Talk:Homosexual act
Some people distinguish between homosexual acts such as sodomy and fellatio, and things like sexual orientation or sexual identity. The idea is to say that there is something more primary and basic about "being homosexual" than engaging in certain behaviors.
Sailors or prison inmates who have sex (voluntarily, or as rape victims) with other men are said by some writers not to be "homosexual". They are merely "acting out their desires" or "fulfilling their appetites" in an opportunistic way. This view makes out human beings to be worse than animals. People can decide what to do, upon rational reflection - and even after earnest prayer. --Ed Poor Talk 18:36, 13 October 2007 (EDT)
Confusion as a debating tactic
Deleted text:
- Attitudes towards such acts vary, subjectively, from culture to culture, and from individual to individual. Socially liberal individuals cite references to and records of sexual relations between persons of the same sex in almost every human civilization throughout history. They would argue that this makes the acts acceptable.
- These support the idea that a subjective cultural imprimatur of acceptability does not save the objective immorality of the act.
Three reasons to object to the deleted text.
- It doesn't matter what one's attitude is. Conservatives believe that moral law is absolute, even if there is some discussion over just precisely what it is that moral law requires or forbids.
- Theft and murder also have existed throughout history, but no one argues that this makes these acts acceptable.
- Don't use 100 dollar phrases like subjective cultural imprimatur - we speak plain English around here, bub.
Let's try to be clear. --Ed Poor Talk 14:48, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
I don't get it!
We don't have any article at all on sex but we refer to the homosexual variant? I think we need to acknowledge sex, acknowledge sex and homosexual sex or acknowledge neither.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Everett3 (talk)
- Everett, our articles on sexual intercourse and human reproduction are sufficiently detailed on heterosexual union within the confines of creating a family-friendly environment. The homosexuality articles do not go into any more detail about the acts involved than the heterosexual articles do. Also, we are not acknowledging homosex simply because we have written why it's immoral, unnatural and indecent. If anything, that's a denial of acknowledgement. -Foxtrot 21:02, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
