to be completely mystified by people taking a moral stance over sexuality?

[Grandhighpoohba]

I mean, what difference does it make to anybody?

I find Boris Johnson physically unattractive. I cannot conceive of a situation in which I would wish to have sex with him. But there are people out there who not only fancy him, but who have had sex with him. This does me no harm. It harms no other human being. Why would I take a moral stance on this?

If consenting adults wish to have sex, set up home together, whatever, what business is it of anyone else? I just don't get it.

[Grandhighpoohba]

Chandellina, we are not talking about affairs, Boris was a bad choice of analogy. We are talking about people having moral judgements about sexuality, finding homosexuality morally wrong. I picked Boris purely because he was the first person that I thought of who I found utterly unattractive.

[Grandhighpoohba]

Theevildead2, what Boris Johnson thing? It wasn't you, honestly, it was a thread on the Christian couple who are not allowed to foster that provoked this.

[regretting the Boris Johnson analogy emoticon]

Ok, pretend I never mentioned Boris. What I was getting at was that there are people out there who I don't fancy, but other people do. I don't understand how some people make a jump from that statement to making a moral judgement about those who do not share their preferences, which is what I see the "homosexuality is wrong" crowd doing.

[TheEvilDead2]

I may have mentioned an unacceptable crush on another thread today. Could Boris Johnson sex really be mentioned twice on MN in one day??

[madamh]

Sorry to drag him back again, but I'd do Boris in an instant. I bet he's stupidly enthusiastic in bed, in a jolly-hocky-sticks, tally-ho sort of way.

"Gosh, we're going to do what? Really? In there? Gosh. Oh, oh golly. In you pop, cocky. Oh my, yes, that's lovely. [Time passes.] Gosh."

Anyway... you are not being unreasonable, Grandhighpoohba :)

[TryingVeryHard]

ROFL I'm at work stop doing that madamh

[TheEvilDead2]

Thank god I'm not the only one!

[Grandhighpoohba]

madamh, I do not understand your choice, but I make no moral judgement freak

[ongakgak]

boris...really? all that blond hair flapping about? i bet he gives his cock a name like captain sausage the 1st or something.

[Grandhighpoohba]

This thread has not gone the way I intended at all!

But I have learned an important lesson. If you want a serious discussion on here, do not start your thread with the image of Boris Johnson having sex.

Madamh, that description sounds like the attitude my dog had to life. Not sure I would find it attractive in a man though...

[MillyR]

There are some issues to do with sexuality that are of moral concern - issues of consent, bringing a child into the world that nobody is going to look after properly.

[GrimmaTheNome]

...bringing a child into the world that nobody is going to look after properly.

And on that score, homosexuals are probably the least guilty.

[Emmanana]

If someone judges/presumes attributes/treats another based on what turns someone on in the sack, I think it says a lot more about them, than the person they're being derogatory about.

Perhaps they're a little bit thick, and didn't concentrate on the sorting table at reception class. Just because it's green, doesn't mean its a cube, just because it's yellow, doesn't mean its a ball...

I work in TV and theatre, and I can tell you, I've seen the whole emotional spectrum. There are heterosexual women who are complete bitches, there are straight men who are vainer than Paris Hilton, there are gay guys who play rugby, and lesbian couples with kids who both wear dresses most of the time. There are some absolutely viscious gay guys, who would act despicably towards a disabled person, or who would steal from your granny.

To the person who decides they are morally superior to anyone in this kind of situation, do yourself a favour and sneak a quick look in the mirror.

There you are: That person who makes negative presumptions about someone based on who they fancy.....

Congratulations! That's what everyone else can see!!!!

[MillyR]

GTN, I wasn't referring to homosexuality in my post, but to issues of sexuality more generally.

[madamh]

Jens Bjørnboe wrote:

People speak of ?sexual morality,? but that is a misleading expression. There is no special morality for sex. No matter what you do with yourself, whether you go to bed with girls or with boys, and no matter what it occurs to you to do with them or with yourself, no moral rule applies to that sphere of activity other than the principles that govern every aspect of life: honesty, courage, common humanity, consideration.

[Grandhighpoohba]

wonderful quote madamh

[Bumperlicious]

If you are talking about homosexuality I agree, but surely there are some thresholds at which we should judge, sex with a minor, paedophilia...actually just seen your op said 'consenting adults'. But the issue of consent is not always black and white. I also take moral stance on affairs when it comes to certain people in the public eye. Ok it doesn't necessarily speak to their ability to do their job but it speaks to their integrity, or lack thereof.

I think in certain jobs where one is in the public eye there come a responsibility to set a moral example.

[KnittedBreast]

i really dont understand the post

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

It's mostly to do with superstition, but that's partly because the originators of most superstitions were the smart cookies who understood certain factors about human nature: specifically that the two strongest drives motivating most human beings are hunger for food and sexual desire, so by placing restrictions around these activities it becomes easier to make people to submit to your control in other areas. It's no coincidence that al superstitions have Rules about what you can eat and who you can have sex with.
The people who make the most fuss about other people's sexual behaviours are either the unthinkingly superstitious types who want everyone to take their imaginary friends seriously, or those with some sort of internal conflict about their own sexuality that they can only deal with by appointing themselves as the Sex Police WRT what everyone else does.

[chandellina]

well i definitely don't understand the post now after being set back by the OP!

if you didn't mean adultery why mention an adulterer?

If you instead wanted to moan about religious nutters, why not say so? :)

i think it's a slightly hard call to say people shouldn't have and express beliefs that have long been condoned by a religion. the main problem i have is if or when it infringes on someone else's rights.

i don't find homosexuality morally wrong in the least and i think it's always been ridiculous for any religion to say so.

i do find adultery wrong though, so go figure.

[GrimmaTheNome]

Milly - I know you weren't referring to homosexuality. You were talking about real issues of morality, one of which homosexuals are particularly likely to be innocent of.

[Grandhighpoohba]

chandellina, when I picked him, it didn't occur to me that he was an adulterer, just that he was revolting. I suppose I could have equally picked someone else I find unattractive.

I didn't want to moan about religious people, I wanted someone who is morally opposed to homosexuality to explain why. That explanation might well make reference to religion, but not necessarily.

[GrimmaTheNome]

For instance, there are probably non-religious DM readers. So for the purpose of further debate why don't we substitute that e.g. in Scurry's:

People feel they have to condemn something they do not understand. Also judgement is at the very core of The Daily Main, so old habits die hard maybe?


See, it works

And instead of Boris, lets say, oh I dunno, Rod Liddle? (AFAIK he's not a well known philanderer)

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Grimma, are you taking the piss? Rod Liddle is an appalling fannyrat, despite having a face like a bag of spanners.

[pointythings]

When it comes to religious sexual morality I always find the essential pagan primciple of do no harm to be a useful one.

Boris Johnson - [vomit icon].

Fitness for public office - don't care what they get up to as long as the pagan principle applies and they're doing a good job.

Actually for an atheist with a liberal attitude that's probably still quite judgey.

Going to Google Rod Liddle now [ignorant emoticon followed probably by horrified emoticon]

[TiggyD]

Lots of people are anti-GBLT because they believe their god doesn't like it. If you think it's an illness you think it's an illness.I wouldn't call them homophobic. It's possible to not like something or be wrong without being scared of it. The word homophobia conjures up an image of a house wife standing on a chair calling to her husband "I just saw a homosexual run behind the fridge! Get the trap!!"