Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Alg]

you're not directly encouraging racism there but you're saying at one point in time it was considered ok. a kid is going to wonder why it's supposed to be bad but at one point in time it was ok or why it's alright if someone's gay but the bible and their parent's beliefs condemn it

So should we avoid studying history at all? Or better yet, censor it? It's full of those unpleasant truths that don't conform to the 21st century's societal norms. Feudalism, colonialism, genocides (The manmade kind), racism, war crimes, political killings, and horrible sci-fi movies. Sheltering people won't change that.

 

Learning what the past is is the best way to learn how the present got to be the way it is. Yeah, the past wasn't perfect. That's why today we aren't serving under an absolute monarch.

[Giordano]

We learn through our mistakes.

[Wizz]

We learn through our mistakes.

And sometimes man repeats History.

[re4p3r1]

you're not directly encouraging racism there but you're saying at one point in time it was considered ok. a kid is going to wonder why it's supposed to be bad but at one point in time it was ok or why it's alright if someone's gay but the bible and their parent's beliefs condemn it

So should we avoid studying history at all? Or better yet, censor it? It's full of those unpleasant truths that don't conform to the 21st century's societal norms. Feudalism, colonialism, genocides (The manmade kind), racism, war crimes, political killings, and horrible sci-fi movies. Sheltering people won't change that.

 

Learning what the past is is the best way to learn how the present got to be the way it is. Yeah, the past wasn't perfect. That's why today we aren't serving under an absolute monarch.

we should avoid using history as a moral lesson but not learning it. if you really think about it, kids are pretty much sheltered as far as what they learn from school, so they don't necessarily learn about those things anyways. we learn about those things when we're in high school, hopefully mature, and have a good grasp on whats right or wrong. kids that grow up with parents who have prejudices have no protection from what they're are told and have to live with it.

 

my parents and I are immigrants, i was lucky enough to be 5 when i first arrived in the States but they were both in their 30s so they weren't use to all this diversity. they also weren't keen on me hanging out with other minorities. they would tell me things like why do you hang out with them and those are your friends? i went through most of my childhood thinking it's better for me to be with people of my own kind; took me long time, well into high school, till i realized that's not what i want for myself.

 

do you think it's ok for parents to pass on things to their kids that are morally less than golden?

 

i honestly don't care if people think homosexuality is immoral, everyone is entitled to their thoughts and opinions. i would first and foremost like for people to get educated about what it is to be homosexual and listen to someone who knows what they're talking about and not make opinions based on what they assume, heard, or unknowingly believe. that would be a start. don't say you disagree with it but know anything about it.

[Saru Inc]

This thread made me seriously lol. For many different, and obvious reasons.

 

 

I would say I agree with A local Masquerain Mask, when I say that there most likely are a bit of homophobic people on this board. The reasons they don't speak out are most likely two fold, one being they don't feel like being ostracised and murdered for simply believing another thing. These kind are going to stay silent. The others, are homophobic, but lie to themselves and off play it by being pro gay, these tend to stand out more than normal, and are much more common. I have my suspicions on who in this thread is them, I'm not gonna say who, for obvious reasons, but also because I'd feel like a douche if I said someone was and they weren't...

 

 

I actually, while I in a sense agree with Meol's post on the last page, I don't agree with the quote "Tolerance is a crime when applied to evil." (Am I quoting that correctly?) Because here's the only issue I have with this, evil is in a sense, subjective. There is an island on Papa New Guinea, where the entire island is homosexual, and they get together once a year and literally orgysize their lives for a week or so, to keep their race producing. Then back to the separate sides of the island. Surely, this is seen by many many as a depraved and evil act. Not only homosexuality, but pedophilia, polygamy (in a sense) and just overall sexual gluttony. Evil varies culture by culture, as well as sub culture by subculture. Of course there are evils we would think most agree with being evil, killing, lying etc. Which is why I take the point of view, be tolerant of all, until you have a reason not to. I know that probably sounds like relativistic pot smoking bull [cabbage], but honestly. I love my liberals, and my rednecks, my Chers, and my Larry the Cable guys. People in this world NEED to be more tolerant of all, because what they think is an evil, may simply be a different lifestyle. I don't think anyone but 1-3 posters on this thread, understand why homophobes are homophobes. People will quote bible verses in their signature, compare them to the KKK, objectify and then do away with them. But almost no one here UNDERSTANDS why homophobes are homophobes. I know some of you may think "well, why do we HAVE to understand them?" Well, why shouldn't you have to understand them? They are your fellow human beings, same views or not, they should at least be listened too with open ears. A guarded heart, I never said the door can't be padlocked, but at least let them know the door is there. If they know, they may show you their door as well, and a part of the key.

 

 

Many here act like they are listening, their ears are open, but they only lead down empty hallways where the information is left wondering where the door is. That's not listening, that's pitying them. And IMO, it's shameful. If there are any homophobes on this thread, I want them to post. I want them to disagree, to stand up for themselves. Of course I am going to disagree, and perhaps get in a fight or too, but it's necessary, to remain grounded. If we put up these rainbow walls all around us, and no one challenges, our brains, and hearts will become fat and lazy, as we gorge on our egos. We need to leave the moat down, and let them wander in....

 

 

 

That is all.

[Skeptical]

You are misrepresenting the issue. This is not simply a matter of "I like vanilla, you like chocolate".

 

I believe in free speech for all. I also believe in telling people when they're being stupid. I would protest if a KKK meeting was shut down, I would protest if a church was disbanded, even though I would actually never support either organization.That would be a violation of free speech, association, and practice of religion. I'm a civil libertarian, but my position concerns words not actions. As I've said before, the KKK is nothing but empty rhetoric as of late, a way for white men to get together, drink, pretend they're children again, and moan "they took our jobs." When someone attempts to deprive someone of their rights, you are complicit if you stand by.

 

As for people not posting because they fear they will be shouted down, I have nothing to offer. If you are too uncertain of the evidence to post an opinion, then you should seriously reconsider your conclusion. There are conservatives on this forum: they routinely make their opinions known concerning matters of religion, politics and economics. I think you underestimate their stubbornness.

 

You are asking those of us who support equality to be open to dissenting opinions. I absolutely agree with that. However, I will offer mine in turn.

 

I do understand why people seek to deprive homosexuals of their rights: they were brainwashed, very efficiently, for the most part, as children (Note: not necessarily by religious organizations, but that is often the case.) When you have something drilled into your head from the moment you are born, I understand that it would be a huge trial to escape its hold. But something being difficult is not an excuse for not making the attempt. Have a problem with gays? Fine, keep it to yourself: North Americans learned to do that pretty quickly concerning race and ethnicity.

 

Deprive someone of their rights, and you are not just an enemy of them, but of myself and every other individual committed to the freedom of humanity.

[Giordano]

I find it funny people think they don't have join sides, and by that they're being "equal" and "free".

 

Life is nothing but joining sides. The KKK meeting got closed, you don't protest against that you just let it be, for the sons of [bleep]es shouldn't be meeting around like that. The great Jihad going on right now, I understand their view on American tyranny, but if they want to attack me I'm going to kill them. You simply cannot be free and equal without letting "evil" roam around.

 

People want freedom and equality to the upmost pinnacle so humanity can advance, but let me tell you, humanity has advanced DUE to us taking sides, making some enemies, and living for ourselves and the people around you.

[Skeptical]

In the immortal words of Captain Reynolds: "If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back." (Note: this does not apply to the death penalty, which is not defensive but retributive.)

 

Freedom in itself is not "a side" (Awkward phrasing, but it shall do.) When you stand up for the rights of another individual, you are standing up for collective humanity. Our rights and freedoms are inextricably linked.

 

For some reason another quote comes to mind: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire.

[obfuscator]

In the immortal words of Captain Reynolds: "If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back." (Note: this does not apply to the death penalty, which is not defensive but retributive.)

 

Freedom in itself is not "a side" (Awkward phrasing, but it shall do.) When you stand up for the rights of another individual, you are standing up for collective humanity. Our rights and freedoms are inextricably linked.

 

For some reason another quote comes to mind: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire.

Yet even your definition of "rights" is subjective.

 

If I want to stand up for the rights of pedophiles to have consensual sex with the under-aged, that would be considered ridiculous. Yet in some cultures, that practice is widely accepted.

[Giordano]

In the immortal words of Captain Reynolds: "If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back." (Note: this does not apply to the death penalty, which is not defensive but retributive.)

 

Freedom in itself is not "a side" (Awkward phrasing, but it shall do.) When you stand up for the rights of another individual, you are standing up for collective humanity. Our rights and freedoms are inextricably linked.

 

Hardly. Freedom is not a side yes, but KKK and non-KKK are sides. You cannot be good and rightous when you let evil organizations operate because their "right" to do so.

[Skeptical]

Freedom is not just for individuals. While the government has begun to designate other organizations as terrorist operations for political purposes we will know to worry. To actually have freedom of speech though, it needs to run both ways: anyone is free to criticism anyone else. Counter-protest and dissent are just as necessary.

 

Y Guy, I'll pretty much have to offer a raincheck on that for the moment: I'm developing how I feel about the relativity of moral behavior, but I feel that it isn't well enough defined yet to offer in an argument.

[obfuscator]

 

Y Guy, I'll pretty much have to offer a raincheck on that for the moment: I'm developing how I feel about the relativity of moral behavior, but I feel that it isn't well enough defined yet to offer in an argument.

 

Understandable. Same, to be honest.

[Saru Inc]

In the immortal words of Captain Reynolds: "If someone tries to kill you, you kill 'em right back." (Note: this does not apply to the death penalty, which is not defensive but retributive.)

 

Freedom in itself is not "a side" (Awkward phrasing, but it shall do.) When you stand up for the rights of another individual, you are standing up for collective humanity. Our rights and freedoms are inextricably linked.

 

For some reason another quote comes to mind: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ~ Voltaire.

Yet even your definition of "rights" is subjective.

 

If I want to stand up for the rights of pedophiles to have consensual sex with the under-aged, that would be considered ridiculous. Yet in some cultures, that practice is widely accepted.

 

 

Confused, am I.

 

Not by your post, but by this whole argument. bah. makes sense to me. :ugeek:

[Zierro]

The others, are homophobic, but lie to themselves and off play it by being pro gay, these tend to stand out more than normal, and are much more common. I have my suspicions on who in this thread is them, I'm not gonna say who, for obvious reasons, but also because I'd feel like a douche if I said someone was and they weren't...

 

Homophobic as in thinking it is icky or as in thinking it is wrong?

 

The KKK meeting got closed, you don't protest against that you just let it be, for the sons of [bleep]es shouldn't be meeting around like that. The great Jihad going on right now, I understand their view on American tyranny, but if they want to attack me I'm going to kill them. You simply cannot be free and equal without letting "evil" roam around.

 

People want freedom and equality to the upmost pinnacle so humanity can advance, but let me tell you, humanity has advanced DUE to us taking sides, making some enemies, and living for ourselves and the people around you.

 

I concur. "Moral tyranny" ( :lol: ) can be a good thing. I would like to think of it as the lesser of two evils: fighting for good intentions is much better than fighting for bad ones. Even though I wish it wouldn't even have to come to fighting in the first place, it does, unless of course you want the bad cause to prevail.

 

However, (so this does not get confused with my point on the last page) sometimes people can go over the top and make "slightly distasteful" opponents into demonic opponents and attack them as such, which harms your own credibility giving them more incentive to oppose you, and actually does make you tyrannical. Calling people bigots for having a National Man Day comes to mind. It's really a matter of choosing your battles.

[Skeptical]

I am reading The Moral Landscape, and it is an impressive book.

 

First of all, there are absolute truths concerning morality. Yes, counter-intuitive, but allow me to attempt to explain. Now, imagine the worst life possible: it will involve, murder, rape, loneliness, disease, short-lifespan, pain, death and assorted unpleasantness. Now, imagine the best: it will involve a long, healthy life, financial and social success, etc. Those are absolutes. There is not a single, mentally stable person on the planet that would choose the former over the latter.

 

Many scientists have been misled by a combination of bad philosophy and political correctness. This leads them to feel that the only intellectually defensible position to take when in the presence of moral disagreement is to consider all opinions equally valid or equally nonsensical. On one level, this is an understandable and even noble over-correction for our history of racism, ethnocentrism, and imperialism. But it is an over-correction nonetheless. As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.

 

Ring familiar to some of the posters in the thread?

 

Moral relativism however, tends to be self-contradictory. Relativists may say that moral truths exist only relative to specific cultural frame-works - but this claim about the status of moral truth purports to be true across all possible frameworks. In practice, relativism always amounts to the claim that we should be tolerant of moral differences since no moral truth can supersede any other.

 

And, from Donald Symons:

If only one person in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, leaving only a tiny hole for urine and menstrual flow, the only question would be how severely that person should be punished, and whether the death penalty would be sufficiently severe sanction. But when millions of people do this, instead of the enormity being magnified millions-fold, suddenly it become culture, and thereby magically becomes less, rather than more, horrible, and is even defended by some Western moral thinkers, including feminists.

[meol]

I was just about to bring up Sam Harris on the issue of rejecting Moral Relativism. :lol: He speaks quite nicely about it in

. Though one must be cautious not to take it to the other extreme, he makes a nice point against it (and against the necessity of religions to define morality, but that's completely another issue).

[Skeptical]

The other extreme?

 

Thanks for the TT, by the way: I had missed that one, somehow.

[langer]

I haven't seen anything to make me believe homosexuality is wrong so far. I also find it very shocking when people throw pedophiles in the same lot as homosexuals. These are completly different behaviors.

 

I also pity people who need "religious" guidance especially considering how a lot of wars happened because of religious beliefs.

[obfuscator]

I haven't seen anything to make me believe homosexuality is wrong so far. I also find it very shocking when people throw pedophiles in the same lot as homosexuals. These are completly different behaviors.

 

I also pity people who need "religious" guidance especially considering how a lot of wars happened because of religious beliefs.

No one's trying to say the behaviors are the same. The classification for the behaviors are identical: a sexual attraction. Any sexual attraction is in this category, homo, hetero, pedo, or otherwise.

[Blyaunte]

Okay - I have scrolled back a half-dozen or so pages and I am lost.

 

Is this the right place for an argument? :unsure:

[Dupin]

Okay - I have scrolled back a half-dozen or so pages and I am lost.

 

Is this the right place for an argument? :unsure:

Judging by the past few pages, the only requirement is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

[Blyaunte]

Okay - I have scrolled back a half-dozen or so pages and I am lost.

 

Is this the right place for an argument? :unsure:

Judging by the past few pages, the only requirement is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

Indeed -- hence my confusion ... :unsure:

[Skeptical]

Religious convictions are impossible to disprove; ergo, we take the battle to other fields, where logic is actually necessary for victory.

[Assume Nothing]

One of the very few threads where I agree with people I disagree with. "Guys = ***, Girls = Yay"

[Orpheus]

One of the very few threads where I agree with people I disagree with. "Guys = ***, Girls = Yay"

As much as I want to disagree with this on account of double standards in general being disgusting, I actually agree on this. It might help that I'm a card-carrying yuri fanboy though.

 

Just make it so that even guys can do that with no recourse, and everyone is happy, or I hope?