Santorum blames gay marriage for bad economy

[Oakvale]

Don't dismiss this, guys. Sodom had an infamously weak economy.

[Oakvale]

Ancient Greece had rampant homosexuality, and yet they produced geometry, philosophy and democracy.

Exactly, my friend - rampant homosexuality led to

A) Gay "shapes"
B) A bunch of liberal elites talking

and, as you said,

C) The Democratic Party.

Case rested.

[Oakvale]

I don't even understand Ben's point here - not many gays marry (according to his dubious assertion) so it shouldn't be legal?

[Oakvale]

What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

[Oakvale]

What Fritz said. Sure, celibacy's possible, but it's (to use a slightly ironic word given the context) unnatural.

And it's always a good thing to indulge in our natural impulses? What is natural is not always good.

If it doesn't do anyone any harm, sure.

[Oakvale]

Anyways, coercion is wrong. Some gay people choose to seek therapy to help them overcome predispositions that they do not want. Just like some alcoholics do the same. I fail to see why someone who chooses to undertake said therapy is acting contrary to their will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you believe that someone who is voluntarily celibate is 'un-self actualized?'

I haven't read through this entire thread, but I just want to address these two points briefly.

My response would be that I don't think it's very healthy for someone to voluntarily supress their basic, biological urges, either in terms of not having sex at all or attempting to "cure" themselves of their sexual orientation by brainwashing or however those programs work.

There are people who are asexual, not many (AFAIK it's similar to Asperger's in that it's a self-diagnosed condition by nerds on the internet a lot of times ), but they do exist. Unless you're asexual I think it's harmful to supress a basic human instinct when it's not doing anyone any harm.

[Oakvale]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that's Maslow isn't it? Sex as a basic need, with morality as just about the very last one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What I would argue is this.

An individual who is fulfilled on Maslow's higher needs is willing to forgo some of the others in order to get fulfillment on the highest levels. Someone who fulfills their moral needs by acting in accordance to their beliefs can go without the other needs and still feel 'self-actualized'.

I'm not even talking philosophically, but psychologically.

 It's not healthy for (to use an example that might apply to evangelical Christians) teenagers going through puberty to abstain from masturbation, but (again, assuming) I'm sure there are those raised in ultra-religious households who try, fail, and are wracked with guilt for giving into normal instincts.