Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Sexuality

521 replies to this topic
TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#481

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:02 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 22:57)
QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 12:14)
Exactly my point. Whether someone is advocating homosexuality as an all-accepted concept or  heterosexuality as the only way, who decides which side is right? According to sivispacem, morality is subjective. Yet, murder is a concept not needing of an explanation. Thus, why do some concepts automatically veer right or wrong and others become bound in this moral tug-of-war (so to speak) such as homosexuality?

ah...

so you agree that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality sly.gif

I wouldn't say that it's wrong, but I wouldn't say it's right either. tounge.gif

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#482

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:07 PM

so here we go again.

right according to who?
right according to what?

don't get trapped in infinite regression...

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#483

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:12 PM Edited by TheJonesy, 17 January 2013 - 11:19 PM.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 23:07)
so here we go again.

right according to who?
right according to what?

don't get trapped in infinite regression...

I'm confused. I've already explained this to you. Asking who or what dictates morality in our society is exactly the issue I'm proposing. Though, the way in which one could find this answer to this conundrum is by examining the morals we have already dictated right and wrong. Hence why I stated this:

QUOTE (Myself)
Thus, why do some concepts automatically veer right or wrong and others become bound in this moral tug-of-war (so to speak) such as homosexuality?


What I bring to you is the idea that homosexuality, and all of the debates, that we discuss everyday are constantly pulled back and forth but never resolved because we can't answer the question of who decides which side is right when either party believes their rights will be compromised.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#484

Posted 18 January 2013 - 12:47 AM

yes, you sure are confused.

you explained to me that morality is ambiguous but I already knew that.
I'm trying to explain to you that you're trying way too hard to box this issue inside of completely unfair terms. when it comes to sexual orientation there's no such thing as right or wrong as long as your preferences cause no harm to others.

so I'll make it easy for you: there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#485

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:11 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 00:47)
yes, you sure are confused.

you explained to me that morality is ambiguous but I already knew that.
I'm trying to explain to you that you're trying way too hard to box this issue inside of completely unfair terms. when it comes to sexual orientation there's no such thing as right or wrong as long as your preferences cause no harm to others.

so I'll make it easy for you: there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.

For one, I am not confused, but rather imposing questions that I wish to debate.

Secondly, there does exist the debate of morality concerning homosexuality. I agree with the idea of right and wrong not having a solid foot when discussing the freedom of preference. Though, I'm trying to develop the argument of why one would not prefer, or rather accept, homosexuality. Thus, in order for a particular individual to not support it, they'd have to think it's wrong. This establishes my reasoning for introducing the discussion of moral beliefs and how they are dictated.

As for "boxing in" homosexuality strictly within the context of morality, yes, I have fallen in fault with this and I addressed this in a prior post.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#486

Posted 18 January 2013 - 03:29 AM

I see what you're doing.

but I think that the "debate" you claim to want to have is false.
it doesn't really exist unless you're a religious extremist. if you're a religious extremist, you don't really deserve to take part in the debate anyway.

homosexuals are just people looking for love.
and assuming their love causes no one else any harm, there's never anything wrong with that.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#487

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:17 AM

It seems you're coming from a standpoint that assumes homosexuality is definitively right and all those who oppose it cannot have a say. With this mindset, I see where a grounds of moral discussion wouldn't have a place, but considering that this topic isn't wholeheartedly accepted by people, my debate stands. The topic of homosexuality doesn't concern the moral weighing of who or what is harmed; when applying morality, we're addressing whether it is an ethical behavior.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#488

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:56 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 18 January 2013 - 05:58 AM.

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 21:17)
It seems you're coming from a standpoint that assumes homosexuality is definitively right

I'm coming from the standpoint that homosexuality is not wrong.
very simple.

QUOTE
all those who oppose it cannot have a say.

I never said that.
but it would also depend on the reason to oppose it.

if someone opposes homosexuality because god or the Bible (or any religious text) said so, then that person shouldn't really be allowed to attend the debate.
because that position is based on indefensible (and often metaphysical) beliefs which have no place in a modern discussion. and not because 'religion sucks man' but because it's just a useless position to argue about. it's the magic bullet that cannot be questioned. it gets us nowhere. it only serves to divide and breed contempt.

if someone opposes homosexuality because they firmly believe that gays are a danger to society, then that person is welcome to the debate.
however they're going to have to find logical, reasonable, and realistic reasons to support their claims. if they cannot produce peer-reviewed research that shows how homosexuals are harming society in some way, then eventually we're also going to have to ask this person to leave the debate.

I'm open to other opinions.
but so far most of them fall pretty flat. at the end of the day, we are all human beings. no skin color, no sex, no heritage, no nationality, just people trying to live and enjoy life. as long as we are not harming each other, there is literally no incorrect way to live.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#489

Posted 18 January 2013 - 06:53 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 05:56)
QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 21:17)
It seems you're coming from a standpoint that assumes homosexuality is definitively right

I'm coming from the standpoint that homosexuality is not wrong.
very simple.

QUOTE
all those who oppose it cannot have a say.

I never said that.
but it would also depend on the reason to oppose it.

if someone opposes homosexuality because god or the Bible (or any religious text) said so, then that person shouldn't really be allowed to attend the debate.
because that position is based on indefensible (and often metaphysical) beliefs which have no place in a modern discussion. and not because 'religion sucks man' but because it's just a useless position to argue about. it's the magic bullet that cannot be questioned. it gets us nowhere. it only serves to divide and breed contempt.

if someone opposes homosexuality because they firmly believe that gays are a danger to society, then that person is welcome to the debate.
however they're going to have to find logical, reasonable, and realistic reasons to support their claims. if they cannot produce peer-reviewed research that shows how homosexuals are harming society in some way, then eventually we're also going to have to ask this person to leave the debate.

I'm open to other opinions.
but so far most of them fall pretty flat. at the end of the day, we are all human beings. no skin color, no sex, no heritage, no nationality, just people trying to live and enjoy life. as long as we are not harming each other, there is literally no incorrect way to live.

Ah, you have the standpoint that it isn't homosexuality being right, but not wrong. How very simple. Makes perfect sense.

See, you still address that I'm debating the harmfulness of homosexuality within society. I've never stated that is such. Rather, I'm posing the debate of whether it has any foundation to be an ethical identity for an individual. And I find your claim of "peer-reviewed research" to be completely absurd; the question of homosexual morality doesn't concern scientific means. I can't just mix two chemicals together and say, "Yup, being gay is wrong."

This topic concerns the principle of human behavior and whether such ideologies should exist or not even if they don't interfere with the safety of others. As ridiculous as it sounds, this is in fact the very backbone of the debate. Sure, some are concerned that homosexual tendencies will spread or infect their children like a disease, but at the very heart of anyone's discomfort for this, they're questioning how can such a deviant behavior - to them at least - be right.

In many aspects, yes, disliking homosexuality doesn't make sense. Such a simplistic lifestyle that bears no negative consequences, so long as no opposition interferes, shouldn't seem wrong. Sexuality, though, is such a personal matter. We're not debating one's preference of color or clothing; it's who they wish to love and engage with sexually. This matter would be profoundly different if all humans found sexual arousal with either men or women and simply chose to prefer one over the other. Since, though, there are those who are completely straight, concern is raised.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#490

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:26 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 05:14)
Depending on one's upbringing, homosexuality could be so deviated from an individuals norm within his/her environment that its moral standing is constituted on that idea alone.

That would make the distaste for homosexuality a knee-jerk aversion to a foreign concept; what's the word, bigotry? If you accept that it's okay to have this view on those grounds, then your contention is that bigotry is okay, is that what you're trying to assert?

QUOTE
When questioning the morality of this concept, you're also questioning the morality of one's freedom to believe or not to believe in something.

This is hardly the case. Opposing a harmful view is not the same as attacking free speech, and I can't believe you'd suggest that it is. If people are going to spew harmful, bigoted vitriol they don't have a "right" not be called out on it.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#491

Posted 18 January 2013 - 08:05 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Thursday, Jan 17 2013, 23:53)
Ah, you have the standpoint that it isn't homosexuality being right, but not wrong. How very simple. Makes perfect sense.

yes exactly.
I'm going by your own logic.

since it's so hard for us to objectively say what is "right," I believe it is easier to see what is clearly "not wrong."
since there's nothing empirically threatening about homosexuality that I can see, it's pretty simple for me to say that there's nothing wrong with it.

QUOTE
I'm posing the debate of whether it has any foundation to be an ethical identity for an individual. And I find your claim of "peer-reviewed research" to be completely absurd; the question of homosexual morality doesn't concern scientific means. I can't just mix two chemicals together and say, "Yup, being gay is wrong."


two things.

1.) ethics are morality. ethics are right and wrong.
if you're talking about ethics, then you're making claims about a persons role in society.

and once again, I see no ethical quandary posed by homosexuality.
they're just people who want to love and be happy.

2.) you apparently don't understand what research is. it's not just for chemicals and numbers. scientific research doesn't always mean test tubes and labs.
scientific research can be applied to the study of society, behavior, and people just as effectively as it can be applied to chemicals and numbers.

QUOTE
This topic concerns the principle of human behavior and whether such ideologies should exist or not even if they don't interfere with the safety of others. As ridiculous as it sounds, this is in fact the very backbone of the debate. Sure, some are concerned that homosexual tendencies will spread or infect their children like a disease, but at the very heart of anyone's discomfort for this, they're questioning how can such a deviant behavior - to them at least - be right.


you are digging quite the logical hole for yourself.
the issue is not that complicated.

I mean, either you think homosexuals are ok or you don't.
but remember: regardless of what you believe about homosexuality, it's not going anywhere. gay people aren't going to disappear. we can either deal with them, and fit them into this world (as we deal with everyone else who is slightly different from us) or we can lock them up in prison camps and try to exterminate them.

there's no real middle ground. we can't treat them like half-citizens.
they were born this way. gay men were born to crave some cock just like you and I were born to crave some pussy (and vise versa). it's perfectly natural in that respect. it produces no significant deviance, it doesn't infect anyone else like a disease, and it's only discomforting to someone who's gay and still in the closet or a homophobe.

QUOTE
In many aspects, yes, disliking homosexuality doesn't make sense.

so then stop! lol.gif
the discussion is over. that's the correct conclusion. stop coming up with all these convoluted, hypothetical situations about what is right and wrong. it's nonsense.

QUOTE
Since, though, there are those who are completely straight, concern is raised.


let's stop beating around the bush, shall we?
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you are talking with a very strange tone.

are you personally concerned about homosexuals or not?
are you really talking about "those" hypothetical people, or yourself? just put your cards on the table and this will be much easier.

because look, I'm completely straight, and I have no concerns to raise about gays.
gays are fine in my book. they don't bother me one bit. naturally, most of my friends and family are straight. most of their friends and family are straight. gay people are definitely a minority.

and out of ALL OF THEM, the only straight people I know who have "concerns" about homosexuals are ignorant bible-thumpers from the Southwest.
virtually no one in the 21st century who was raised outside of a strict religious household has any problem with gays.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#492

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:42 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 08:05)
two things.

1.) ethics are morality. ethics are right and wrong.
if you're talking about ethics, then you're making claims about a persons role in society.

and once again, I see no ethical quandary posed by homosexuality.
they're just people who want to love and be happy.

2.) you apparently don't understand what research is. it's not just for chemicals and numbers. scientific research doesn't always mean test tubes and labs.
scientific research can be applied to the study of society, behavior, and people just as effectively as it can be applied to chemicals and numbers.


1) No, no I am not. Excuse me if I worded it too poorly for you, but I am not discussing the moral relationship between a homosexual and society, but rather the determination of the homosexual schema to be truly right. I choose morality because the use of normality doesn't fit well with human behavior since "normal" can't always be statistical. I state this because all people are different. When, I ask, does different become "right" or "wrong"? Let me show you this:

QUOTE (Statistic A)
Approximately 18.8 million American adults, or about 9.5 percent of the U.S. population age 18 and older in a given year, have a depressive disorder

http://www.depressio...statistics.html

QUOTE (Statistic B)
A Gallup report published in October 2012 by the Williams Institute reported that 3.4% of US adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Above, we see that almost triple the population of the US is depressed over being homosexual. Statistically, we could assume that depression is more "normal" than homosexuality on a societal scale. Does the popularity of depression make it right concerning human cognition and behavior?

2) Research isn't just mixing chemicals? Well, no sh*t. Extensive research can be applied to study the homosexual in the context of society, small-scale social interactions, cognitive areas, and behavior studies, but those questions would only answer the how and not the why.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Jan 18 2013, 08:05)
you are digging quite the logical hole for yourself.
the issue is not that complicated.


It's not complicated from our current societal context, but that's not what I'm discussing. Hence, why you're so confused from my strange tone.


QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Jan 18 2013, 08:05)
are you personally concerned about homosexuals or not?
are you really talking about "those" hypothetical people, or yourself? just put your cards on the table and this will be much easier.

because look, I'm completely straight, and I have no concerns to raise about gays.
gays are fine in my book. they don't bother me one bit. naturally, most of my friends and family are straight. most of their friends and family are straight. gay people are definitely a minority.

and out of ALL OF THEM, the only straight people I know who have "concerns" about homosexuals are ignorant bible-thumpers from the Southwest.
virtually no one in the 21st century who was raised outside of a strict religious household has any problem with gays.


So, all non-radical, straight people support homosexuality? Where's the peer-reviewed research to support that? As for my "cards on the table," I've already stated my position on the subject.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#493

Posted 18 January 2013 - 11:28 PM

Why do you keep referring to "homosexuals?" A lot of people who don't identify as such engage in same-sex relations. Is anyone who does so "wrong?"

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#494

Posted 19 January 2013 - 12:17 AM Edited by TheJonesy, 19 January 2013 - 12:20 AM.

It's just easier to combine self-identified homosexuals and those who merely practice homosexual tendencies into one group for the sake of my discussion. It may not be the best way, though, considering the former use homosexuality as an identity and the latter merely practice it, which definitely separates them. From my perspective, though, if we are to discuss this, the general idea of homosexuality is in question rather than the morality of doing it versus being it.

To address your responses to me earlier:

A) As distasteful as you may find it, that was simply my answer to your question concerning those who oppose it. I believe this concept to be true for many cases. Is it right, though? Certainly not.

B) I do believe that those who choose to align themselves with homosexuality have just as much right as those who choose to hate it. Though, I seemed to have discounted those who are indeed vulgar - and sometimes violent - towards it. I suppose responsibility lies with one's right to support or not to support something.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#495

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:02 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Saturday, Jan 19 2013, 10:17)
From my perspective, though, if we are to discuss this, the general idea of homosexuality is in question rather than the morality of doing it versus being it.

So, in your view, is it inherently wrong to be engage in sex or relationships with members of the same sex?

QUOTE
As distasteful as you may find it, that was simply my answer to your question concerning those who oppose it. I believe this concept to be true for many cases. Is it right, though? Certainly not.

So are you admitting that you're a bigot? You're saying you don't approve of homosexuality because it's a deviation from a normative standard, does that not make you a bigot?

QUOTE
I suppose responsibility lies with one's right to support or not to support something.

I'm sorry, but what "right" are you referring to? You have a right to say what you like, but you don't have a right not be shouted down and labelled a bigot.

TheJonesy
  • TheJonesy

    Carry on.

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2007

#496

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:37 AM Edited by TheJonesy, 19 January 2013 - 05:46 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, Jan 19 2013, 04:02)
So, in your view, is it inherently wrong to be engage in sex or relationships with members of the same sex?

Well, isn't that what we're discussing?

QUOTE
So are you admitting that you're a bigot? You're saying you don't approve of homosexuality because it's a deviation from a normative standard, does that not make you a bigot?


I don't disagree with you, and for that I should most certainly say I am - or for a better description, I was. I'm just being honest with my upbringing. I at least have the decency to respect those who are homosexual. Though, over the years - due to my sister's friendship with a gay individual and being a student at a very liberal college - my views of this matter have changed dramatically.

I want to make it clear that I do not practice this bigotry you speak of. As any straight man could agree, homosexuality is a strange concept difficult to understand when you yourself don't believe it at all. I'm not perfect, but I pride myself in the fact that I can maturely accept sexual orientation. I'm merely just discussing this topic at hand, trying to find different, deeper reasoning for homosexuality other than weighing the absurd "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument and the circular "it's right because not supporting it is wrong" argument. You see what I mean?

QUOTE
I'm sorry, but what "right" are you referring to? You have a right to say what you like, but you don't have a right not be shouted down and labelled a bigot.


I believe that people have a given, unarguable right to like and dislike what they want for whatever reason. I recognize that with this right, opposition arises: where homosexuals exist, antagonizing male counterparts exist; where these men exist, others supporting homosexuality shall label them bigots. What I refer towards is the fact that some self-restraint and respect must exist when opposing another party - the responsibility I speak of. Not out of some debated idea, but the mere concept of common sense among human relations.

Simply, whether I were to completely despise homosexuality or not, I'll always believe in respect for other's choices. That's the basic concept I'm trying to explain. With this said - directing towards El_Diablo - it would indeed make my argument irrelevant, right? I'll admit, I do sound contradictive; if the debate of homosexual morality didn't matter so long as others respected the choices of another population, then the discussion becomes unnecessary. Still, I'm just addressing the concept of homosexuality regardless of its place in society. If I've become difficult, my apologies.

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#497

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:40 AM

Well...

Bump? I suppose.

@TheJonesy - Let me know if I'm getting this right (it is a tad late here and I'm fairly tired) - what you are trying to clarify is the moral validity of homosexual behaviour?

I think K^2 sort of grazed this approach somewhere in the beginning of this topic.

Objectively you can't say if homosexuality is right or wrong. And indeed I don't think theres any real (moral) reason for someone to actually like or accept homosexuality. In fact, considering your approach on this debate I'd assume that simple "bigotry" wouldn't be any more right or wrong than homosexuality. So, essentially what were trying to solve here is the clash of these two concepts with equal merits (or perhaps more like lack of merits). It turns out to be a zero-sum game.

So, if normalcy doesn't validate/invalidate homosexual behaviour and nor does morality - what's left? It's tempting to just take the practical approach. But if we took the debate to strange extremes we can end up in this silly situation where we are subjectively weighing different forms of good and bad. Who is to say that your repulsion towards homosexuality is less important than all the resulting negative aspects a homosexual has to deal with in a given society? And we could take that to an even further (and rather perverse) extreme where we reach the conclusion that, statistically, giving homosexuals the right to marry/form a legal union has less merit because the percentage of population who are adversely affected by lack of such rights is insignificant compared to those who would be adversely affected by the presence of such rights. Thats all rather academic though.

How do I personally solve it? You have to start by determining what your core moral values are. Is it equality? Perhaps its the creed 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you.'? Once you have established those core values, you can start deciding whether you can be accepting of homosexuality and to what degree. The problem with this is that it's very individualistic. But I suppose having a diverse mix of consistent views is better than complete incoherence on all fronts.

Anyway... thats my part of rambling for tonight. I hope at least a fraction of it makes sense to someone.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#498

Posted 15 March 2013 - 02:52 AM

QUOTE (TheJonesy @ Friday, Jan 18 2013, 12:42)
When, I ask, does different become "right" or "wrong"? Let me show you this:

http://www.depressio...statistics.html
http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Above, we see that almost triple the population of the US is depressed over being homosexual. Statistically, we could assume that depression is more "normal" than homosexuality on a societal scale. Does the popularity of depression make it right concerning human cognition and behavior?

I don't why you keep going back to this argument.
it doesn't make any sense.

the issue is whether or not homosexuals deserve equal treatment under the law. period. end of story.
it has nothing to do with definitions of normal, unusual, right, wrong, moral, or immoral. it has nothing to do with any of that, nor has it ever had anything to do with any of that. this is all just noise. it's noise and distractions from the reality of the issue.

and the reality is this: gays are here. they've always been here. they aren't going anywhere. they're just people.
let them get married. let them adopt. let them ride the roller coaster as long as they're tall enough...

I just don't understand why you keep talking if we agree on the principle.
I mean, whatever other point you're trying to make is hopelessly lost amongst convoluted distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad. it's unnecessary AND it doesn't make sense.

I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#499

Posted 15 March 2013 - 04:12 AM

I don't see the trouble in letting gays marry, it helps fight overpopulation, and homosexuality happens in other animals all the time.

WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#500

Posted 15 March 2013 - 06:27 AM

I'm a closet bisexual. A lot of people bring up the argument that sexual preference is a "choice". It's not. For my whole life, since I was a toddler, before I even comprehended there were sexual orientations, I've been attracted to both men and women. It was an inherent trait for me, I didn't choose it.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#501

Posted 16 March 2013 - 02:45 PM

QUOTE (3niX @ Friday, Mar 15 2013, 11:40)
And indeed I don't think theres any real (moral) reason for someone to actually like or accept homosexuality.

How about the fact that we should all be fee to choose our own partner, and to express our perfectly natural sexual attractions and emotional/intellectual connections without arbitrarily limitations?

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#502

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:56 PM

Well...

That sentence is closely tied to the preceding thought that you can't objectively say whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong. Because moral values aren't universally same and neither can they be objectively deduced to the same point from different core calues, we can't concretely say that homosexuality is moral/amoral.

However, that doesn't mean homosexuality can't be within a persons moral norms if they possess a certain set of values. I think its great that you have such values but it doesn't mean that everyone has the same vantage point as you. And theres no reason for them to be same.

Criѕtian
  • Criѕtian

    2K14

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#503

Posted 16 March 2013 - 10:49 PM

How can it be wrong if it doesn't harm anyone?
By that logic, we should try and justify masturbating and safe sex because they go against what nature intended as well basically.

Also, any "moral values" that deem homosexuality to be wrong can easily be debunked, and that makes them nothing but an opinion.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#504

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:09 PM

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, Mar 16 2013, 13:56)
That sentence is closely tied to the preceding thought that you can't objectively say whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong. Because moral values aren't universally same and neither can they be objectively deduced to the same point from different core calues, we can't concretely say that homosexuality is moral/amoral.

what the hell are you talking about?

homosexuality has nothing to do with right/wrong, good/bad, or moral/immoral.
they're just people. they're here, they're queer, and they're not going anywhere.

let them get married.
let them adopt.
let them do anything that you or I could do under the law.

period. end of story.
this is really simple. there's no reason to complicate the issue.

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#505

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:10 PM Edited by 3niX, 16 March 2013 - 11:32 PM.

Well...

QUOTE
How can it be wrong if it doesn't harm anyone?
By that logic, we should try and justify masturbating and safe sex because they go against what nature intended as well basically.

You see... thats where the problems start. You are looking at it from your personal moral ground. This often makes it difficult to acknowledge that other people have wildly different values. Indeed, your comment about masturbation and safe sex is a case in point because there are people who in fact question whether either of those things is moral (like Pope Benedict for example). Just because something seems moral to you doesn't make it universally so.

QUOTE
Also, any "moral values" that deem homosexuality to be wrong can easily be debunked, and that makes them nothing but an opinion.

I'd like to see you try. You can try to deconstruct values by looking for inconsistencies but other than that I think you'd just be chasing wind.

QUOTE
what the hell are you talking about?

homosexuality has nothing to do with right/wrong, good/bad, or moral/immoral.
they're just people. they're here, they're queer, and they're not going anywhere.

let them get married.
let them adopt.
let them do anything that you or I could do under the law.

period. end of story.
this is really simple. there's no reason to complicate the issue.

Actually, the issue IS sort of complicated when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality. And it is also relevant because not every region/culture shares your sentiment on the issue (you can find discord over it in practicaly every part of the world - heck, even inside families). TheJonesy actually provided an interesting perspective for this debate.

The question is about acceptance of homosexuality, essence of bigotry and conflict of differing values. Your current stance isn't too dissimilar from telling someone to 'suck it up'. And to be honest, you're not going to convince anyone with that approach.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#506

Posted 17 March 2013 - 02:16 AM Edited by sivispacem, 18 March 2013 - 08:46 AM.

QUOTE
How can it be wrong if it doesn't harm anyone?
By that logic, we should try and justify masturbating and safe sex because they go against what nature intended as well basically


QUOTE
You see... thats where the problems start. You are looking at it from your personal moral ground. This often makes it difficult to acknowledge that other people have wildly different values. Indeed, your comment about masturbation and safe sex is a case in point because there are people who in fact question whether either of those things is moral (like Pope Benedict for example). Just because something seems moral to you doesn't make it universally so.


What you've said there too is an assumption, well it's less of a moral assumption but it's not a fact and as such it remains an opinion. The facts are that generally homosexuality in general harms no-one, if you're into it that's your choice if you're not then you're not. It's really not a difficult thing to grasp.

Please don't say that that's my moral viewpoint because it's not, what it is in fact is a pure and simple fact. There can be no debating that homosexuality's evil or unnatural considering that every single species on the planet (other than the ones that don't actually bother to engage in sexual activities and go about reproducing in a different manner) is known to have homosexuality in it, therefore if you're judging homosexuality as being unnatural you're just wrong, and that's the hard truth of the situation.

Even if you were to make the argument that gay rape is a terrible thing I could say the same thing about heterosexuality, it's simply not justifiable to say that homosexuality is wrong. There's nothing you can say that'd make that a fact and that is not a matter of opinion, that is fact. You can spout whatever nonsense you'd like until the proverbial cows come home but it won't make it true, and that's what we should be focusing on, facts and nothing more.

QUOTE
Also, any "moral values" that deem homosexuality to be wrong can easily be debunked, and that makes them nothing but an opinion.

QUOTE
I'd like to see you try. You can try to deconstruct values by looking for inconsistencies but other than that I think you'd just be chasing wind.


You're joking right, whether the person likes it or not once you prove to them or anyone else really that their moral values are purely subjective and not fact it makes it an opinion. Opinions are something that as people we're all entitled to have, but that doesn't mean that we're right every time we voice our opinions, quite the opposite in fact as you'll often find people spewing out more sewage then a treatment plant but claiming that every last bit of what they've said is an irrefutable fact.

In short you'd seem him try and then very easily succeed at debunking the 'moral values' that claim homosexuality is a thing of evil and the like, and then the person who was yelling at the top of their lungs about how bad they deem homsexuality to be and why it's something you should avoid instantly has their so called 'moral values' rendered as their opinion and nothing more.

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, Mar 16 2013, 23:10)

what the hell are you talking about?

homosexuality has nothing to do with right/wrong, good/bad, or moral/immoral.
they're just people. they're here, they're queer, and they're not going anywhere.

let them get married.
let them adopt.
let them do anything that you or I could do under the law.

period. end of story.
this is really simple. there's no reason to complicate the issue.


QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, Mar 16 2013, 23:10)
Actually, the issue IS sort of complicated when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality. And it is also relevant because not every region/culture shares your sentiment on the issue (you can find discord over it in practicaly every part of the world - heck, even inside families). TheJonesy actually provided an interesting perspective for this debate.

The question is about acceptance of homosexuality, essence of bigotry and conflict of differing values. Your current stance isn't too dissimilar from telling someone to 'suck it up'. And to be honest, you're not going to convince anyone with that approach.


Alright this is were you lose me, no matter what you say or what you do there's no argument to be had here, whether some people have difficulty with accepting the truth or not it's their out in the open and clear for all to see. If you'll pardon the rather bad example, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink".

Just because people know something's true their backgrounds and life experience will make them view it differently to others, but while views may change facts remain the same. The growing acceptance of homosexuality's a good thing, and yes it can be complicated at times if you view at a more personal level but in reality there's truly no reason to not see the situation as El Diablo does.

To use an example of simple the situation really is I'll use a short snippet of your post:

QUOTE
The question is about acceptance of homosexuality, essence of bigotry and conflict of differing values


Then we're no longer discussing homosexuality but rather society in general, by saying that things get more and more complex and that there is actual complexity to the argument of whether homosexuality is a good or bad thing is completely idiotic. You end up discussing a much broader spectrum of things then what you originally set out to voice your thoughts on, in short this no longer remains a debate about homosexuality but rather society as whole.

EDIT: Quotes appear to be broken for me, but you get the point I'm making.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#507

Posted 17 March 2013 - 02:35 AM

QUOTE (3niX @ Saturday, Mar 16 2013, 16:10)
Actually, the issue IS sort of complicated when it comes to acceptance of homosexuality.

no. it's not.

the issue is simple.
you're making it more complicated than it needs to be on purpose. and I don't know why.

QUOTE
And it is also relevant because not every region/culture shares your sentiment on the issue

who cares?
that's beside the point.

we don't need the entire world to sign off on civil rights.
plenty of people didn't want blacks to be free. plenty of people didn't want women to vote. but we ignored them and did what was right.

there's nothing wrong with homosexuality that should prevent homosexuals from enjoying all basic human rights.
anyone who says otherwise is just wrong. that's all there is to it. I don't have to respect their "sentiment" just because it's different from mine. they're wrong, and I'm going to call them out.

QUOTE
Your current stance isn't too dissimilar from telling someone to 'suck it up'. And to be honest, you're not going to convince anyone with that approach.

news flash: they DO have to suck it up.
that's the point.

just like all the racist slave owners had to suck it up.
just like all the misogynist wife beaters had to suck it up.

I don't care if I convince them or not. that's not my problem.
that's the beautiful thing about progress.

progress doesn't give a sh*t if everyone agrees. progress doesn't try to convince.
progress continues to march forward. it doesn't stop to wait around for the ignorant masses to figure it out. they will eventually die off as their worldview is exposed for the bigotry that it represents.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#508

Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:42 AM

QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, Mar 17 2013, 06:56)
you can't objectively say whether homosexuality is morally right or wrong.

Well, that's essentially what I'm doing. Healthy expression of physical and emotional connections is objectively right. Putting arbitrary limitations on said expression is objectively wrong. I'd have thought the reason why were self evident, but to put it simply: the former leads to pleasure, love and support, while the latter leads to lavender marriages and countless suicides.

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#509

Posted 21 March 2013 - 03:37 PM

Well...

QUOTE
What you've said there too is an assumption, well it's less of a moral assumption but it's not a fact and as such it remains an opinion.

Quite possibly.

QUOTE
The facts are that generally homosexuality in general harms no-one, if you're into it that's your choice if you're not then you're not. It's really not a difficult thing to grasp.

Depends on how someone defines harm. There are people who think that homosexuals already have all the necessary rights and any further legislation will lead to moral decay of society. Do I agree with that? No. But it presents an interesting contrast in peoples views, which I find rather difficult to invalidate.

QUOTE
Please don't say that that's my moral viewpoint because it's not, what it is in fact is a pure and simple fact.

Facts can be based on empiricism or self-consistency. You can't empirically prove someones moral basis as factually right or wrong, you can only prove their consistency. A partial reason why Principia Mathematica was created was because of a similar issue arising in mathematics. Thid lead to such wonderful things as trying to prove 1+1=2.

QUOTE
There can be no debating that homosexuality's evil or unnatural considering that every single species on the planet (other than the ones that don't actually bother to engage in sexual activities and go about reproducing in a different manner) is known to have homosexuality in it, therefore if you're judging homosexuality as being unnatural you're just wrong, and that's the hard truth of the situation.

No, I'm not arguing it from that angle if thats what you're presuming or expecting. Words like 'natural' or 'normal' can become rather ambiguous anyway, so theres no real point in trying such an approach.
QUOTE
Even if you were to make the argument that gay rape is a terrible thing I could say the same thing about heterosexuality, it's simply not justifiable to say that homosexuality is wrong. There's nothing you can say that'd make that a fact and that is not a matter of opinion, that is fact. You can spout whatever nonsense you'd like until the proverbial cows come home but it won't make it true, and that's what we should be focusing on, facts and nothing more.

You are proposing arguments which I would never even intend to make. You are right in that whatever I say won't necessarily make my views (or someone elses views) right... but then again... that goes to you as well. Thats sort of the whole point.




I'm running short on time, so I'll have to continue this later.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#510

Posted 22 March 2013 - 01:44 AM

QUOTE (3niX @ Thursday, Mar 21 2013, 09:37)
There are people who think that homosexuals already have all the necessary rights and any further legislation will lead to moral decay of society. Do I agree with that? No. But it presents an interesting contrast in peoples views, which I find rather difficult to invalidate.

you're being very obtuse and I can't figure out why.

it's not difficult to invalidate to such a view.
here, let me show you.

me - "oh excuse me sir, do you think that homosexuals have all the legal rights and protections they need and want?"
him - "yes. they don't need or want anything else."
me - "you're an idiot and you're wrong."

see how easy that was?
it's not hard to call a Spade a Spade. and someone who thinks that the LGBT community enjoys the same rights and protections as you or I is an ignorant bigot. because they don't. they have gained a lot in the past couple decades, but this marriage equality issue is a big deal that goes deeper than just a wedding.

without a legal spouse, it's very difficult if not impossible to set up trusts, life insurance policies, living wills, or even to visit your loved one in the hospital in order to help make medical decisions for them. meanwhile, their bible-thumping family who disowned them for being gay is still allowed to come around and make legal decisions on their behalf.

but the partner who they spent 60 years with and shared their life and love with does not have the same privilege.
these are the facts.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users