This is admittedly a bit of a tongue in cheek thread, but it is also a serious question. It is offered as another example in the debate concerning homosexuality being unnatural, and therefore by implication, immoral.
The questions are simple.
Which is more unnatural, engaging in homosexual sex, or using Viagra in order to enhance or enable sexual activity? Why?
Answers can certainly include 'they are equal', and anywhere on the scale from entirely natural to entirely unnatural.
Now, it has been claimed in other threads that because homosexuality is unnatural, in the sense that it is an 'unnatural' use of reproductive organs, and tangentially because it cannot result in offspring, it is therefore immoral. Numerous examples have been provided to show that this thinking is fallacious. These include playing footsie (an unnatural use of the feet), wearing glasses (an unnatural use of the nose), using artificial contraception (use of an unnatrual device within a natural process, specifically in order to prevent reproduction), any sexual activity that is intentionally engaged in to avoid reproduction, playing soccer (or most any other sport, as many of these involve actions which make unnatural use of body parts). One can easily multiply examples to your heart's content.
Here is yet another example.
Is using Viagra immoral?
Is it immoral in part because it is unnatural?
Which is more immoral, homosexual sex or using Viagra?
Homosexuality or Using Viagra: Which is more immoral?
Moderator: Moderators
-
sue
Re: Homosexuality or Using Viagra: Which is more immoral?
Post #3If the justification for the "immorality" is that they are unnatural acts, then it would seem that they're equally immoral.micatala wrote:Which is more immoral, homosexual sex or using Viagra?
If the justification is that the bible explicitly seems to condemn homosexuality (which is open to interpretation), then homosexuality is less moral than using Viagra.
Post #4
One point for Viagra being more unnatural than HS is that Viagra is a man-made product, and only humans use it. HS occurs in nature, and is not the result of an unnatural man-made product.
Post #5
I am of the firm opinion that the next person who claims that unnatural things are immoral should be sentenced to a year of sleeping in a tree and having to bash their dinner with a rock until it stops moving.Is it immoral in part because it is unnatural?
Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: While I loathe you and all of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I will credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry [The big loud idiot in the room].
-Going Postal, Discworld
-Going Postal, Discworld
Post #6
[Warning: Sarcasm alert for this entire post, and perhaps the entire thread].
While I do agree with the sentiment, I am not sure I would proscribe such a drastic sentence. My personal opinion would be to program the forum computer to instantly delete all such assertions, on the grounds that they break the rule of providing evidence for assertions. Maybe we could at least apply this to posters who continue to make this assertion in spite of having been presented with ample refutation.
Really, it is a wonder that more people who are very concerned about sexual morality are not up in arms about Viagra. Homosexuals are typically told that if they want to engage in sex, or at least if they want to get married, they should find a nice person of the opposite gender for the purpose. They are told that if they have these 'unnatural urges', they should simply repress them. IN other words, just forget about sex unless you have it in the context of a heterosexual marriage.
Why wouldn't we tell people who are physically unable to have sex that they simply have to live without it? Why should they be allowed to have 'unnatural sex' simply to satisfy their hedonistic desires?
Especially egregious would be the use of Viagra by men who can have sex, and are using Viagra simply to have more of it. Clearly this is rampant hedonism.
And the worst part is that it is forced onto us through incessant and tasteless advertising. WHy, if homosexuals advertised as much as Viagra companies, we would be hearing about nothing else than the promotion of this incredible perversion. I can't even watch AFV without seeing Viagra commercials. How am I to protect my children?
While I do agree with the sentiment, I am not sure I would proscribe such a drastic sentence. My personal opinion would be to program the forum computer to instantly delete all such assertions, on the grounds that they break the rule of providing evidence for assertions. Maybe we could at least apply this to posters who continue to make this assertion in spite of having been presented with ample refutation.
Really, it is a wonder that more people who are very concerned about sexual morality are not up in arms about Viagra. Homosexuals are typically told that if they want to engage in sex, or at least if they want to get married, they should find a nice person of the opposite gender for the purpose. They are told that if they have these 'unnatural urges', they should simply repress them. IN other words, just forget about sex unless you have it in the context of a heterosexual marriage.
Why wouldn't we tell people who are physically unable to have sex that they simply have to live without it? Why should they be allowed to have 'unnatural sex' simply to satisfy their hedonistic desires?
Especially egregious would be the use of Viagra by men who can have sex, and are using Viagra simply to have more of it. Clearly this is rampant hedonism.
And the worst part is that it is forced onto us through incessant and tasteless advertising. WHy, if homosexuals advertised as much as Viagra companies, we would be hearing about nothing else than the promotion of this incredible perversion. I can't even watch AFV without seeing Viagra commercials. How am I to protect my children?
