A Moral Issue

[chris1216]

any attempt i was going to make was promptly cancelled out by seeing astralinre's avatar and immediately singing "magical trevor, isn't he clever, look at him now, disappearing a cow....where is the cow....where is the cow...."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, probably a good idea to keep the topic about, heck, i can't even scroll through the topic review to find what the topic was originally about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On with the debate!

[Locke]

 

You arguing against us in itself is an attack on homosexuality. We're saying it's cool and hurts noone and you're sitting here talking about "moral systems" when noone gives a damn. Your morals suck. There, I addressed the system. It just sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no, I like personal attacks. They're funny. I have to fight stupidity with something, and I can't fight it with brain-power because your average Christian skull is 4 inches thick with Titanium plating. So I just go for mocking you and pointing out how hate-filled your religion is. Not necessarily you, but your religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll remember to stick to personal insults the next time we have a discussion, rather than look at basic philosophical assumptions and their logical outworkings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave your big words like "logical outworkings" at home Astralinre. "Logic" is beneath him. =;

[Death_By_Pod]

"Parental incest is known to sometimes do severe psychological harm to a child, due to the child's physical, mental, and emotional dependence on a parent, due to total disparity in the power of authority, due to the disparity in emotional and physical maturity, and finally due to the fact that the incestuous relationship may damage or destroy healthy aspects of childhood development. Children have been observed to go into disassociated or reclusive mental or emotional states due to shame associated with their parent's predation, which is thought to overwhelm their coping capabilities. Becoming "dead inside" is another tactic children have been observed to use in an attempt to deaden the associated pain. Suppression of emotions, as well as a halt or a severe reduction in personal growth has been observed, similar to the effects studied in the psychology of torture. Some children involved in incest suffer from what is known as complex trauma due to developmental immaturity, due to repeated incests, and/or due to being forced to ignore the incest(s) as a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In adulthood, chronic, complex, and cyclic post traumatic stress has been observed in some individuals of childhood parental incest. Shame, suspicion, and unconscious alienation is thought by some psychologists to occur in the first stage of trauma transformation as the victim attempts to suppress past pain. Rage, terror, and sorrow have been observed to surface in the second stage as the victim begins to become conscious of the incest acts. In the last stage of trauma transformation, genuine self-esteem, genuine desire, and, on occasion, genuine joy have been seen in victims. These stages have been observed to take decades to complete and, in extreme cases, to cycle on until the victim's death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some victims of parental incest suffer severe depression, and/or have committed suicide. Some victims also predate against their own children thus resulting in a legacy of incest in following generations, a form of vicious cycle. Often, even if trauma transformation was successful, survivors have reported that due to the betrayal of innocence, the incest-associated losses, and the trauma-transformation related costs, their lives were much worse off than peers who had not suffered incest by their parents."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean that incest could be illegal due to psychological reasons (such as abuse of power) and isn't about morals? No way! But I forgot its more fun to flame each other about belief systems.

[warri0r45]

If homosexuality isn't morally wrong prove that incest is morally wrong. I repeat, morally, not genetically.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm gonna give it a stab. :?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When asking for proof, I'm assuming that you're working by absolute objective morality, correct? Otherwise, you just get people dissolving into 'my morals are better than yours' arguments which is basically pointless becasue there is no way to judge or measure subjective morality or sets of morals against each other. So this brings up the question 'what are 'the' absolute objective set of morals'? One could argue that there actually isn't one (unless you provide a source of proof and the list of morals) as morality changes as society changes. An example of this is the incresing acceptance of homosexuals and acceptance of homosexuality as not being objectively morally wrong. So we have established two things thus far; there are no documented set of objective moral values (to my knowlege, see brackets above) and homosexuality has changed from being less accepted to more accepted as morality has changed with it over time. Now what about incest? Well as death by pod suggested in a post above, there are mental sideaffects associated with it and one could thus conclude, according the objective morality by todays standards, that it is morally wrong. Now you could argue that homosexuality has negative effects on others and should thus be considered as morally wrong, yes? One could suggest that this all depends on the number of people on which it has negative effects today. One could then suggest that by todays standards, society (more specifically the majority of society) is 'over it' and sees homosexuals as having no negative effects on thier lives, or each others, as they seem to be happy together in thier particular life choice. But you may suggest that not all incest has negative effects. You may be right, but one could suggest the majority of incestuous cases have negative effects on not necessarily outside parties, yet those participating in the incestuous acts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not much of a proof, I know and I am also aware that these comments are opinionated and thus to some extent subjective (not fully, as some people may [god forbid] agree with me). I am also aware that I likened negative affects to morally wrong acts. I am also aware I have a problem with mixing up the words 'affects' and 'effects.' PM me the correct usage and I would appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also appreciate if you didn't pick my brains apart as if I were a ethical philosopher (which I am not by a long stretch). :D :P

[Rebdragon]

When asking for proof, I'm assuming that you're working by absolute objective morality, correct? Otherwise, you just get people dissolving into 'my morals are better than yours' arguments which is basically pointless becasue there is no way to judge or measure subjective morality or sets of morals against each other. So this brings up the question 'what are 'the' absolute objective set of morals'? One could argue that there actually isn't one (unless you provide a source of proof and the list of morals) as morality changes as society changes.

 

 

 

Look at the links I posted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subjective morality is dynamic. Objective is static; it never changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An example of this is the incresing acceptance of homosexuals and acceptance of homosexuality as not being objectively morally wrong. So we have established two things thus far; there are no documented set of objective moral values (to my knowlege, see brackets above) and homosexuality has changed from being less accepted to more accepted as morality has changed with it over time.

 

 

 

Public opinion, or overall subjective morality, has changed. That does not mean objective morality has changed- just because the majority thinks it's objective doesn't mean it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basically, the objective morality of homosexuality doesn't change just because a few humans felt like it should. Human opinion, no matter how many people agree, can never equal objective morality.

 

 

 

Now what about incest? Well as death by pod suggested in a post above, there are mental sideaffects associated with it and one could thus conclude, according the objective morality by todays standards, that it is morally wrong.

 

 

 

"Objective morality by today's standards" doesn't even make any sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you could argue that homosexuality has negative effects on others and should thus be considered as morally wrong, yes? One could suggest that this all depends on the number of people on which it has negative effects today.

 

 

 

You can't just say, "well, 53 people think it's wrong, 47 people think it's right, so it has to be wrong."

 

 

 

One could then suggest that by todays standards, society (more specifically the majority of society) is 'over it' and sees homosexuals as having no negative effects on thier lives, or each others, as they seem to be happy together in thier particular life choice. But you may suggest that not all incest has negative effects. You may be right, but one could suggest the majority of incestuous cases have negative effects on not necessarily outside parties, yet those participating in the incestuous acts.

 

 

 

Once again, majority opinion does not constitute a good argument for what objective morality is. Majority opinion is generally much more accurate than the opinion of one person, but it is so easily swayed that it can't be trusted too much as to say that, "what the majority says is objective morality."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are so many ways that could be seen as a terrible when looking at history. How 'bout, "well, most of us think that throwing this virgin chick into the volcano will save us, so it must be moral to through her in."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Majority opinion is nothing more than a culmination of many subjective moralities- it is still subjective, just like it's components.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not much of a proof, I know and I am also aware that these comments are opinionated and thus to some extent subjective (not fully, as some people may [god forbid] agree with me). I am also aware that I likened negative affects to morally wrong acts. I am also aware I have a problem with mixing up the words 'affects' and 'effects.' PM me the correct usage and I would appreciate it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also appreciate if you didn't pick my brains apart as if I were a ethical philosopher (which I am not by a long stretch). :D :P

 

 

 

'Kay :P .

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

 

 

 

#1: Morals depend on the person. You might think it's morally wrong, but that's your opinion.

 

 

 

#2: It's just not dangerous for society. Homosexual relationships just aren't. I can't see how someone can form that kind of an opinion. It's not effecting other people so besides the fact that it makes you feel all wrong and upset inside, how does it really affect you? You're a part of society, and you're claiming it's so detrimental. Like you, I find the thought of male homosexual intercourse pretty gross, but unlike you, I don't let that emotion get in the way of simple logic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#1 If morals depend on the person then why doesn't our government allow incest, prostitution, [assault], ect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because the role of the government is to protect the interest of its people. Its pretty obvious that they need morals to protect our interests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#2 Homosexuality is dangerous to society because it is morally wrong. If you don't agree that morally wrong issues are dangerous to society then why isn't prostitution legal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prostitution, drug trafficing etc. are widely looked upon by most people as being wrong. Therefore it is a shared moral value among society, since this moral is shared by most - it is illegal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homosexuality used to be considered as morally wrong by most people and when this was the case homosexuality was illegal. However, as the veiw of society has become more tolerant of homosexuality, it has become legal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In short - the views of society do not reflect the laws of the land, instead the laws of the land reflect the view of society.

[warri0r45]

Majority opinion is nothing more than a culmination of many subjective moralities- it is still subjective, just like it's components.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see your point. :-k You do see what I'm getting at with my arguments through, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I'm looking at a definition of objectivity right now which states "free from biased judgement." I could argue that the majority opinion is the least biased of the whole populations. :wink: I think. :? Nevertheless, it states objectivity can be likened to fairness, which I'm quite sure the majorities view is (as much as can possibly be).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reference: The Thesaurus section, no. 3.

[Keep_It_Real]

Incest Is gross:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It usually screws someones life over becuase:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone find's out, ruins there reputation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Causes Birth-Defects(sometimes) Causing a loss in the quailty of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my .02 Cents in the matter. ---random, but there my favorite, besides------ : : :

[swordwindtrtrtrt]

Incest is mainly wrong because people dont want a load of deformed inbred mutants in society, because their wasting air. Somebody lock this flame war.

[Dalcyte]

interesting debaucle. Me and other people in my class were having this debate a while ago.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the main thing you have to consider.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is absolutely NO way to prove that its wrong. You just simply can't prove it 100%. You can say its wrong because society says it is. But incest in our society is only wrong because society adopted that claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a barbarian tribe for instance, incest is regularly practiced and not opposed. So why is it wrong there? Their society has simply adopted that because its the way their society works. Through hundreds of years we have had society's beliefs, morales, customs and ways instilled and drilled in our heads. But none, not one, 0, zilch, nada, are actually right. We would like to think they are, but there is no bonafide way to say they are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to incest in general. I've heard many many claims that inbreeding causes genetic defects. This is wrong. THere is no proof of this and it just scientifically doesn't make sense. The chances of genetic problems are just as high. Having studied genetics thuroughly for half a semester pretty much, it just doesn't make sense. Half the DNA from mom, half from Dad. So what if they are alike, they actually could be 100% diffrerent due to the trillions and trillions of combinations. There is simply one, one major scientific problem with incest. That is that due to a likeness and similarity of genes, it could result in the death of a species. This is because the species will become so alike that there will be much much less differences and diversity, so if a change occurs, there will be no mutations or differences that survive it.

[Ragen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You arguing against us in itself is an attack on homosexuality. We're saying it's cool and hurts noone and you're sitting here talking about "moral systems" when noone gives a damn. Your morals suck. There, I addressed the system. It just sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm split on the issue of wether it damages people/ society. If the gay couple can keep it between themselves then I have no problem with that. I'm all for gay marriage as that only involves the couple. Adoption on the other hand is a big no no. A Child should have a Mum and a Dad, being adopted by a gay couple may confuse a child and from a gay couple they wont get a father figure and a mother figure, which a child needs. For the same reason, I'm against single people adopting a child. To adopt you should be in a stable relationship with a male and female.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prostitution could be dangerous or not dangerous depending on how it is done. I believe that in Holland there are designated Brothels where you are forced to wear a condom and the prostitutes are regularly checked for STD's. The only thing I have against this kind of prostitution is that it will probally be girls with no-where to go who end up working there. To take advantage of girls like that seems cruel and immoral to me.

 

 

 

The other types of prostitution, the illegal kind, is very wrong. There is a high chance of getting infected and the girls are definately being forced into it, either by extreme poverty or pimps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest is wrong on two levels for me. Firstly, inbreeding gives any children a higher chance of having a genetic disorder. Secondly, a family shouldn't work in that way. Two families should be brought together in marriage, giving a larger network of support for the couple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what I wrote there is relevant to this thread. It was kind of hard to understand which subject we were supposed to be discussing so I went for all of them :D

[Duke_Freedom]

I agree that it's not natural (in the sense that it's not the norm) and see it as a genetic abnormality, but these people should still have the same rights everyone else does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ofcourse they should have the same rights as everyone, I'm not arguing about that. However, IMO they should not be provocating it and make it look natural. Nor should they claim that it is discriminating to say that it is a genetic abnormality - something many of they DO claim.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That are the only two issues I really have with homosexuality. Homosexuality itself can't be "morally wrong" for the simple fact that some people are born homosexual (and arguing that some people are born morally wrong seems rather ridiculous, not?). Still it is 'morally wrong' to accept it as being natural as I would say it is practically the same as being born with 1 leg or something like that: it is just not natural.

[Satenza]

You have to look at human nature, and take some sort of realist stance. A Government preaching how unatural Homosexuality may be (in your opinion) does have an affect on the way their treated within society. A government who treats everyone the same, no matter what minority or majoirty they are as long as they don't harm anyone would hopefully allow them to be treated the same over time. Leaving the government stigma of them being unatural behind.

[Duke_Freedom]

I don't hear people who are physically / mentally handicapped in any way claim that it is natural. Taking the realistic stance you suggest I know that those people are being treated as lesser as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What it really shows is that the anti-discrimination laws we have are not being obeyed, but this is NOT an arguement to consider homosexuality normal no matter whether you want me to be realistic or not. I want to make clear that I do think it is dangerous to accept is being normal - especially uncertain young people can be effected greatly by doing so.

[Dalcyte]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You arguing against us in itself is an attack on homosexuality. We're saying it's cool and hurts noone and you're sitting here talking about "moral systems" when noone gives a damn. Your morals suck. There, I addressed the system. It just sucks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm split on the issue of wether it damages people/ society. If the gay couple can keep it between themselves then I have no problem with that. I'm all for gay marriage as that only involves the couple. Adoption on the other hand is a big no no. A Child should have a Mum and a Dad, being adopted by a gay couple may confuse a child and from a gay couple they wont get a father figure and a mother figure, which a child needs. For the same reason, I'm against single people adopting a child. To adopt you should be in a stable relationship with a male and female.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prostitution could be dangerous or not dangerous depending on how it is done. I believe that in Holland there are designated Brothels where you are forced to wear a condom and the prostitutes are regularly checked for STD's. The only thing I have against this kind of prostitution is that it will probally be girls with no-where to go who end up working there. To take advantage of girls like that seems cruel and immoral to me.

 

 

 

The other types of prostitution, the illegal kind, is very wrong. There is a high chance of getting infected and the girls are definately being forced into it, either by extreme poverty or pimps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest is wrong on two levels for me. Firstly, inbreeding gives any children a higher chance of having a genetic disorder. Secondly, a family shouldn't work in that way. Two families should be brought together in marriage, giving a larger network of support for the couple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think what I wrote there is relevant to this thread. It was kind of hard to understand which subject we were supposed to be discussing so I went for all of them :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

again, in bold i think thats just what society has instilled upon us.

[Duke_Freedom]

 

A Child should have a Mum and a Dad, being adopted by a gay couple may confuse a child and from a gay couple they wont get a father figure and a mother figure, which a child needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

again, in bold i think thats just what society has instilled upon us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If nature wanted that gay people could have kids then they would have allowed males to reproduce without needing a female and the other way around too.

[Ragen]

 

 

 

 

I'm split on the issue of wether it damages people/ society. If the gay couple can keep it between themselves then I have no problem with that. I'm all for gay marriage as that only involves the couple. Adoption on the other hand is a big no no. A Child should have a Mum and a Dad, being adopted by a gay couple may confuse a child and from a gay couple they wont get a father figure and a mother figure, which a child needs.

 

 

 

again, in bold i think thats just what society has instilled upon us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not society, nature. In nature, I'm pretty sure that there isn't gay couples in the first place. Secondly, if there is, they definately don't have children. Can you imagine growing up with two 'mum's or two 'dads'. Being adopted is difficult enough for a child to cope with, being adopted by a gay couple creates even more problems for the child - teasing at school, learning about sex, where babies come from etc. It's not fair on the child.

[Satenza]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What it really shows is that the anti-discrimination laws we have are not being obeyed, but this is NOT an arguement to consider homosexuality normal no matter whether you want me to be realistic or not. I want to make clear that I do think it is dangerous to accept is being normal - especially uncertain young people can be effected greatly by doing so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course there not working, I constantly hear jokes about disabled, ethnic minorities, homosexual people and every other person different from the majority of people. Can we even make them work though? I don't beleive it's hatred i beleive it's insecurity about those people who feel a need to look down upon others. Creating a social stigma or continuing the social stigma that homosexual people are unatural will continue the amount of social rejection they get (by some people not all). I can't see why it's dangerous to young people as long as they can rely on people around them and have support on confusion. Most people come to realize what they are anyway themselves later on. So i don't really feel it's particulaly dangerous. Can you explain why it's dangerous?

[Duke_Freedom]

In nature, I'm pretty sure that there isn't gay couples in the first place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't see why it's dangerous to young people as long as they can rely on people around them and have support on confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wrong assumption - they can't always rely on other people around them to help them with their confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most people come to realize what they are anyway themselves later on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe that this whole concept of "finding your identity", which is what you are more or less referring to with what you say there, even existed till the past few decades. I would say that the only people who were 'unsure' back then were the genuine homosexuals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In opposite to that, a big part of the youth is "in doubt about his sexuality" nowadays and people talk about them "searching for their identity". In reality, this is all random blabla made up to disguise the fact that these people have already been effected by the 'normality' of homosexuality these days.

[Satenza]

Apparently no-one is 100% hetrosexual so i can't see the negative affect of normalizing homosexuality to the point of people being able to talk about their natural feelings and at the end figure out lots of people have them and they are probably hetrosexual. If they are not, then they are allowed to live in a society which would hopefully be more free from prejudice. The only thing affected is the peoples ability to discuss such things more openly.

[Duke_Freedom]

Apparently no-one is 100% hetrosexual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree with this already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In one sentence I could summarize that what I'm saying is that the simple act of informing young people about the existance of homosexuality can already influence them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I'm realistic, so I say we should be informing them about the existance of it and that people should not be discriminating others because of it, etc... However, I am strongly against over-informing people about it and, as a result, making it seem normal by doing so. Allowing same-sex couples to adopt children obviously goes under this too - it has too much negative effect on the child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't see how this could have a negative effect on uncertain people then I don't think it is of much use discussing further about it though, because we'll keep on disagreeing anyway.

[Satenza]

I agree with you over informing people is not neccessary but saying it's unatural is not neccessary either for a government.

[warri0r45]

 

Apparently no-one is 100% hetrosexual

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree with this already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In one sentence I could summarize that what I'm saying is that the simple act of informing young people about the existance of homosexuality can already influence them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I'm realistic, so I say we should be informing them about the existance of it and that people should not be discriminating others because of it, etc... However, I am strongly against over-informing people about it and, as a result, making it seem normal by doing so. Allowing same-sex couples to adopt children obviously goes under this too - it has too much negative effect on the child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't see how this could have a negative effect on uncertain people then I don't think it is of much use discussing further about it though, because we'll keep on disagreeing anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. Over exposure to adult issues at a young age and in particular homosexual relations can normalise homosexuality to a child, which is damaging to society in much the same way that cramming religion down kids throats is damaging to society (yet not on a biological level, as is the case for homosexuality).

[Tigra00]

I understand what you're saying Ragen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm against gay people being able to adopt aswell. I'm not sure if that alone would confuse a child horribly, but his peers would make sure he knew he was different, and that's just not good. A single parents adopting is a little different...I can see your point, but at the same time...Either that child could have one loving parent, or zero...I wouldn't bar single parents from adopting I don't think...I dunno'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gay people, however, should be able to get married. It isn't a religious thing, it's a law thing. You get benefits for being married, and being together in the same house and stuff without those benefits isn't really fair.

[warri0r45]

I understand what you're saying Ragen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm against gay people being able to adopt aswell. I'm not sure if that alone would confuse a child horribly, but his peers would make sure he knew he was different, and that's just not good. A single parents adopting is a little different...I can see your point, but at the same time...Either that child could have one loving parent, or zero...I wouldn't bar single parents from adopting I don't think...I dunno'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gay people, however, should be able to get married. It isn't a religious thing, it's a law thing. You get benefits for being married, and being together in the same house and stuff without those benefits isn't really fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting point on that last comment. I can't remember the specifics but because gay couples can't be recognised as married in this country (to my knowlege) then both of the couple can claim centerlink (government aid payments) payments and be better off than non-gay couples monitarily. Now this almost defeats logic as there are more battling single parents and low income couples that don't get payed as much as gays do by the government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not an attck, just an observation. Don't quote my post as factual either.