A Moral Issue

[Pete_the_Viscous]

It does rather come across as if the whole point of bringing up incest as an issue was to have a go at homosexuals.

[Death_By_Pod]

Incest is wrong for the same reason that teacher-student relationships are wrong (even when the student is of legal age). Family members (like teachers) are entrusted with a duty of care, so having an intimate relationship would lead to a violation of that duty (as it causes a conflict of interest).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#1 Not correct, there are universal morals like "murdering is wrong". These morals are overall very beneficial.

 

 

 

Something which is very beneficial, doesn't make it universal. If "murder is wrong" is very beneficial and universal, then why does it still occur?

[Bauke]

The only thing wrong with incest is that you have a bigger chance to let a recessive disease that you carry with you in one copy of a gene (and probably your family members do too) come to expression in your offspring. Technically speaking, if you would have a DNA test with the result that you wouldn't carry any kind of gene copy that could result to a disease if you had BOTH copies of that gene.. you could safely have sex with your family members. Ofcourse, ethically it's wrong, but ethics are stupid anyway in my opinion.

 

 

 

Note: not that I would have sex with my family :x

[Doughnut]

Incest in my opinion is generally not willing, when a little boy or girl in the family commits incest with a older family member its most likely rape, and not willing. Secondly incest leads to some horrible deformities. Because you are related to that person so closely you don't cover each others defects when having a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governments and dictatorships are in place because most people want to be told what to do and when to do it. They would rather be told ABC, then to actually show some initiative and do it themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gay marriage goes against the very grain of nature, whether you believe in evolution, Christianity, or Allah it is wrong. The body is set up so you can not reproduce with the same sex. Man + Man =/= child and Woman + Woman =/= child but Woman + Man = child. Secondly, you can get some horrible diseases if you have sex with the same sex as you, look at Africa china and other areas that support gay and incestuous marriage. They all have a very high rate of aids and other stds. Gay marriage also effects the future because for every gay couple you lose 2-10 kids that could have been born.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which one has a better moral standing, given that prostitution kills nobody, and killing is the ultimate form of stealing a person's freedom and rights to live a life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prostition can kill people, through stds, poor lifestyle, and you become a sex junkie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The death penalty is in place to carry out punishment for people such as Saddam, Hitler, and anyone else who takes a life. Death is the ultimate punishment here on earth.(well possibly torture might be the ultimate punishment, but that would be stooping down to the level that the killer is at)

[Adam007]

Both things are unnatural. Incest may be considered "morally wrong" / "dangerous" as the chances of having a child with physical or mental abnormalities is greatly increased.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, homosexuality can be considered "dangerous" as well. The way it is being 'accepted' right now, especially here in Holland, gives people the impression that it is completely natural - something I strongly disagree with.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why are people only fighting for homosexuality and not other things like taking dumps on the street. I'm pretty sure some people would find that to be convenient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh, your train of logic is just so 100% wrong. What you're doing is going under the premise that homosexuality is immoral and a danger to society. Then you are naming acts that are immoral and dangerous to society. Then you ask us to prove that the other acts you've named aren't immoral/dangerous. You've taken a completely wrong approach though. You can't base an argument off an incorrect/debatable premise and have people argue against it. You need to first prove that homosexuality is immoral before you can use it as a premise of debate for everyone else to disprove other immoral activities you for some reason tied with homosexuality. This whole thread should be locked because we're debating an issue on false premises - your opinion. We can have opinions on a premise that is fact, but we can't have opinions on an unproven opinionated premise.

[Tigra00]

It's.

 

 

 

Religious.

 

 

 

Zealot.

 

 

 

Babble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does anything more need to be discussed?

[Adam007]

It's.

 

 

 

Religious.

 

 

 

Zealot.

 

 

 

Babble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does anything more need to be discussed?

 

 

 

If nothing else, to help people who read this and never post to form their own opinions based on reading this debate. I know some people just won't change their mind no matter how much you obliterate their trains of logic because of whatever reason has been deeply ingrained into them, but common sense dictates that these people should have equal rights since they're not harming anyone else. The hope is that if we disprove his points, they'll seem less valid to people who haven't formed really solid opinions yet.

[Tigra00]

You can't prove them wrong. I mean, obviously we do it over and over, but they never listen. They never say "Oh..I understand now..", they just keep on truckin' with their stupidity. They fear God and fear that if they don't do something for "the cause" that God will be pissed at them. It's just BS. They'll go as far as to deny people equal rights just for a ticket to Heaven, but they fail to see that condeming = ticket to Hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have fun there, homophobes. I'll chill with all those "weird gay guys" in Heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...That is of course if I even believed that crap.

[Adam007]

You can't prove them wrong. I mean, obviously we do it over and over, but they never listen. They never say "Oh..I understand now..", they just keep on truckin' with their stupidity. They fear God and fear that if they don't do something for "the cause" that God will be pissed at them. It's just BS. They'll go as far as to deny people equal rights just for a ticket to Heaven, but they fail to see that condeming = ticket to Hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have fun there, homophobes. I'll chill with all those "weird gay guys" in Heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...That is of course if I even believed that crap.

 

 

 

Yeah, I know people like XplsvBam already have their minds made up, but I was saying there are probably a lot of younger lurkers from the runescape area of the forum who aren't articulate enough to participate in these threads but like reading opinions. I just think it's a good idea to defend the other side not for the purpose of proving the original poster wrong, but for the purpose of teaching everyone who reads your post your opinion, and hoping that they get informed and agree (after all, everyone believes their opinion is the best possible opinion, and thinks the world would be better if everyone adopted it).

[Locke]

Ugh, your train of logic is just so 100% wrong. What you're doing is going under the premise that homosexuality is immoral and a danger to society. Then you are naming acts that are immoral and dangerous to society. Then you ask us to prove that the other acts you've named aren't immoral/dangerous. You've taken a completely wrong approach though. You can't base an argument off an incorrect/debatable premise and have people argue against it. You need to first prove that homosexuality is immoral before you can use it as a premise of debate for everyone else to disprove other immoral activities you for some reason tied with homosexuality. This whole thread should be locked because we're debating an issue on false premises - your opinion. We can have opinions on a premise that is fact, but we can't have opinions on an unproven opinionated premise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very dishonest for you to present information like you have. Do you believe in absolute morality, or did I miss something? You seem to have a problem with people basing arguments off opinions, yet you say:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you are naming acts that are immoral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under your suggestion, I would now like you to prove to me what is moral and what is immoral.

[Guest XplsvBam]

You can't prove them wrong. I mean, obviously we do it over and over, but they never listen. They never say "Oh..I understand now..", they just keep on truckin' with their stupidity. They fear God and fear that if they don't do something for "the cause" that God will be pissed at them. It's just BS. They'll go as far as to deny people equal rights just for a ticket to Heaven, but they fail to see that condeming = ticket to Hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have fun there, homophobes. I'll chill with all those "weird gay guys" in Heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...That is of course if I even believed that crap.

You claim I am a religious zealot but yet I haven't made any connection with god or religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest has negative effects on society: True.

 

 

 

Homosexuality doesn't have negative effects on society: False.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

 

 

 

- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My argument is that you can't condemn incests without condemning homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Almost everyone agrees incest is wrong, for genetic reasons, almost everyone also agrees its for moral reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If YOU believe incest is morally wrong come up with a moral argument against it (proving incest is immoral) without condemning rapists. Personally I think its impossible so prove me wrong by condemning incest but not homosexuality.

[Adam007]

 

Ugh, your train of logic is just so 100% wrong. What you're doing is going under the premise that homosexuality is immoral and a danger to society. Then you are naming acts that are immoral and dangerous to society. Then you ask us to prove that the other acts you've named aren't immoral/dangerous. You've taken a completely wrong approach though. You can't base an argument off an incorrect/debatable premise and have people argue against it. You need to first prove that homosexuality is immoral before you can use it as a premise of debate for everyone else to disprove other immoral activities you for some reason tied with homosexuality. This whole thread should be locked because we're debating an issue on false premises - your opinion. We can have opinions on a premise that is fact, but we can't have opinions on an unproven opinionated premise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very dishonest for you to present information like you have. Do you believe in absolute morality, or did I miss something? You seem to have a problem with people basing arguments off opinions, yet you say:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you are naming acts that are immoral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under your suggestion, I would now like you to prove to me what is moral and what is immoral.

 

 

 

I meant in terms of what's generally accepted. I was referring specifically to his examples, such as pooping on the street. That's public domain, and it's infringing on another person. Homosexual marriage doesn't infringe, while many of the other examples do. Again, terrible word choice on my part, but I would have figured you got my point without me just explaining it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You claim I am a religious zealot but yet I haven't made any connection with god or religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest has negative effects on society: True.

 

 

 

Homosexuality doesn't have negative effects on society: False.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, [obsessive-compulsive] cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

 

 

 

- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what if the risks are relatively higher? People in heterosexual relationships can get diseases too and they're not dangers to society. But let me ask you this: Would you be against a homosexual marriage in which the partners never have intercourse?

[Adam007]

(Double post. Above edited with this post's old contents. )

[Locke]

I meant in terms of what's generally accepted. I was referring specifically to his examples, such as pooping on the street. That's public domain, and it's infringing on another person. Homosexual marriage doesn't infringe, while many of the other examples do. Again, terrible word choice on my part, but I would have figured you got my point without me just explaining it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's circular logic. Public domain is only public domain because people decided it would be. What is "generally accepted" is only "generally accepted" because people decided it would be. In the 2004 election, 11 states voted to ban gay marriage all hands down. Doesn't that mean homosexuality is then immoral, because it was overwhelmingly accepted that it should not be legal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand your point without you explaining it, my problem is your point is inconsistent. If you don't think "morality" and "immorality" exist, then you cannot say some things are illegal because they are immoral. If you do think "morality" and "immorality" exist, then how do you define it? How do you prove your morality is right and someone else's is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, do you support a drinking age? Do you support an age to by cigarettes, go to a club, or vote? Do you support laws against any form of drug use, or prostitution? Do you support laws against polygamy? Do you support laws against pedophilia, if the child consents? Do you support any of the following laws: seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, curfew laws, age restrictions on erotica, parental notification laws, obscenity laws, nudity laws, any restrictions on businesses including health violations for restaurants, smoking bands for public places, or any other requirement that a business has to meet in order to operate publicly? Do you support a minimum wage?

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

 

Ugh, your train of logic is just so 100% wrong. What you're doing is going under the premise that homosexuality is immoral and a danger to society. Then you are naming acts that are immoral and dangerous to society. Then you ask us to prove that the other acts you've named aren't immoral/dangerous. You've taken a completely wrong approach though. You can't base an argument off an incorrect/debatable premise and have people argue against it. You need to first prove that homosexuality is immoral before you can use it as a premise of debate for everyone else to disprove other immoral activities you for some reason tied with homosexuality. This whole thread should be locked because we're debating an issue on false premises - your opinion. We can have opinions on a premise that is fact, but we can't have opinions on an unproven opinionated premise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very dishonest for you to present information like you have. Do you believe in absolute morality, or did I miss something? You seem to have a problem with people basing arguments off opinions, yet you say:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then you are naming acts that are immoral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under your suggestion, I would now like you to prove to me what is moral and what is immoral.

 

 

 

I meant in terms of what's generally accepted. I was referring specifically to his examples, such as pooping on the street. That's public domain, and it's infringing on another person. Homosexual marriage doesn't infringe, while many of the other examples do. Again, terrible word choice on my part, but I would have figured you got my point without me just explaining it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You claim I am a religious zealot but yet I haven't made any connection with god or religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest has negative effects on society: True.

 

 

 

Homosexuality doesn't have negative effects on society: False.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, [obsessive-compulsive] cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

 

 

 

- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what if the risks are relatively higher? People in heterosexual relationships can get diseases too and they're not dangers to society. But let me ask you this: Would you be against a homosexual marriage in which the partners never have intercourse?

The spread of disease is a danger to society. Heterosexual and Homosexuals alike, it is dangerous to society. Homosexuality increases that risk to society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't seem to understand what your question has to do with morals?

[Adam007]

 

I meant in terms of what's generally accepted. I was referring specifically to his examples, such as pooping on the street. That's public domain, and it's infringing on another person. Homosexual marriage doesn't infringe, while many of the other examples do. Again, terrible word choice on my part, but I would have figured you got my point without me just explaining it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's circular logic. Public domain is only public domain because people decided it would be. What is "generally accepted" is only "generally accepted" because people decided it would be. In the 2004 election, 11 states voted to ban gay marriage all hands down. Doesn't that mean homosexuality is then immoral, because it was overwhelmingly accepted that it should not be legal?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand your point without you explaining it, my problem is your point is inconsistent. If you don't think "morality" and "immorality" exist, then you cannot say some things are illegal because they are immoral. If you do think "morality" and "immorality" exist, then how do you define it? How do you prove your morality is right and someone else's is wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, do you support a drinking age? Do you support an age to by cigarettes, go to a club, or vote? Do you support laws against any form of drug use, or prostitution? Do you support laws against polygamy? Do you support laws against pedophilia, if the child consents? Do you support any of the following laws: seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, curfew laws, age restrictions on erotica, parental notification laws, obscenity laws, nudity laws, any restrictions on businesses including health violations for restaurants, smoking bands for public places, or any other requirement that a business has to meet in order to operate publicly? Do you support a minimum wage?

 

 

 

Ideally, I wouldn't support any of those you mentioned. Personally my stance on morals is that something's only immoral if something you do infringes negatively on someone else. Now this, in my opinion, is ideal to go by. But the problem is that people, in general, are stupid, and generally don't have good self control in making decisions. That's why we need the government to impose generally accepted morals. So no - in an ideal world we wouldn't need laws, and I wouldn't support any of those regulations. But people make mistakes, so we need laws, and I do support most of the laws you mentioned for humanity in general. Hopefully that clears up my two 'seemingly' conflicting viewpoints for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The spread of disease is a danger to society. Heterosexual and Homosexuals alike, it is dangerous to society. Homosexuality increases that risk to society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't seem to understand what your question has to do with morals?

 

 

 

So you agree that they're both risks to society. It just happens homosexual intercourse is higher percentage-wise. What's your point? Since it's higher than heterosexual intercourse, it's immoral?

 

 

 

My question is trying to understand why you're against gay marriage, whether or not it's solely based off your one example, or just a gut opinion.

[Locke]

Ideally, I wouldn't support any of those you mentioned. Personally my stance on morals is that something's only immoral if something you do infringes negatively on someone else. Now this, in my opinion, is ideal to go by. But the problem is that people, in general, are stupid, and generally don't have good self control in making decisions. That's why we need the government to impose generally accepted morals. So no - in an ideal world we wouldn't need laws, and I wouldn't support any of those regulations. But people make mistakes, so we need laws, and I do support most of the laws you mentioned for humanity in general. Hopefully that clears up my two 'seemingly' conflicting viewpoints for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said that ideally we wouldn't need laws and regulations. This makes a very powerful assumption. By saying "ideally," you are declaring that there is an absolute good for humanity, and ideally, we wouldn't need laws in order for society to function at a good level. My question remains: do you believe in an absolute good? You seem to suggest that you don't believe in good, yet at the same time you continually make the assumption that laws should exist for the good of the society. How do you define what is the good of society if there is no good? Why do you assume that "not infringing on others" is good if good doesn't actually exist?

[Satenza]

Our government is against prostitution. Why? Because it is morally wrong AND dangerous for society.

 

 

 

Our government is against drug trafficing. Why? Because it is morally wrong AND dangerous for society.

 

 

 

Our government is against child labor. Why? Because it is morally wrong AND dangerous for society.

 

 

 

Our government is against [assault]. Why? Because it is morally wrong AND dangerous for society.

 

 

 

Our government is against incest. Why? Because it is morally wrong AND dangerous for society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's best to take something like the Harm principle into consideration when asking about this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prostitution should be allowed - it's between two consenting adults which is therefore a self affecting action and what right does the state have to interfere in that as long as it harms no-one. Pimps on the other-hand would be illegal because they encourage and make money of an inmoral act which is bad for society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drug traffickers take advantage and profit from the harm they do to others - Therefore it's harmful and wrong and should be banned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Labour prevents children from a decent education which would be harmful to them in later life. Therefore not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assault is obviously harmful and therefore not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest is harmful even though it takes place between two consenting adults because the possible child born could be physicaly and mentaly harmed and therefore is not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being homosexual is between two consenting adults which takes place within the private sphere and harms no-one. It only causes offence to people and offence isn't justification to ban.

[Locke]

Pimps on the other-hand would be illegal because they encourage and make money of an inmoral act which is bad for society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drug traffickers take advantage and profit from the harm they do to others - Therefore it's harmful and wrong and should be banned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Child Labour prevents children from a decent education which would be harmful to them in later life. Therefore not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assault is obviously harmful and therefore not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Incest is harmful even though it takes place between two consenting adults because the possible child born could be physicaly and mentaly harmed and therefore is not allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is harm considered an "absolute bad?"

[Satenza]

No, but thats the problem with the harm principle. All i can say is that in my opinion it hinders the progress of society. You could take the utilitarian approach and justify whats harmful with what produces the greatest good for the greatest number. Which is just afterall a justified tyranny of the majority.

[Adam007]

 

Ideally, I wouldn't support any of those you mentioned. Personally my stance on morals is that something's only immoral if something you do infringes negatively on someone else. Now this, in my opinion, is ideal to go by. But the problem is that people, in general, are stupid, and generally don't have good self control in making decisions. That's why we need the government to impose generally accepted morals. So no - in an ideal world we wouldn't need laws, and I wouldn't support any of those regulations. But people make mistakes, so we need laws, and I do support most of the laws you mentioned for humanity in general. Hopefully that clears up my two 'seemingly' conflicting viewpoints for you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said that ideally we wouldn't need laws and regulations. This makes a very powerful assumption. By saying "ideally," you are declaring that there is an absolute good for humanity, and ideally, we wouldn't need laws in order for society to function at a good level. My question remains: do you believe in an absolute good? You seem to suggest that you don't believe in good, yet at the same time you continually make the assumption that laws should exist for the good of the society. How do you define what is the good of society if there is no good? Why do you assume that "not infringing on others" is good if good doesn't actually exist?

 

 

 

Philosophically an objective good can't really exist in our world. Not to skirt away from an excellent point of yours, but I'm really not talking on that high philosophical level. I'm talking more practically based on what keeps the general population happy and safe. I'm sure my generality will come around to get me when you read this and tear it apart once again on a higher level, but I don't think you can define morals or what's good on a higher objective level. It comes down to common sense and practicality, which aren't that definable either. I think the premise of "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others" is a safe enough general basic premise to go by, even if it doesn't stand much ground when taken from its practical level to a philosophical one.

[Locke]

Philosophically an objective good can't really exist in our world. Not to skirt away from an excellent point of yours, but I'm really not talking on that high philosophical level. I'm talking more practically based on what keeps the general population happy and safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In eleven states in 2004 it was overwhelmingly decided that gay marriages should be banned. Doesn't that make them "happy?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure my generality will come around to get me when you read this and tear it apart once again on a higher level, but I don't think you can define morals or what's good on a higher objective level. It comes down to common sense and practicality, which aren't that definable either. I think the premise of "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm others" is a safe enough general basic premise to go by, even if it doesn't stand much ground when taken from its practical level to a philosophical one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I also think that "harming others" is impossible to tell. Does doing crack harm others? No. But does being addicted to crack and spending all your money on it when you have kids to support harm others? Sure can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do we define what objectively will never harm someone else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, what about people who want to harm others? They are put in prison, which can be harmful in different ways. Aren't we harming them by declaring that their desire to harm others is wrong and unacceptable?

[Satenza]

Yes, but the harm principle is based not on an idealogical level but on a practical level. You can ask the question are there any self affecting actions? Or what constitutes as harm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to get the right balance in state interferance. Which is what the principle tries to provide whether or not it suceeds is down to the persons opinion.

[Locke]

Yes, but the harm principle is based not on an idealogical level but on a practical level. You can ask the question are there any self affecting actions? Or what constitutes as harm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to get the right balance in state interferance. Which is what the principle tries to provide whether or not it suceeds is down to the persons opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The harm principle still assumes harm should be avoided, which assumes a negative quality to harm, which assumes some form of absolute idea. Yet you don't believe in absolutes.

[Satenza]

Which is another critisism of the principle, which I accept. I do generally beleive harm to be bad, so outlawing the ability to harm others would lead to utility.