purpose out of potentially many.

>yes.
are very convincing arguments disease vectors?

>>6729575
Wrong. The mouth is to a large extent a sensory device and thus all sensing is considered natural and rational.

>>6729588
I like this. Thank you anon science man.

>>6729588
>The mouth is to a large extent a sensory device

those senses are directed towards eating, not tonguing boys, you sick degenerate.

>>6729458
>Homosexuality is obviously some sort of mental disease,

>PhD of Neurobiology, University of Pyongyang

>>6729565
>No, you said that homosexuality is wrong because penises and vaginas are exclusively for reproducing which isn't a reason because it's blatantly false.
>durr because i say so it is false
i think it isnt fair that you dont give any arguments when im giving you arguments

>inb4 reproduction isnt the purpose because people have sex for muh pleasure
what people use them is irrelevant, ive already said so many times

>>6729580
Well I still subscribe to biological teleology for religious reasons, and I'd be interested in reading those arguments, though I suspect they're quite tenuous. Biology as a study now is mostly the realm of natural science, not of philosophy, except as a theological consideration.

>>6729575
that is a caricature on what natural law theorists say. An action is only morally wrong when it goes CONTRARY to the end of a certain faculty

>>6729458
>homosexuality is not grounded in reason but in feelings, which makes it wrong.

it's perfectly reasonable to pursue what you feel like pursuing. Any other use of reason is irrational.

>>6729521
>Also, mental diseases are obvious states that are highly contageous

>>6729521
How things came to be involved many organisms failing to reproduce. We can't determine until a organism reproduces that it will do so successfully, so to say reproduction is its purpose in bringing about a future state of affairs is premature. I bet you believe in some god too, you stupid faggot.

is/ought gap :^)

>>6729603
It isn't false because I say so, it's false because penises and vaginas are clearly used for things other than producing babies. You think that those other things are improper uses of penises and vaginas but have yet to explain why.

>>6729587
>Inserting a syringe into someone's vagina and pressing the stopper doesn't sound like sex to me.
It is a mild form of sex though.
>that doesn't explain why it's the only purpose
It explains it because it's the reason why it was created to begin with. The whole notion of sex is centred around procreation, which is it's sole purpose. You can use it for other things, but that doesn't change it's fundamental assignment. I think you are confusing purpose with application. An object can have a single purpose but multiple applications. The purpose is defined a priori.
>are very convincing arguments disease vectors?
No.

>>6729595
You can't discriminate sensing, all sensing is equal. The intention may bring some reason for discrimination, but inherently speaking all sensing is on the same level.

"Morally wrong" doesn't apply

There is only good intention with good results, bad intention with bad results, neutral intention with neutral results, and the type of intention that leads to the cessation of intention

>>6729622
>You can't discriminate sensing, all sensing is equal.

Sensing that achieves my ends is superior to sensing that doesn't. Of course I can discriminate 'sensing', in fact I'm the only being that can.

>>6729563
>the homosexual dogma


Review your definitions

>It's easy, we needed some stimuli to promote procreation and thus sex came to be

Do you even know what evolution is? Evolution is less pragmatic than you think. Sex has become more of a social bond thing, which also happens to be quite efficient to reproduce.
See: all animals which feel pleasure when having sex are social.

>>6729616
>it's false because penises and vaginas are clearly used for things other than producing babies.

holy fucking shit it's like im talking to a fucking dolphin

WHAT YOU USE IT FOR IS IRRELEVANT WHEN LOOKING FOR A FACULTY'S FINAL END

THE REASON PROCREATION AND UNION IS THE FINAL END OF THE SEXUAL ACT IS BECAUSE WHEN THIS ACT TAKES PLACE BETWEEN 2 HEALTHY INDIVIDUALS AND WITHOUT ANY INTERFERENCE OF ANY SORT, PROCREATION AND UNION RESULT FROM IT

>>6729640
They are, but apart from bonobs, they don't tend to use sex for casual social bonding. It's just a brief thing and then done, and it will not infrequently because against the will of the female. There's homosexuality and non-reproductive sex among animals, but it's not the majority of sex except, again, with bonobos, who also happen to be immune to STD's

>>6729608
read etienne gilson's "From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again"
also there are several other essays which discuss teleology in general
(Ed Feser's Teleology: A Shopper's Guide)

>>6729626
You are wrong, but at this moment I can't tell why exactly. You are wrong though, that's for sure.

>>6729627
That would be correct only if you were able to determine with absolute certainty whether an act of sensing achieves your ends. But you can't, that's how it is in the imperfect world we live in. For example, you might try to argue that sensing a donut's frosting would achieve your ends, but you may just be ignorant of the alternative -- sensing a young boy's tongue which would benefit you greater. My point is, you can never know.

>>6729640
>Evolution is less pragmatic than you think.
There's literally nothing more pragmatic than evolution. And I mean literally.

>>6729622
Should we not consider sex between humans as fundamentally different from sex between, say, lobsters? They are in the same class of actions but we shouldn't assume there are no valuable differences; considering that there are other natural goals of people (such as diplomacy) that must be accounted for by some faculty or group of faculties, and these goals are evidently not goals we share with lobsters, couldn't it be the case that sex between humans in particular takes double duty in fulfilling the purpose of reproduction and also diplomacy?

>convincing arguments aren't disease vectors
why not? they induce contagious mental states

>>6729642
>the clit's end is reproduction

>>6729642
>procreation is the only proper use because it is the result of two healthy individuals having sex without any interference.

Was that so hard?

Why is it that the result (actually just a possible result since most cases of the sort you describe don't result in procreation) of two healthy people engaging in sex is what determines the proper use? In other words, granted that cases like what you describe are possible, what makes those cases the ones deemed moral as opposed to other cases where genitals are used?

>>6729658
>the clit is a faculty

>>6729642

>LOOKING FOR A FACULTY'S FINAL END

the final end of sex is anal sex because when it takes place between 2 healthy individuals and without any interference of any sort, procreation DOES NOT result from it, which is a benefit to the individuals and mankind.

>with regards to literatue and philosophy
>do you personally think it's morally wrong

Nice try. This isn't a /lit/ thread.

>>6729666
Stimulating it is considered a sexual act, regardless of whether or not it's a faculty

>>6729666
You might be retarded.

>>6729656
>Should we not consider sex between humans as fundamentally different from sex between, say, lobsters?
No. The methodology may be slightly different, but the idea, the purpose behind the act is the same.

>why not? they induce contagious mental states
Ideas spread by people's own volition and therefore are fundamentally different then diseases.

>>6729652
>That would be correct only if you were able to determine with absolute certainty whether an act of sensing achieves your ends.

Certainty is an irrelevant state of mind, I can adopt it or ignore it.
Whether my action actually achieve my ends is just a matter of power and cleverness and luck and so forth. It has no bearing on my judgement.

Gays were BTFO by Scruton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Desire_(book)

>>6729681
Scruton himself renounces what he wrote in that book. Learn to research.

>>6729666

the clit is a primary orgasm faculty, it's ends are stimulation and fun. Which are actually the final ends of sex: stimulation and fun.

procreation is a byproduct of sex, like how farting is a byproduct of taking a dump.

>>6729686
>Scruton himself renounces what he wrote in that book. Learn to research.

Scruton retracted his renouncement of that book.

>>6729680
Your state of mind has no control over the outcome of natural phenomena of probabilistic character. You exist in the physical world and therefore should obey its laws. Your mind is an abstract construct that cannot interact directly with the physical reality.

>>6729694
No he didn't.

>>6729664
i didnt say that the result of two healthy people having sex is what determines it's proper use

i said that the proper use is procreation and union because when the act takes place between two healthy individuals without ANY interference (natural or unnatural) it will end in procreation, and there is no other way to make sense of this without saying that the end of the sexual faculty is procreation and union

>>>6729669
>the anus is a sexual faculty

>>6729696

"The world" and "natural laws" are just abstract concepts, tools i can use to achieve my ends or tools I can choose to ignore.

>>6729679
>No. The methodology may be slightly different, but the idea, the purpose behind the act is the same.
How do you know?

>Ideas spread by people's own volition and therefore are fundamentally different then diseases.
that's not true at all. you can intentionally give someone a cold or herpes or any other physical disease. You could also accidentally spread an idea, suppose you wrote something in your diary and someone found it and read it even though you had no intention of anyone reading it and this allowed them to adopt a new viewpoint. Also you can intend to spread an idea and fail, much like diseases.

>>6729698
>the anus is a sexual faculty

The anus can facilitate sex. Yes.

>>6729714
>The anus can facilitate sex. Yes.

But "ought" it?
The answer is yes...as long as I'm the top.

>>6729711
>How do you know?
Evolutionary biology has proven it.
>Also you can intend to spread an idea and fail
That not possible because ideas are, well, you know, bulletproof.

>>6729698
>not ovulating=interference

Now you're just deciding in advance what counts as proper use and then ruling out anything else because it doesn't fit. Why should sex be narrowed down to only those cases which result in procreation? Clearly, if we have reason to narrow it down in such a way, you're correct that that procreation would be it's end but until you can provide a reason for why we ought to only define sex in such a way you're begging the question (sex is procreative because sex is procreative).

>>6729727
>That not possible because ideas are, well, you know, bulletproof.

It is possible, for example you're trying to prove a point and failing miserably in this thread. So you're idea, is well, not spreading.

>>6729735

I think he's trying to make it a tautology. So that any sex that isn't procreative (anal sex) doesn't even qualify as sex, so you can simply do it for leisure, but it needs a new name.

He's going in circles.

>>6729743
>I think he's trying to make it a tautology.
I agree, which is why he's never been making an argument at all, just stipulating what "sex" is.

>>6729675
so what? it is not a faculty on it's own
>>6729689
>the clit is a primary orgasm faculty
the clit forms part of the sexual faculty, it is not a faculty of it's own>>6729689
>procreation is a byproduct of sex, like how farting is a byproduct of taking a dump.
it the other way around buddy

procreation wears the pants when determining the end of the sexual faculty
union is an end too, but it depends on the procreative end to be considered as such
pleasure is the byproduct of sex.

an example, the end of eating is to gather nutrients, but when we eat, we enjoy the taste of certain foods we eat, we gather around family, etc. Would it be right to say that these are the ends of eating? No, they are merely activities that encourage eating, they motivate us reach the proper final end, which is nutrition.

Which is why we consider an individual who enjoys food but intentionally vomits to not gather any nutrients to be mentally disordered

>>6729743
This. I think the intention should be considered and the pleasure should be a secondary factor. In other words, if your intention was to conceive a child then that's morally good. But if the intention is simple pleasure seeking then it's morally bad.

I'm to busy trying to pay my bills so I can live in a house and eat food

My concerns are more with fixing this economic system than worrying about two dudes banging

>>6729727
where can I find these evolutionary biology papers that prove that diplomacy is not an end that is naturally filled by sex among humans?

it's certainly possible, I'm trying to spread the idea that homosexuality is morally acceptable but you don't seem convinced yet.

>>6729735
>sex is procreative because sex is procreative
your misrepresenting me
sex is procreative because it results in procreation
youre right that any other acts which dont direct the sexual faculty to its end isnt sex, since sex is by definition, a procreative and unitive act

of course you may simply take sex to mean anything which makes you cum, so you can argue that because of this, sex isnt procreative and doesnt result in procreation. But that is fallacious.

>>6729757
>Which is why we consider an individual who enjoys food but intentionally vomits to not gather any nutrients to be mentally disordered

faculties/actions don't have ends in themselves. People use faculties to achieve their ends. If a person is politically rebelling by starving himself or engaging in a scientific experiment then his ends are justified and vomiting is fine.

If a person engages in sex in order to bond and have fun, then bonding and having fun are the ends of that encounter... and if a baby is formed it's a mistake and accident.

>>6729757
>so what? it is not a faculty on it's own
So? It's not something that gets stimulated purely through penetration unless you're quite a buck.

>>6729798
>faculties/actions don't have ends in themselves.
i disagree, and there is no reason to believe otherwise

>>6729793
I don't think you know what a fallacy is. You've been committing one this entire time and nicely phrased it in this post: "sex is procreative because it results in procreation"

This is question begging at it's clearest. You've stipulated what sex is (an act which is procreative) and then defended that definition by literally stating the definition: it is because it is.

For the sake of trying to have some clarity, I’ve summarized the points that aren’t obviously false and what needs to be shown for those points to actually be correct as well as why it needs to be shown since that apparently isn’t obvious to some people.

>Because God forbids it

Need to show: God exists, we can know the will of God

Need to show this because: without knowing that there is a God and that we can know what he forbids, we cannot actually know that God forbids it.

>Because it’s deviant.

Need to show: this particular deviance is immoral for some reason/s

Need to show this because: deviance isn’t inherently moral/immoral, it’s inherently relative to a norm which can be moral/immoral (e.g. consistently eating healthy food and exercising is deviant but is good for you).

>Because the inherent purpose of sex/sex organs is procreation

Need to show: we can determine the inherent purpose of something by certain means (e.g. inherent purpose is determined by God’s will), the inherent purpose of something determines the morality of activity involving that something.

Need to show this because: if something has many uses but only one which is proper, we need some way to determine which of those uses is proper for any sort of thing which has proper/improper uses. Supposing we can do this, we need to show why it is that proper use corresponds to moral activity. I can properly use the fare box on the bus in order to receive fare but this isn’t clearly a moral act on my part. By improper use, I don’t receive fare but that doesn’t make it immoral in any obvious way.

The deviance point obviously depends on at least one of the other two (God forbids it or it violates inherent purpose), or some yet to be made argument. Whether or not God forbids something, to my mind, seems impossible to show and the only argument for inherent purpose has boiled down to begging the question by asserting that sex is, by definition, procreative and then arguing that sex is procreative because sex is procreative. If this is the best that homophobes can offer, I’m not convinced.

>>6729793
>of course you may simply take sex to mean anything which makes you cum, so you can argue that because of this, sex isnt procreative and doesnt result in procreation. But that is fallacious.

it isn't fallacious it just uses a wider definition of what sex can be. your definition of sex is: activity that results in procreation.

so to you, things like anal play and oral play aren't even "sex" because of your narrow definition, and so you have no way to argue against anal play or oral play and say they aren't "achieving their proper ends" because they don't even qualify as a "sex act" in your definition. They are no different than getting a really good massage, etc

>>6729802
>i disagree, and there is no reason to believe otherwise

faculties/actions/body parts aren't capable of intentionality, so they can't have purposes in themselves.

>>6729809
Why won't you, instead, try to justify or simply reason why would you have sex with another bloke. Let's not confuse the cause and consequence order. Homosexuality is not normal, which is easily proved by its inability to continue the existence of its victim, so why would you partake in homosexuality to begin with? There's no reason besides MUH FEELINGS, which a fallacy on its own.
>>Because the inherent purpose of sex/sex organs is procreation
>
>Need to show: we can determine the inherent purpose of something by certain means (e.g. inherent purpose is determined by God’s will), the inherent purpose of something determines the morality of activity involving that something.
It's easy, sexual organs and the act of sexual intercourse have been created with a certain intention, be it by some higher power or naturally. Therefore there is an inherit purpose to it. The only objects that do not have an inherit purpose are the ones that have came into existence by chance.

>>6729686
So what?

>>6729840

You're asking me for a motivation behind why I would have gay sex. Motivations can't be fallacious, arguments can. I would be motivated to have gay sex if I felt a sexual attraction toward another man.

Nature doesn't have intentions, agents do. Genitals may have been created with an intention but, like I say in the post, you'd now need to show that God exists and has intentions we can know. Good luck with that.

lol @ this faggot being taken apart

>>6729840
>Homosexuality is not normal, which is easily proved by its inability to continue the existence of its victim, so why would you partake in homosexuality to begin with?

This logic would also make priests and monks abnormal and anyone who decides not to marry and procreate.

>There's no reason besides MUH FEELINGS, which a fallacy on its own.

That's not a fallacy, that's a great reason to do something.

> sexual organs and the act of sexual intercourse have been created with a certain intention, be it by some higher power or naturally.

Let's say this is true (which it isn't), what's the difference between you choosing to obey some "higher purpose" or you obeying your own intentions and will? Why should I care what "nature wants" or what "God wants" ? I'm more interested in what I want.

>>6729811
>it isn't fallacious it just uses a wider definition of what sex can be. your definition of sex is: activity that results in procreation.

so i guess cats can be dogs if you take dog to mean 4 legged creature, can you?
>>6729804
here is an example, taken from undergroundthomist,org
>Why do you call anything the natural purpose of anything?
>Why do we call steering the purpose of your car's steering wheel? Because in the first place it does steer the car, and in the second place that fact is necessary to the explanation of why the car has one.
>Yes, but you're talking about human nature, not a car.
>Yes, but we can identify purpose in the same way in human nature. New life is the chief purpose of our sexual powers, because in the first place they do cause new life, and in the second place that fact is necessary to the explanation of why we have them.

>>6729869
>Why should I care what "nature wants"
because being according to your nature is to actualize your human essence, and to actualize your essence is to be good

Most animals simply have sex to procreate, they just follow their programming when they are in heat one month out of the year. Panda's only get in heat for like 48hours out of the year and just have sex to procreate in that small gap.

Nature has given humans a brain powerful enough to bypass these simple animalistic routines, we can have sex for all sorts of reasons. The final end of the brain is to bypass the "normal purposes" of things. It's to overcome the regular animalistic programming.

So we end up using our feet to dance not just walk from A to B, and our dicks to fuck butts.

>>6729858
>I would be motivated to have gay sex if I felt a sexual attraction toward another man.
So you are going to act on that impulse without putting any thought into it. That's morally wrong by the standards of several schools of thought.
>Nature doesn't have intentions, agents do.
Nature consists of agents though, so it is capable of intentions. The particular intention is self-preservation.

>>6729869
>This logic would also make priests and monks abnormal and anyone who decides not to marry and procreate.
Which is a very reasonable stance.
>That's not a fallacy, that's a great reason to do something.
Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals. All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?
You so trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you what to do? All of your actions are then based on what the chemicals have told you. You have no facility to objectively decided on an action, you just follow your depraved brain. A slave to your gay desires.
>Why should I care what "nature wants" or what "God wants"?
Because you are part of nature and you certainly lack the mental ability to successfully argue against millions of years of evolution.

>>6729818
>faculties/actions/body parts aren't capable of intentionality, so they can't have purposes in themselves.
final end=! purpose

>>6729884
>because being according to your nature is to actualize your human essence, and to actualize your essence is to be good

My "human essence" is me achieving my own will and my own ends. That is my good.
Nature and God can worry about themselves. I've been given the tools and faculties to do as I please and it pleases me to do as I will.

>>6729869
>This logic would also make priests and monks abnormal and anyone who decides not to marry and procreate.
having a power doesnt mean that you have to exercise it
in the case of priests, it would be a case of something supernatural, not unnatural

>>6729910
>My "human essence" is me achieving my own will and my own ends.
it is not, to not do what is good for you is to be irrational

>>6729884
>because being according to your nature is to actualize your human essence, and to actualize your essence is to be good

My "human essence" is me achieving my own will and my own ends. That is my good.
Nature and God can worry about their intentions, I'll worry about mine. I've been given the tools and faculties to do as I please and it pleases me to do as I will.


>>6729892
>You so trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you what to do? All of your actions are then based on what the chemicals have told you.

I trust myself, I don't need to justify anything.
It seems this is actually a problem you have since all your preaching about Nature and God's Will is just the result of chemicals in your brain farting out ideas. You care about justification and objectivity, so this is a problem for you. I don't need to justify my will, I simply want to achieve it.

>Because you are part of nature and you certainly lack the mental ability to successfully argue against millions of years of evolution.

nature has dictated that I subvert it's pre-programmed plan. It's given me the tools to do so, I can buttfuck girls and not have to justify it.

>>6729884
>so i guess cats can be dogs if you take dog to mean 4 legged creature, can you?

Yes, but there's yet to be a good reason to change the definition of "dog" to mean "four legged creature."

>your example
The same logic can be applied to masturbation/pleasure and so on, as has been done in this thread.

>>6729892
You asked why I would do something, not why I should. There's a difference. I don't believe there's anything inherently moral/immoral about gay sex so I wouldn't say that anyone should/ought to have gay sex but I also wouldn't say anyone shouldn't/ought not to.

Nature containing agents doesn't give nature the properties of agents. That's called a composition fallacy. "Cats are made of atoms and atoms are invisible to the naked eye, therefore cats are invisible to the naked eye."

>>6729924
>it is not, to not do what is good for you is to be irrational

If being irrational serves my ends, then I will be irrational. Of course that would be the most rational thing to be. Logic is simply a tool I can use as I see fit.

>>6729933
>Yes, but there's yet to be a good reason to change the definition of "dog" to mean "four legged creature."
changing the definition of something doesnt affect what really is
>>6729933
>The same logic can be applied to masturbation/pleasure and so on, as has been done in this thread.
it has not, only by equivocating the meaning of words and applying severa fallacies

MOOT IS ABOUT TO SELL 4CHAN
MOOT IS ABOUT TO SELL 4CHAN
MOOT IS ABOUT TO SELL 4CHAN

TL;DR: a few months ago rolling stone published an article where it quoted moot confirming that he wanted to sell 4chan.
article: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/4chans-overlord-christopher-poole-reveals-why-he-walked-away-20150313

quote: "He hopes to find a buyer for the site, a prospect that leaves one of the moderators anxious that the wrong overlord might step in."

what happened: Anons from mchan sent an email to moot pretending to be a buyer, using a spoofed address from a real company. Moot fuckin replied (there is a video recording of the email, not just an image) saying HE ALREADY HAS A BUYER AS OF JUNE 21 AND IS COMPLETING THE TRANSFER PROCESS AND THAT HE ASKS TO NOT DIVULGE THAT INFORMATION.

And who is the buyer? One of the companies that amongst other products, owns fucking GAWKER.

Join us, threads about his are being deleted on 4chan. Go to pic related and go to /b/.

>>6729949

your argument ate itself when you defined sex so narrowly that two men fucking doesn't even qualify as sex and the anus isn't even a sexual faculty. So basically two men can buttfuck each other in your view, we just can't call it "sex" because it doesn't lead to procreation.

So you have to go back to the drawing board because your argument doesn't do what you want it to do.

>>6729956
tbh it would be sad but i would get over it

it will have been THE defining epoch of my life

>>6729956
who gives a shit, honestly

>>6729303
thats my opinion too

>>6729956
fbi pls

>>6729949
Changing the definition of something changes how we refer to something. There would be material differences remaining between the things we used to call "dog" and all of the other four legged creatures but this wouldn't stop us from using "dog" to refer to any four legged creature if our linguistic community allowed. Likewise, there are material differences between procreative sex and sex which isn't procreative but we refer to all those instances as "sex" unless we're looking to be more specific. This ultimately has no purchase on the issue at hand. We've successfully agreed to differentiate between material differences relevant to our conversation (which wouldn't be happening in a case where we used "dog" to refer to any four legged creature). The issue is whether or not certain material differences are ethically relevant which you've failed to show. Please show where the equivocation lies in applying the logic you use to other cases of sex. Of course, if we've accepted your question begging definition, it would be equivocation, but you've yet to provide an actual reason for that definition other than that it suits your argumentative purposes.

>>6729981

>long-winded drivel

JUST

>>6729960
i could merely call sex the use of our sexual faculties, and use U.Thomist's example
no biggie, friend

>>6729984
>incapable of following an argument longer than a few words

JUST

>>6729276
Homosexuality in homo sapiens, in all its races is by no means normal. It provides no evolutionary benefit, it in fact proves to be dangerous towards propagation (for the obvious reason). However in terms of socializing, it has been said that between tribes homosexual acts might have been used to grow bonds between tribes or individuals. Which in itself defeats the act of sex, and is instead replaced with pleasuring oneself and another. Besides that theory, there does not seem to exist any other evolutionary benefit to homosexuality.

So, if isnt an evolutionary benefit than what is it? If it is true that gays do not choose to be gay and are instead born that way (which is a load of shit) than it is a disease which jeopardizes the individuals procreation and would lead to the gene not being passed on proving homosexuality is not genetic. It is obviously not a choice since people do not develop a different thinking process on their own. So it is instead a neurological condition. It most likely is the result of sexual trauma or experience of some kind with homosexuality at a young age (near the begining of puberty to late begging most likely) changing the individuals sexual function and logical thought process of it to function under the assumption that they are attracted to memebers of the same sex (and possibly attributing qualities of the opposite sex to their sense of identit--hence why homosexual men act like women and vice versa).

Alright through rambling here I have come to the conclusion that indeed homosexuality is the direct result of improper sexual interaction at the pre to early stages of puberty in both sexes. Resulting in a neurological disruption creating a disturbence in the individuals sexual function resulting in the belief that one is not of their actual sex but of another resulting from their attraction towards the same sex.

But wait! I just realized that my theory on it not being genetic is false! It can be, but only by first generation bearing of the given genetic mutation.

Alright the end, for real this time.

>>6729988
>i could merely call sex the use of our sexual faculties, and use U.Thomist's example

that would still not help you argue that two men buttfucking each other is "wrong" or irrational or whatever negative connotation u prefer

>>6729276
>So what is your opinion on homosexuality, is it morally wrong? Why?
>morally wrong

Homosexuality is only a problem when it is your desire and it is prevented by force by those around you.

>>6729995
>sex is observed in bonobos to strengthen social ties
>homo might be more prevalent in dense societies as a response to resource consumption
>no evolutionary benefit
You know what
>basing morality on evolution

>>6729276
/lit/- literature
>"no religious rubbish"
>le let's look at history through our atheist goggles meme

>>6729999
>Yes, but we can identify purpose in the same way in human nature. New life is the chief purpose of our sexual powers, because in the first place they do cause new life, and in the second place that fact is necessary to the explanation of why we have them.

anything contrary to these purposes is inmoral

>>6729995

guaranteed this guy is a fag trying to understand why he faps to traps

>>6730007

/thread

>>6730007
Is homosexuality a spook?

>>6730026
The act of two people of the same sex having sex together is not a spook anymore than say riding a bike would be considered a spook. There are spooks associated with they are external to the act

>>6730011
I kind of forgot the moral aspect of this discussion like the retard I am.

If morality were to be based upon what is best for survival and later on what will encourage prosperity than homosexuality is indeed wrong.

>/Lit/
You can go to >>>/lgbt/ for this shit

>>6730017
No, just a lonely loser practicing his writing skillzz on my phone at 11 pm in bed while being sick as shit. And Not once in my life have a done such an act and I find the thought appalling.

>>6730058
Holy shit that is a disgusting board. Homosexuals are filthy bunch of degenerates.

>>6730058
I think this post is the most convincing argument that homosexuality, and other queerness, is morally wrong.

>>6730016

Is =/= ought

>>6730078
there is no is/ought dichotomy in natural law theory

>>6730082
that's convenient

>>6730082
>there is no discrepancy between right and reality in natural law theory

Then one could do no wrong

>>6730082

Then it suffers from a big fallacy

>>6730090

Lol good point.
Humans have gay acts so they ought to

>>6730093
it does not, since the is/ought dichotomy results when final causality is abandoned

>>6730105
No, it results from stating that people should act differently than they do.

>>6730115
natural law theory is grounded in aristotelian metaphysics of formal and final causes, which states that things have inherent natures and are directed towards certain natural ends

this rejects the fact/value dichotomy
(of course, whether aristotelian metaphysics are true or not is another issue, but i wont settle it in a korean puppeteer board)

>>6730140
What is the best book discussing the validity of teleology?

It seems had to maintain that view in a meaningful way unless you have a very blinkered and spooky view of society.

>>6729995
>straight person dictating what homosexuality is

>>6730171
see>>6729649

>>6730105
Just because something has an end goal or maximal form in no way determines it *should* move towards it. The is/ought problem still exists with final causes.

Problem of interaction is a better way of dissolving the is/ought problem.

>>6729503
you're a serious retard
but then again, so is the 60% of the west that seems to believe this nowadays so idfk

>>6730191
of course it does, since to be "good" is just to fulfill those end goals.

>>6730182
How balanced an impartial is etienne gilsons work? Is she a christian as well?

>>6729442
Probably not because psychoanalytical theory is a subproduct of a successful analysis, not it's cause.
So we would need to wait a few more years with more people raised by homosexual couples taking analysis to hear the psychoanalytical stand on how it works

>>6730210
He.

Yes.

>>6730207
How do you determine what the purpose of man is without resorting to spooks or a god figure?

>>6730218
Can this argument only be made within a religious context?

>>6730210
*He
Etienne GIlson makes no reference to biblical or theological resources in that work

But if youre asking if he was a Christian (he was) just for an excuse to dismiss him then i would be disgusted by your bigotry towards Christians

>>6730219
by analizing human nature

>>6730232
It was more to do with the issues like >>6730221

Dont be so quick to jump the gun

>>6730236
But doesnt it start to fall apart when it comes to attaching value to the various aspects of it? How do you escape the subjectivity of the sophists

>>6730244
Sorry

As i said, he doesnt use any biblical or theological resources to argue for teleology