Firstly, please note that I did a search for this topic before posting this thread and believe that this topic is different enough to warrant a new thread.
Also, please note that I'm specifically discussing American attitudes in this thread as I live in the US and am not particularly informed on public opinion in other countries. If YOU are, feel free to share that information
Despite the significant increase in understanding homosexuality in the late 20th century leading up to today, there is still an appreciable portion of the population that believes that homosexuality is immoral. While the most common reason cited is religious (almost universally Christian), I see the underlying reason as an utter and complete lack of understanding on the concept of sexual orientation.
I realize that homosexuals make up a very small fraction of the total population (anywhere from 2% to 10%, depending on who you ask), and as a result there are many people who have never personally come in contact with gay people. Because of this I think their ignorance on the nature of homosexuality is somewhat acceptable.
But what I simply cannot understand is why people who believe that homosexuality is immoral, that it is a 'lusftful and dangerous lifestyle' aren't capable of using the VERY basic knowlege of their own sexual orientation to understand just what homosexuality is. Everybody has a sexual orientation, and no one is capable of altering it.
The idea of sexual orientation was not established until the 19th century [NOTE: I've been trying to find details on when/who was responsible for establishing it, but I haven't been able to so far - if you have any leads, please let me know], so for the entire history of civilization before the 19th century, everyone assumed that all people were heterosexual, and that gay people were simply straight people who engaged in homosexual sex. It seems obvious to me that the people who still hold the belief that homosexuality is immoral have that same, ancient view. ...but why?
Am I mistaken about the supreme self-evidence of a person's own sexual orientation? Now don't get me wrong, I know that VERY few people are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, but the vast majority of humans only act on the side they are closest to (EDIT: By 'act' I mean court, have serious relationships with, and sleep with. Sexual experimentation with members of the same-sex is both common and natural for heterosexuals, and doesn't make those people any less straight in any meaningful way; it also doesn't affect my above conclusion).
On the notion of homosexuality is a sin is wrong. Homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexuality is more of a, how do you say, its all in the head and should not exactly be basis of bashing homosexuals. The Christian community respects homosexuals and should try to help them be better people, though they can't deny the fact they are people who are attracted to the same gender but should practice the virtues and ways of being able to be better people just like everyone else.
People believe what they want to believe, and warp reality to conform to it. You, for instance, believe that everyone or everyone that matters, essentially, is either straight or gay, and that if someone who identifies as straight is attracted to their own gender, or vice versa, that this is just a glitch that doesn't deflate your hypothesis, i.e.; the, "Bisexuals don't exist" mythos.
I'm not for or against it, I just find it creepy. I mean, I'd really be OK with it if the guys didn't talk and/or dress like women (plus all the other stuff that makes a homosexual creepy), and I think that's alot of the basis in peoples' fear of it. They think, "Jeez, that gay guy is weird.... Whatever he went through must be bad, and I'm not letting it happen to anyone else." Does that make sense?
As for it being dangerous, it's not really disputable that it can be. The sexual activity gays and lesbians engage in can cause numerous diseases - because, as far as I know, the majority isn;t very good with protection - and other health problems. It's also just not a good time to be gay, as people are still fearful of the subject, which is already enough to make it dangerous.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
RIP Polar Bear God
Friend, artist, magic player, but most of all, Polar Bear God. We'll miss you, buddy
People believe what they want to believe, and warp reality to conform to it. You, for instance, believe that everyone or everyone that matters, essentially, is either straight or gay, and that if someone who identifies as straight is attracted to their own gender, or vice versa, that this is just a glitch that doesn't deflate your hypothesis, i.e.; the, "Bisexuals don't exist" mythos.
Is the "you" in this post me or ecthelionv2? Since you didn't quote either of us I don't want to jump the gun here.
On the notion of homosexuality is a sin is wrong. Homosexual acts are wrong. Homosexuality is more of a, how do you say, its all in the head and should not exactly be basis of bashing homosexuals. The Christian community respects homosexuals and should try to help them be better people, though they can't deny the fact they are people who are attracted to the same gender but should practice the virtues and ways of being able to be better people just like everyone else.
My question to you is this: How can a person having consensual relations in accordance with their sexual orientation with a person of the same gender that they're in a relationship with be immoral?
My question to you is this: How can a person having consensual relations in accordance with their sexual orientation with a person of the same gender that they're in a relationship with be immoral?
According to Catholicism, any sex outside of potentially procreative activity is immoral.
Protestants, who began to accept artificial contraception in the 1930s, have no consistent and reasonable answer for you.
My question to you is this: How can a person having consensual relations in accordance with their sexual orientation with a person of the same gender that they're in a relationship with be immoral?
My answer to that question would be that nothing is wrong with it. But you have to remember that people who believe in a specific faith usually take the bible fairly literally. And I thought there was a passage saying that sort of thing was bad. (Someone with more knowledge of the bible point this one out.)
Anyway, a couple of weeks back, Bill O'Rielly said on his show that it wasn't discrimination to prevent homosexuals from marrying because their activity was behavioral, not something they couldn't control. I like O'Rielly, but I find it appalling that some straight people can tell a gay person that they could act straight if they wanted to. But if you asked a straight person to act gay they'd probably find it pretty hard to do. This attitude is just disgusting and close-minded.
I don't know if that answers anything about the original post, but I figured it was relevant.
I don't think its immoral at all. Whatever you do in your personal life is your busniess, I don't need to know.
I agree with the OP that sexual orientation isn't something you can logical choose, it just works itself out. Whatever that comes out to be is not anything that comes as a problem in my view.
According to Catholicism, any sex outside of potentially procreative activity is immoral.
While this is far enough off-topic (I think) to warrant a discussion in a seperate thread, I will say that I've always been confused and disgusted by peoples' tendancy to accept dogma unconditionally.
My answer to that question would be that nothing is wrong with it. But you have to remember that people who believe in a specific faith usually take the bible fairly literally. And I thought there was a passage saying that sort of thing was bad. (Someone with more knowledge of the bible point this one out.)
You're right, though see above for my thoughts on that =-/
Anyway, a couple of weeks back, Bill O'Rielly said on his show that it wasn't discrimination to prevent homosexuals from marrying because their activity was behavioral, not something they couldn't control. I like O'Rielly, but I find it appalling that some straight people can tell a gay person that they could act straight if they wanted to. But if you asked a straight person to act gay they'd probably find it pretty hard to do. This attitude is just disgusting and close-minded.
O'Reilly makes a fool of himself when he spews nonsense like this. Any and all consensual sexual behavior is the result of a person's choice, but it does not follow that because any particular behavior is a choice that it is immoral or shameful.
I don't think its immoral at all. Whatever you do in your personal life is your busniess, I don't need to know.
I agree with the OP that sexual orientation isn't something you can logical choose, it just works itself out. Whatever that comes out to be is not anything that comes as a problem in my view.
I guess I'm in the minority?
Nowadays, I don't think you are. I think the vast majority of people now accept homosexuality, which is why gay marriage is now legal in most places. I personally find it hard to understand why it took so long.
I'm not for or against it, I just find it creepy. I mean, I'd really be OK with it if the guys didn't talk and/or dress like women (plus all the other stuff that makes a homosexual creepy), and I think that's alot of the basis in peoples' fear of it. They think, "Jeez, that gay guy is weird.... Whatever he went through must be bad, and I'm not letting it happen to anyone else." Does that make sense?
As for it being dangerous, it's not really disputable that it can be. The sexual activity gays and lesbians engage in can cause numerous diseases - because, as far as I know, the majority isn;t very good with protection - and other health problems. It's also just not a good time to be gay, as people are still fearful of the subject, which is already enough to make it dangerous.
And the above-mentioned O'Reilly comments entirely more credit than they deserve.
The biggest question isn't one of normality or choice. People choose to practice Judaism, for instance, and it's certainly regarded as a weird religion in many quarters. Jews are probably less common than homosexuals. Yet it's hard to argue in a mainstream way that Judaism is bad without looking like an *******.
The fundamental point that needs to be driven home isn't that gays are just like straight people, as many gays and gay-right activists try to do. The point that needs to be driven home is that it's none of anyone else's ****ing business. Private morality is just that. Whether or not you think someone's going to burn in Hell for it, it's still none of your ****ing business. And if they advocate for their own personal lifestyle? That's also their right, whether right or wrong, self-harming or beneficial, choice or no choice.
Let's lay off the talk about who is "disgusted" by whose beliefs, shall we? If you want to have a constructive discussion on this topic, start with a little respect for those you disagree with. Otherwise this will quickly degenerate into flaming and trolling and frankly I'm just not in the mood to deal with it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
It's a good question. Plenty of people have their own personal reasons as to why they, as independant agents, have objections to homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderness, nonprocreative sex, etc. Some people even have a moral problem with intersex conditions, as wild as that sounds.
The "good question" is what the rationally ethical explanation could, would, or should be for such objections. It's not terribly hard to at least wedge some type of anti-LGBTI sentiment into a system of morals. What's hard is figuring out why it ought to be there.
Put simply, this is one of those things that many people have an irrational objection to. And so, there is a lot of effort to find a decent rationale for it.
I'm not convinced that there is one, in the same way I don't believe there's likely to be a good rationale for there being something wrong with being tall or interested in comics or a feeler instead of a thinker.
I'm both weakly and strongly opposed to the notion that any kind LGBTI-ness is wrong. Weakly, because I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable explanation as to how it could be. Strongly, because I assert that such a belief is principally harmful.
There's an argument that LGBTI-ness somewhow goes against what's healthy according to human nature (that is, the teleological argument), but it's a weak argument at best. Such a claim is not impossible to substantiate, but it hasn't been substantiated. The claim doesn't evidently match any useful way of defining what's healthy or what's "intended" for our bodies, emotions, and interactions.
In short, while I can see why people can think there's something wrong with it, ethically I can't see how that's not unconscionable, let alone justifiable.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
While this is far enough off-topic (I think) to warrant a discussion in a seperate thread, I will say that I've always been confused and disgusted by peoples' tendancy to accept dogma unconditionally.
Nowadays, I don't think you are. I think the vast majority of people now accept homosexuality, which is why gay marriage is now legal in most places. I personally find it hard to understand why it took so long.
actually it isn't legal in most states. right now there are only 2 states that allow gay marriage. 1. is CA temporary until november and 2. MA.
however MA is violating the rights of other states right now by allowing anyone from anywhere to get married. Most states in fact have marriage defined as 1 man and 1 women with civil unions available.
People still view this as a morality issue.
If you want to get down to the basic science of sex which is procreation homosexuality is the negative arguement to that. There is no benefit from a homosexual marriage according to the laws of science.
If we stuck a group of homosexuals on one island and a group of hetrosexuals on another unless the homosexuals broke down and started sleeping with females they would die out.
Irreguardless of that matter most people view it as a society issue. what is next on the list of things that we have to say is right? Where does it end and where does it stop? Without a morale compass societies cannot function.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Indeed, but it couldn't be phrased in a way that makes coherent sense as a sexual moral paradigm.
Well . . . it doesn't. I mean, there isn't a valid argument at all for that whole branch of sexual morality without the teleological argument. And that, to say the least, requires a lot of assumptions and typically operates to a strangely different degree of stringency about what teleology affects than for any other area of human behavior.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Irreguardless of that matter most people view it as a society issue. what is next on the list of things that we have to say is right? Where does it end and where does it stop?
Well . . . it doesn't. I mean, there isn't a valid argument at all for that whole branch of sexuality morality without the teleological argument. And that, to say the least, requires a lot of assumptions and typically operates to a strangely different degree of stringency about what teleology affects than for any other area of human behavior.
You don't have to go teleological. Perhaps there's a consequentialist argument to be made.
You don't have to go teleological. Perhaps there's a consequentialist argument to be made.
In principle, yes. My assertion was that according to all the evidence we have available to us, there is no evident consequential arugment for it. I would go further to say that continuing to search for one is special pleading, especially since there are valid consequential arguments against the belief.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
People believe what they want to believe, and warp reality to conform to it. You, for instance, believe that everyone or everyone that matters, essentially, is either straight or gay, and that if someone who identifies as straight is attracted to their own gender, or vice versa, that this is just a glitch that doesn't deflate your hypothesis, i.e.; the, "Bisexuals don't exist" mythos.
That isn't my hypothesis at all. Perhaps I wasn't descriptive enough. When I spoke of the self-evidence of sexual orientation I did not intend to speak to the discovery of one's orientation.
Again, I recognize that many people struggle with their sexual identity but once they've figured things out and accepted their orientation, there's no need to rely on science to tell us whether or not homosexuals were born gay or heterosexuals born straight. One's orientation becomes fundamental truth.
You. The biggest problem with the homosexual movement of the past thirty years is that it's given opinions like this, for instance;
On that point you and I agree. The prominence of lewdness and public indecency does nothing to further the cause of gay rights. Instead it works against it in no small way.
The biggest question isn't one of normality or choice. People choose to practice Judaism, for instance, and it's certainly regarded as a weird religion in many quarters. Jews are probably less common than homosexuals. Yet it's hard to argue in a mainstream way that Judaism is bad without looking like an *******.
True, but the question of choice, I believe, is still fundamental to a good understanding of sexual orientation.
The fundamental point that needs to be driven home isn't that gays are just like straight people, as many gays and gay-right activists try to do. The point that needs to be driven home is that it's none of anyone else's ****ing business. Private morality is just that. Whether or not you think someone's going to burn in Hell for it, it's still none of your ****ing business. And if they advocate for their own personal lifestyle? That's also their right, whether right or wrong, self-harming or beneficial, choice or no choice.
Of course it isn't anyone else's business, but again, I'm of the opinion that the point that gays are just like straights is important as a first step in getting people to understand.
As for the idea that people who reject the notion that homosexuality is immoral are in the minority, I don't think that's true at all, but that's not the point. The point is that the belief that homosexuality is immoral is NOT a fringe idea. It is an idea held by a significant (though not by a majority) part of the population, by both actively religious folk and everyday people too. That's why this is important.
I would go further to say that continuing to search for one is special pleading, especially since there are valid consequential arguments against the belief.
Definitely. Though stubbornly-pursued hypotheses can turn out to be demonstrably true from time to time.
My question to you is this: How can a person having consensual relations in accordance with their sexual orientation with a person of the same gender that they're in a relationship with be immoral?
This so called sexual relation would be immoral because it goes against the norms of the natural order. I didn't say one person loving one another is wrong, but the act of doing it with another would defeat the purpose of the creation of man and woman. The purpose of man and woman would be to compliment each other. The purpose of marriage is to unite man and woman body and soul and sex would be half the fulfillment of that love but it leaves the other half to be filled by children. With a homosexual couple, you cannot complete the purpose of "Go forth and multiply" and that you cannot have a true family in the sense of the word, your own flesh and blood.
Definitely. Though stubbornly-pursued hypotheses can turn out to be demonstrably true from time to time.
True. But there is still the matter of the moral onus against heteronormativism. If it's doing harm and not being any help, then the chance a good reason for all of it will appear over the distant horizon becomes infintessimal at best and irrelevant at worst.
Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
actually it isn't legal in most states. right now there are only 2 states that allow gay marriage. 1. is CA temporary until november and 2. MA.
There are countries besides the US. We're bordered by two countries that allow gay marriage, for instance.
Also, MA allows civil unions.
however MA is violating the rights of other states right now by allowing anyone from anywhere to get married.
Yeah, no.
People still view this as a morality issue.
If it's a morality issue, it should be completely out of the courts and the law. The state cannot dictate personal morals.
If you want to get down to the basic science of sex which is procreation homosexuality is the negative arguement to that. There is no benefit from a homosexual marriage according to the laws of science.
This is fundamentally absurd. Sex is about something other than making babies, unless you're catholic.
Is this the definition by which Bill Clinton didn't cheat on his wife?
If we stuck a group of homosexuals on one island and a group of hetrosexuals on another unless the homosexuals broke down and started sleeping with females they would die out.
If you tracked a group of gay women and straight women through a career on Wall Street, the gay women would do better since they'd not have to take time off for maternity leave as often.
Or, put another way, I can tango, but what the **** does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Irreguardless of that matter most people view it as a society issue. what is next on the list of things that we have to say is right? Where does it end and where does it stop? Without a morale compass societies cannot function.
If we were both soldiers, this would be the point where someone says, "If the Army wanted you to have a moral compass, it would've issued you one."
Switch out the Army for Uncle Sam, and the point remains the same. Do you need to have the law tell you, let alone other people, what to do with your personal choices in order to feel that you've maintained your moral way? If so, I truly pity you for the shallowness of your faith and your conviction.
This so called sexual relation would be immoral because it goes against the norms of the natural order.
Well, there are many more, and much bigger, sins against the natural order being committed by humans then the occasional bit of guy-on-guy action. Let's pick one... How about domestication of animals for slaughter and consumption? Hoo boy is that one against the natural order in a big way, and on a HUGE scale. I hope you've given up going to the grocery store in favour of hunting and gathering. Or are you perhaps calling something else "the natural order"...?
I didn't say one person loving one another is wrong, but the act of doing it with another would defeat the purpose of the creation of man and woman. The purpose of man and woman would be to compliment each other. The purpose of marriage is to unite man and woman body and soul and sex would be half the fulfillment of that love but it leaves the other half to be filled by children.
Whose purpose? Who created man and woman so specifically? Where is the record that this intention existed? And what moral obligation is placed on us to follow this intention, gifted as we are with free will?
With a homosexual couple, you cannot complete the purpose of "Go forth and multiply" and that you cannot have a true family in the sense of the word, your own flesh and blood.
Alright, you never said it but we all know what you're getting at. "Homosexuality is wrong- you want proof read the bible." Fine. Read it, saw what it said. Now tell me why I should care. What backing does this proclamation have, other than being written in an old book and having some big words (oooooh, "abomination") thrown around. In other words, I would like to see a rational argument, not an appeal to authority or "nature" because those don't work very well.
This so called sexual relation would be immoral because it goes against the norms of the natural order. I didn't say one person loving one another is wrong, but the act of doing it with another would defeat the purpose of the creation of man and woman. The purpose of man and woman would be to compliment each other. The purpose of marriage is to unite man and woman body and soul and sex would be half the fulfillment of that love but it leaves the other half to be filled by children. With a homosexual couple, you cannot complete the purpose of "Go forth and multiply" and that you cannot have a true family in the sense of the word, your own flesh and blood.
I really do not see how this argument has anything to do with morality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also, please note that I'm specifically discussing American attitudes in this thread as I live in the US and am not particularly informed on public opinion in other countries. If YOU are, feel free to share that information
Despite the significant increase in understanding homosexuality in the late 20th century leading up to today, there is still an appreciable portion of the population that believes that homosexuality is immoral. While the most common reason cited is religious (almost universally Christian), I see the underlying reason as an utter and complete lack of understanding on the concept of sexual orientation.
I realize that homosexuals make up a very small fraction of the total population (anywhere from 2% to 10%, depending on who you ask), and as a result there are many people who have never personally come in contact with gay people. Because of this I think their ignorance on the nature of homosexuality is somewhat acceptable.
But what I simply cannot understand is why people who believe that homosexuality is immoral, that it is a 'lusftful and dangerous lifestyle' aren't capable of using the VERY basic knowlege of their own sexual orientation to understand just what homosexuality is. Everybody has a sexual orientation, and no one is capable of altering it.
The idea of sexual orientation was not established until the 19th century [NOTE: I've been trying to find details on when/who was responsible for establishing it, but I haven't been able to so far - if you have any leads, please let me know], so for the entire history of civilization before the 19th century, everyone assumed that all people were heterosexual, and that gay people were simply straight people who engaged in homosexual sex. It seems obvious to me that the people who still hold the belief that homosexuality is immoral have that same, ancient view. ...but why?
Am I mistaken about the supreme self-evidence of a person's own sexual orientation? Now don't get me wrong, I know that VERY few people are 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual, but the vast majority of humans only act on the side they are closest to (EDIT: By 'act' I mean court, have serious relationships with, and sleep with. Sexual experimentation with members of the same-sex is both common and natural for heterosexuals, and doesn't make those people any less straight in any meaningful way; it also doesn't affect my above conclusion).
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
As for it being dangerous, it's not really disputable that it can be. The sexual activity gays and lesbians engage in can cause numerous diseases - because, as far as I know, the majority isn;t very good with protection - and other health problems. It's also just not a good time to be gay, as people are still fearful of the subject, which is already enough to make it dangerous.
Friend, artist, magic player, but most of all, Polar Bear God. We'll miss you, buddy
Is the "you" in this post me or ecthelionv2? Since you didn't quote either of us I don't want to jump the gun here.
My question to you is this: How can a person having consensual relations in accordance with their sexual orientation with a person of the same gender that they're in a relationship with be immoral?
According to Catholicism, any sex outside of potentially procreative activity is immoral.
Protestants, who began to accept artificial contraception in the 1930s, have no consistent and reasonable answer for you.
My answer to that question would be that nothing is wrong with it. But you have to remember that people who believe in a specific faith usually take the bible fairly literally. And I thought there was a passage saying that sort of thing was bad. (Someone with more knowledge of the bible point this one out.)
Anyway, a couple of weeks back, Bill O'Rielly said on his show that it wasn't discrimination to prevent homosexuals from marrying because their activity was behavioral, not something they couldn't control. I like O'Rielly, but I find it appalling that some straight people can tell a gay person that they could act straight if they wanted to. But if you asked a straight person to act gay they'd probably find it pretty hard to do. This attitude is just disgusting and close-minded.
I don't know if that answers anything about the original post, but I figured it was relevant.
I agree with the OP that sexual orientation isn't something you can logical choose, it just works itself out. Whatever that comes out to be is not anything that comes as a problem in my view.
I guess I'm in the minority?
While this is far enough off-topic (I think) to warrant a discussion in a seperate thread, I will say that I've always been confused and disgusted by peoples' tendancy to accept dogma unconditionally.
I'm sure their answer would have basis in Scripture as well.
You're right, though see above for my thoughts on that =-/
O'Reilly makes a fool of himself when he spews nonsense like this. Any and all consensual sexual behavior is the result of a person's choice, but it does not follow that because any particular behavior is a choice that it is immoral or shameful.
Nowadays, I don't think you are. I think the vast majority of people now accept homosexuality, which is why gay marriage is now legal in most places. I personally find it hard to understand why it took so long.
You. The biggest problem with the homosexual movement of the past thirty years is that it's given opinions like this, for instance;
And the above-mentioned O'Reilly comments entirely more credit than they deserve.
The biggest question isn't one of normality or choice. People choose to practice Judaism, for instance, and it's certainly regarded as a weird religion in many quarters. Jews are probably less common than homosexuals. Yet it's hard to argue in a mainstream way that Judaism is bad without looking like an *******.
The fundamental point that needs to be driven home isn't that gays are just like straight people, as many gays and gay-right activists try to do. The point that needs to be driven home is that it's none of anyone else's ****ing business. Private morality is just that. Whether or not you think someone's going to burn in Hell for it, it's still none of your ****ing business. And if they advocate for their own personal lifestyle? That's also their right, whether right or wrong, self-harming or beneficial, choice or no choice.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
The "good question" is what the rationally ethical explanation could, would, or should be for such objections. It's not terribly hard to at least wedge some type of anti-LGBTI sentiment into a system of morals. What's hard is figuring out why it ought to be there.
Put simply, this is one of those things that many people have an irrational objection to. And so, there is a lot of effort to find a decent rationale for it.
I'm not convinced that there is one, in the same way I don't believe there's likely to be a good rationale for there being something wrong with being tall or interested in comics or a feeler instead of a thinker.
I'm both weakly and strongly opposed to the notion that any kind LGBTI-ness is wrong. Weakly, because I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable explanation as to how it could be. Strongly, because I assert that such a belief is principally harmful.
There's an argument that LGBTI-ness somewhow goes against what's healthy according to human nature (that is, the teleological argument), but it's a weak argument at best. Such a claim is not impossible to substantiate, but it hasn't been substantiated. The claim doesn't evidently match any useful way of defining what's healthy or what's "intended" for our bodies, emotions, and interactions.
In short, while I can see why people can think there's something wrong with it, ethically I can't see how that's not unconscionable, let alone justifiable.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
Me too.
Indeed, but it couldn't be phrased in a way that makes coherent sense as a sexual moral paradigm.
actually it isn't legal in most states. right now there are only 2 states that allow gay marriage. 1. is CA temporary until november and 2. MA.
however MA is violating the rights of other states right now by allowing anyone from anywhere to get married. Most states in fact have marriage defined as 1 man and 1 women with civil unions available.
People still view this as a morality issue.
If you want to get down to the basic science of sex which is procreation homosexuality is the negative arguement to that. There is no benefit from a homosexual marriage according to the laws of science.
If we stuck a group of homosexuals on one island and a group of hetrosexuals on another unless the homosexuals broke down and started sleeping with females they would die out.
Irreguardless of that matter most people view it as a society issue. what is next on the list of things that we have to say is right? Where does it end and where does it stop? Without a morale compass societies cannot function.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
These aren't hard questions to answer.
You don't have to go teleological. Perhaps there's a consequentialist argument to be made.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
That isn't my hypothesis at all. Perhaps I wasn't descriptive enough. When I spoke of the self-evidence of sexual orientation I did not intend to speak to the discovery of one's orientation.
Again, I recognize that many people struggle with their sexual identity but once they've figured things out and accepted their orientation, there's no need to rely on science to tell us whether or not homosexuals were born gay or heterosexuals born straight. One's orientation becomes fundamental truth.
On that point you and I agree. The prominence of lewdness and public indecency does nothing to further the cause of gay rights. Instead it works against it in no small way.
True, but the question of choice, I believe, is still fundamental to a good understanding of sexual orientation.
Of course it isn't anyone else's business, but again, I'm of the opinion that the point that gays are just like straights is important as a first step in getting people to understand.
As for the idea that people who reject the notion that homosexuality is immoral are in the minority, I don't think that's true at all, but that's not the point. The point is that the belief that homosexuality is immoral is NOT a fringe idea. It is an idea held by a significant (though not by a majority) part of the population, by both actively religious folk and everyday people too. That's why this is important.
Correct.
Definitely. Though stubbornly-pursued hypotheses can turn out to be demonstrably true from time to time.
This so called sexual relation would be immoral because it goes against the norms of the natural order. I didn't say one person loving one another is wrong, but the act of doing it with another would defeat the purpose of the creation of man and woman. The purpose of man and woman would be to compliment each other. The purpose of marriage is to unite man and woman body and soul and sex would be half the fulfillment of that love but it leaves the other half to be filled by children. With a homosexual couple, you cannot complete the purpose of "Go forth and multiply" and that you cannot have a true family in the sense of the word, your own flesh and blood.
Sasky for the Sig.
I am in your [PACK]. Watching you... do... something.
Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
There are countries besides the US. We're bordered by two countries that allow gay marriage, for instance.
Also, MA allows civil unions.
Yeah, no.
If it's a morality issue, it should be completely out of the courts and the law. The state cannot dictate personal morals.
This is fundamentally absurd. Sex is about something other than making babies, unless you're catholic.
Is this the definition by which Bill Clinton didn't cheat on his wife?
If you tracked a group of gay women and straight women through a career on Wall Street, the gay women would do better since they'd not have to take time off for maternity leave as often.
Or, put another way, I can tango, but what the **** does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
If we were both soldiers, this would be the point where someone says, "If the Army wanted you to have a moral compass, it would've issued you one."
Switch out the Army for Uncle Sam, and the point remains the same. Do you need to have the law tell you, let alone other people, what to do with your personal choices in order to feel that you've maintained your moral way? If so, I truly pity you for the shallowness of your faith and your conviction.
Well, there are many more, and much bigger, sins against the natural order being committed by humans then the occasional bit of guy-on-guy action. Let's pick one... How about domestication of animals for slaughter and consumption? Hoo boy is that one against the natural order in a big way, and on a HUGE scale. I hope you've given up going to the grocery store in favour of hunting and gathering. Or are you perhaps calling something else "the natural order"...?
Whose purpose? Who created man and woman so specifically? Where is the record that this intention existed? And what moral obligation is placed on us to follow this intention, gifted as we are with free will?
Alright, you never said it but we all know what you're getting at. "Homosexuality is wrong- you want proof read the bible." Fine. Read it, saw what it said. Now tell me why I should care. What backing does this proclamation have, other than being written in an old book and having some big words (oooooh, "abomination") thrown around. In other words, I would like to see a rational argument, not an appeal to authority or "nature" because those don't work very well.
I really do not see how this argument has anything to do with morality.