Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Satenza]

I don't think lacking an absolute sense of where your morality comes from makes you a moral relativist anyway.

 

 

 

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself?

 

 

 

Which is exactly the same as your morality. You can beleive it's objective all you like but that doesn't make it objective anywhere except inside of your head. It is exactly the same as moral relativity except you have dilluded yourself into thinking its not by basing it on the Bible.

 

 

 

Christians can not decide together on morality, so why do you think that it is objective? Interpretation is subjective, you interpret some points of the Bible to shape your morality. There could be a God which has an abolsute sense of morality, but you can't say that you have his morals pinned down. So it's worthless being a moral absolutist when you don't really know what is absolutley right or absolutley wrong.

[assassin_696]

I don't think lacking an absolute sense of where your morality comes from makes you a moral relativist anyway.

 

 

 

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself?

 

 

 

To perhaps add to what Satenza said, even then there is still a dilemna. Because as a Christian, are you moral because God instilled in us all an innate sense or morality? Or because he's telling you to be moral. The former would seem highly unlikely, given that evidence shows morality in children is almost entirely a product of upbringing, and the latter I would argue isn't being truthfully moral. Being good just because God is telling you to is plain subservience, why not be good for the good of humankind? Why not be good simply to be good, and to do no harm? Ah, but that's why i'm moral. I don't need an absolute source to know why I shouldn't do this or that, yet my morals are similar. You may claim an absolute source but as Satenza has pointed out, that's just as subjective as my morals.

 

 

 

I'm not a moral relativist. I don't think murder, or rape, or torture can be justified under relative terms. Rather, i'm a consequentialist, a utilitarianist or whatever else you want to call it. I don't see why that should not apply to anyone else really. I don't make claims to the absolute truth, rather I judge actions by their effects, consequences and what fits in with my own ethics.

 

 

 

But we digress.

[Kant]

I don't think lacking an absolute sense of where your morality comes from makes you a moral relativist anyway.

 

 

 

If your morality does not come from an absolute source then I don't see how it would apply to anyone but yourself?

 

 

 

Which is exactly the same as your morality. You can beleive it's objective all you like but that doesn't make it objective anywhere except inside of your head. It is exactly the same as moral relativity except you have dilluded yourself into thinking its not by basing it on the Bible.

 

 

 

That's circular reasoning. Absolute morality is really relative morality because it's morality is relative? Can you explain this better please?

 

 

 

 

 

Christians can not decide together on morality, so why do you think that it is objective? Interpretation is subjective, you interpret some points of the Bible to shape your morality. There could be a God which has an abolsute sense of morality, but you can't say that you have his morals pinned down.

 

 

 

Just because we can't decide what moral actions are doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it is objective because I believe in God, and God is a source of absolute, unchanging truth. Whether or not I can know what that is is irrelevant to whether or not ethics are actually absolute.

 

 

 

So it's worthless being a moral absolutist when you don't really know what is absolutley right or absolutley wrong.

 

 

 

Being a moral absolutist gives me conviction and reason to act on my moral impulses. Being a moral relativist gives you excuses and reason to not act on your moral impulses. THAT is what I call worthless. And that is my point: why should I spend my time convincing a moral relativist what I think is right when they can just say "oh, well that's just your relative interpretation of it". I want my words and opinions to actually mean something, to have an effect.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I disagree Kant. I think it's safe to say everyone (near enough) deplores the act of rape, for example. It's immoral, no question about it, unless you believe in some weird branch of genderist dominance.

 

 

 

However, let's put this to an example. I'm a male. I know a woman who, God forbid this ever happens in RL, has fallen victim to an act of rape by her long-term partner. The woman has lost all Self-Esteem in herself, as she souldn't see this coming. She's no confidence, she can't even feel she can talk to the police or something like that, she's so disturbed by what's happened. Now, I personally have two options I could take:

 

 

 

A) Become involved because of what I feel is a moral obligation, phone the police round, report the rape, arrange her for counselling which potentially could only add to the problem because she's not ready to come to terms with what's happened and has little confidence.

 

 

 

OR

 

 

 

B) Wait for her come to terms with what's happened, tell her that I'm here for her if she needs any help, but allow her to gather her own emotions and the confidence to get back on track with her life and get help herself.

 

 

 

Now, if I felt that, because of my morals, I absolutely must report the rape, and choose option A, I could potentially do a lot more harm than if I chose the consequentialist point of view, B. B isn't an excuse not to act on my morals. It's merely me thinking that that particular action will have the best consequence out of both results. I haven't not acted, because to allow someone that space is to act in itself.

 

 

 

It's an incredibly extreme example, but it's actually one we discussed at a Medicine Vocational Conference in my local NHS Teaching Hospital. I think you've misinterpreted what consequentialism actually is. It's not an excuse to be immoral, but it's a way of coming to an ethical decision, just as you being a moral abolutist is your personal way of coming to your own ethical decisions.

[Satenza]

 

 

 

That's circular reasoning. Absolute morality is really relative morality because it's morality is relative? Can you explain this better please?

 

 

 

Of course. You're claiming to be a moral absolutist, however you do not know if the morals you hold are absolute at all. There is no way you can say your morals are absolute when they have not come from a source which is absolute (AKA your interpretation of the Bible). As i said you can claim to beleive that there is an absolute good or bad, but i find that worthless when you do not even know what that is. Your morals are subjective, it doesn't matter if you beleive they are subjective or not. I'll find them absolute when you bring some objective truth to the table.

 

 

Just because we can't decide what moral actions are doesn't mean they don't exist. I think it is objective because I believe in God, and God is a source of absolute, unchanging truth. Whether or not I can know what that is is irrelevant to whether or not ethics are actually absolute.

 

 

 

Which just shows you how being a moral absolutist is worthless if you can never know what those absolutes are.

 

 

 

Being a moral absolutist gives me conviction and reason to act on my moral impulses. Being a moral relativist gives you excuses and reason to not act on your moral impulses.

 

 

 

Gives you conviction and reason to act on your moral impulses which are not neccessarily absolute?

 

 

 

THAT is what I call worthless. And that is my point: why should I spend my time convincing a moral relativist what I think is right when they can just say "oh, well that's just your relative interpretation of it". I want my words and opinions to actually mean something, to have an effect.

 

 

 

You are taking the stance that only absolutes can mean things. I have an opinion, and it's just as valuable as your opinion to me. You have an opinion and because you deem it as absolute you think of mine as worthless. It's you who makes opinions worthless by beleiving that you have an infalliable and absolute answer which is not there.

[Dracula_Magic]

This topic is high controversal but I will do my best to answer

 

 

 

It can be both right and wrong

 

 

 

Some people are way they are

 

 

 

but

 

 

 

Other people are not way they are naturally in order to be homosexual,and when it comes unnaturally it is sick

 

 

 

If you know the fact some 1 is homosexual you shouldnt talk with that person about it unless that person is making u problem...If that person starts bugging u,thats where u need to set urself against

 

 

 

All people who are exposing their homosexuality over limits are wrong,it is like you got wounded hand and you yell out loud - hey every 1 im wounded and i need help...

 

 

 

If you have problem with it talk to your family,because all people who are doing crime by their appearance are actually not clear with themself

[agresser]

Biologically, all two-sex species are inclined to find the other gender attractive so reproduction can occur.

 

 

 

Therefore, if someone is attracted to the same gender, there must be something wrong because attraction to the opposite gender is hard-wired into your brain.

 

 

 

It seems to me that homosexuality could be considered a genetic defect/disease if it is not a choice, or a psychological disorder if it is a choice.

[Kant]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

 

 

 

I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do).

 

 

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only.

[warri0r45]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

 

 

 

I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do).

 

 

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only.

 

 

 

Now all you need is the justification part and you're there. You can of course believe whatever you wish. I hear that all the time and it's not novel or interesting to me any more. Justify and I may understand your position better.

[Veiva]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

 

 

 

I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do).

 

 

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only.

 

 

 

And what if the couple never have sex? Is it wrong then?

[PaperClipsYaaaar]

Interesting news from earlier today that relates to this:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20531786/

 

 

 

Iowa legalized gay marriage for about 3.5 hours. A county judge struck down the Defense Marriage act, and gay couples began marrying at 7:30 am the next day until 11 am when the county attorney announced his appeal and put the ruling on hold. It now depends on whether the appeal is denied or passes through, but at least 20 gay couples got to marry during that brief time period.

[Hevendor_Guy]

Who are we to judge homosexuality as right or wrong? We're no better than they are. If you prefer others of your own sex, good for you, but don't go around forcing your preference on others.

 

 

 

We'll only know who's right when(/if, if that's how you view it) judgement day comes.

 

 

 

 

 

And to Reb's post on the first page, the Church defines homosexual thoughts not as sin, but acting on them as sin.

[Rebdragon]

And to Reb's post on the first page, the Church defines homosexual thoughts not as sin, but acting on them as sin.

 

:-s

 

 

 

Yes, that's what I said:

 

 

 

It does regard acting on homosexual thoughts as sinful though, which is why the Church asks homosexuals to live a chaste life, in the same way that heterosexuals should live a chaste life until marriage (though more constricted I suppose, as homosexuals aren't permitted to act on their sexual preferences at all).

 

 

 

I don't get what you're responding too :-s . Are you just reiterating the point?

[guss]

Whatwould YOU RATHER HAVE, SEX OR just marrage, IN ANNY CASE its worth thinking about.

 

 

 

pluss why would people agree with gay marrage, but not want sex involved, isnt that the wole point of marrage. Hey why be against gay sex , people should be ok with it aslong it isnt forced on me, and that hardly ever happens.

[Rebdragon]

Whatwould YOU RATHER HAVE, SEX OR just marrage, IN ANNY CASE its worth thinking about.

 

 

 

pluss why would people agree with gay marrage, but not want sex involved, isnt that the wole point of marrage. Hey why be against gay sex , im ok with it aslong it isnt forced on me, and that hardly ever happens.

 

Err... slow down. What exactly are you arguing?

[guss]

I know how to spell and type, just if You relly want me to and spell better, folo two of my orders first... Stay on toppic(this is a "bump").

 

Also... Get your selfs councellors that can help you guys with your perfectionestic and Bullying problems, then i will "learn2type".

 

 

 

 

 

I could also type in c00l ways, that l00k Chill Yo.

 

 

 

 

 

If you relly want to be C00l, and hip then dont do what im doing, Honestly but i would rather just be myself and live my own life.

[ltb2006]

I know how to spell and type, just if You relly want me to and spell better, folo two of my orders first... Stay on toppic(this is a "bump").

 

Also... Get your selfs councellers that can help you guys with your perfectionestic and Bullying problems, then i will "learn2type".

 

 

 

 

 

I could also type in c00l ways, that l00k Chill Yo.

 

 

 

 

 

If you relly want to be C00l, and hip then dont do what im doing, Honestly but i would rather just be myself and live my own life.

Look its nothing to do with who you are,but how you act on the forums.Do you expect people to understand you?As i just can't make any sense of your posts :wall: .

 

1. No one is bullying you at all

 

2. I don't think anyone needs to see a councellor for it :-s

[guss]

Double clicked, sorry

[guss]

It is a type of physiological bullying i mean there is differint forms then just using Force and heavy phyical actions. can we just get back on task, for the people who havent spoken yet, not for this argument.

[RSBDavid]

i dont mind them.. i mean if you like "eggrolls" then thats just your thing.. no one should be able to change who you are

[Ginger_Warrior]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

 

 

 

I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do).

 

 

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only.

 

I've heard many theories trying to to go against homosexuality - that one's a new one.

 

 

 

What has marriage got to do with sex? Sex is simply our way of continuing our species through reprooduction. You don't need to be married to reproduce, so what has marriage got to with sex? Like warri0r, I'm awaiting an explantion to that viewpoint.

[Nadril]

Cool, so why is it wrong? How is it morally reprehensible and thus why should it be avoided?

 

 

 

That can't be explained because your definition of right and wrong is relative.

 

 

 

I don't care about my beliefs, I want to hear your justification for thinking homosexuality is wrong (if you do).

 

 

 

I believe homosexuality is wrong on the same basis I belief pre-marital sex is wrong. I believe sex is for a husband&wife only.

 

 

 

And if a gay couple waited until they got married would you have a problem with them?

 

 

 

I'm sorry but thats a completely different subject all together.

 

 

 

 

 

I know how to spell and type, just if You relly want me to and spell better, folo two of my orders first... Stay on toppic(this is a "bump").

 

Also... Get your selfs councellors that can help you guys with your perfectionestic and Bullying problems, then i will "learn2type".

 

 

 

 

 

I could also type in c00l ways, that l00k Chill Yo.

 

 

 

 

 

If you relly want to be C00l, and hip then dont do what im doing, Honestly but i would rather just be myself and live my own life.

 

 

 

Likewise, get yourself an English teacher mate. :) You realize that we can't understand anything you're actually trying to argue right?

[NoMoreDead]

I find it sickening that people justify their moral beliefs on gay marriage with religion.

 

 

 

Numerous scientific studies have shown that being "gay" is a trait that one has at birth, and is not a choice that one has. The people who use religion as their answer don't even know WHY it's considered a sin. They will tell you "Marriage should be between a man and a woman." If you say to them, "Where in the bible does it say that, and what context is it being said in?", 95% of the people you ask won't have a clue. If you find one of the 5% that do, remind them that we all thought the opposite sex was "icky" and "gross" at one point. It didn't make us gay. It's not a sin to be gay, reguardless of what religion may think or preach. Don't opress other people because they are gay and tell them they are going to burn in hell. It's just plain redicilous...and it makes you no better than a racist.

[Wisp]

Neither.

 

It just is.

 

By saying it's right is like saying that not being homosexual is wrong.

 

It is neither right nor wrong.

 

I believe it is not really a decision, it probably is affected by your environment, or possibly you are just born that way.

 

Too who ever thinks homosexuality is wrong, think of it this way, let's say your male, and you are shunned by everyone for liking females, or your female and are shunned for liking males.

 

So, it's not wrong, it's not right.

[RayOxide]

I apologize if I am misunderstanding you.

 

 

 

Quite. I mean, I'm just saying it's not wrong. It's not right either.