Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

I know I'm going to regret this, but do know that I'm only asking this for the sake of logical rigor.  Premise X - Homosexuality is not a moral wrong.  What is the logical underpinning of that?

It's easy enough to find an unsound basis to dismiss any particular argument which takes Homosexuality as morally wrong in its underpinnings, but I've rarely heard it expressed the other way around.  I know the obvious rebuttal is that it falls to the accuser of immorality to explain it, but I don't think it's entirely safe to count morality as something that's given until proven otherwise.  Call it assumption of amorality until proven one way or the other.  If the first thing that comes to mind is that homosexual people were born that way and can't be called immoral for it, well, not only does that bring up Virex's point that it's the same argument that can't be used to justify rape or what have you, but just proving something is not immoral doesn't really say that it's inherently moral either.

Is homosexuality moral? Well it depend. Homosexual rape strike me as immoral for obvious reason, while a caring relationship being good for both partner and fulfilling strike me as moral for these reasons.

Homosexuality is neither moral or immoral, but a loving, caring relationship is always good.

One last thing, you don't have to justify morally every of your actions .Or you'll have a LOT of justifications to do.

[Leafsnail]

I think Criptfeind's got this one right (it could be problematic on skim reading though, since "amoral" has serious negative connations).  I'd say it's fair to assume that something's morally permissable (as opposed to "mandatory" or "right" or whatever) unless evidence of it harming other people is given.

[Phmcw]

Prime quality rage material

I'm not too sure of the source though, but there seems to be a bill proposition who may warrant an inquiry on any miscarriage that may be suspected to be an abortion. In Georgia.

[Bauglir]

I think Criptfeind's got this one right (it could be problematic on skim reading though, since "amoral" has serious negative connations).  I'd say it's fair to assume that something's morally permissable (as opposed to "mandatory" or "right" or whatever) unless evidence of it harming other people is given.

Although, to carry this reasoning further, I'd argue that it's morally "right" for homosexual people to practice homosexuality, because it improves the quality of their lives. Naturally, you have to keep the qualifier in because the morality of any particular action is dependent on the circumstances (it is moral to swing a hammer when it is swung into a nail that is part of the construction of a non-abusive orphanage, but not when it is swung into the skull of one of said orphans).

[Criptfeind]

I agree with Bauglir sorta.

People should do what makes them happy. If you make yourself unhappy then something is most likely wrong.

[freeformschooler]

I agree with Bauglir sorta.

People should do what makes them happy. If you make yourself unhappy then something is most likely wrong.

I don't fully agree, since doing something can make someone happy while making other people around them unhappy. I feel that if this is a natural effect of the thing they're doing (as in, they would be unhappy no matter what with the action, like an anti-gay group being displeased with someone being gay), that's fine, but not if the thing they're doing detracts from someone else's happiness, and that being part or the entire reason why it makes the first person happy.

[Criptfeind]

Meh. Shades of gray.

[alway]

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/437/old-boys-network
This week's first story from This American Life. The doctor in question is apparently still practicing. 

[freeformschooler]

Not really. Let's put it this way:

Cracking your neck to keep it from getting stiff makes you happy. However, someone finds the sound unpleasant, and thus this makes the person unhappy.

Stealing from someone makes you happy. The directly harms someone in a way that's intentional, for your own gain, and thus makes the person unhappy.

What is the difference?

[Knight of Fools]

Interesting - So, basically, homosexuality could be labeled as wrong if it detracted from someone else's life.

I just had an idea about why homosexuality could be fundamentally wrong in Christianity.  I'll try to explain it with the hopes that it'll be insightful rather than insulting or demeaning - It's an attempt to play along with the premise/conclusion game.

Family is a large part of most Christian communities, and even the teachings in the bible.  The ability to procreate is considered sacred, and so should not be abused.  If you believe that one purpose of a family is to give more people the opportunity to come to earth, learn, and grow (Assuming that our being here is part of God's plan), then homosexuality or even celibacy would be wrong.  If you also believe that families can continue to grow after resurrection, then even someone who doesn't have the ability to procreate in this life would have the responsibility to be in a position to be able to do so in the next; so someone who's sterile can't become homosexual by saying that they can't have children anyways.

This is, of course, laying aside the whole self-control and mastery of passions and desires bit, which is also a big part of Christianity.

In the end, whether or not homosexuality is acceptable is dependent on your belief in God and/or your view of the importance of a family and bringing life into existence, whether in this life or the next.  So, to most Christians, homosexuality could/should be seen as less of an act of rebellion as failing to acknowledge the importance of families and giving others the chance to come to earth.  Thus being a homosexual doesn't automatically make you an "evil person".

I hope that makes sense.  I didn't think about it too much - It sort of popped into my head.  I'm not going to claim ownership of or advocate the idea until I can think about it some more (And with school starting tomorrow, I probably won't have time to explain that, not to mention the inevitable misunderstandings :\ ).

And please don't take it out of context - I'm really trying to open up understanding by thinking about what could be causing people to detracting homosexuality.  I'm not trying to tell people that they're wrong and need to mend their ways - In fact, I'm presenting more of an idea than a personal opinion!  Whether or not it's the reason behind the belief that "homosexuality is bad" is still up in the air (To me).


Regardless of where my opinion goes, my previous statements on freedom of choice still stand, of course.  As long as something doesn't affect or harm me, I'm not going to get all worked up about it.

If you don't remember them or haven't read said opinions and don't understand the above line, feel free to browse around for them in this thread.  I think it sums up what a large portion of Christians think.

[Criptfeind]

Not really. Let's put it this way:

Cracking your neck to keep it from getting stiff makes you happy. However, someone finds the sound unpleasant, and thus this makes the person unhappy.

Stealing from someone makes you happy. The directly harms someone in a way that's intentional, for your own gain, and thus makes the person unhappy.

What is the difference?

Digress of differences, also known as shades of grey?

[freeformschooler]

Digress of differences, also known as shades of grey?

I guess it depends on the viewpoint, if you're insisting. I see it as black and white from a social context -- one is socially frowned upon at large, and causing direct harm/unhappiness (black), while the other is not frowned upon at large, and causes indirect unhappiness (white).

Alternately you could switch black and white and it could be the same deal.

I guess my angle is wrong since it's leading nowhere. What I guess I'm trying to get at is this:

I agree with Bauglir sorta.

People should do what makes them happy. If you make yourself unhappy then something is most likely wrong.

If say, stealing, makes me happy, then should I do that? Is self-happiness what you believe to be the most important deciding factor in what a person should or shouldn't do? I am genuinely curious since this viewpoint is baffling.

[Cthulhu]

I'm a proponent of "Do what you want to do, unless what you want hurts people or interferes with their pursuit of what they want"

[freeformschooler]

I'm a proponent of "Do what you want to do, unless what you want hurts people or interferes with their pursuit of what they want"

That's what I believe. Criptfiend here seems to be presenting an alternate viewpoint, one I would like to see more detail on, because perhaps it could be pushed into greater psychological and philosophical levels.

[Aqizzar]

As long as this thread is here for news, and gays make easy examples, I was wondering what might come up.  So here's one: DefSec Robert Gates tells the US Military, especially the Marines, that if you want to serve in This Man's Army, you don't get to pitch a bitch about what kind of men you're serving with.  Controversial stuff, but it's nice to see that America really does have a military leadership that respects enforcing the politics that they're told to enforce.  Civilian leadership and all.

I'm a proponent of "Do what you want to do, unless what you want hurts people or interferes with their pursuit of what they want"

You're a proponent of not taking a stand on difficult questions until asked of them.  Everyone believes what you believe, it's when the rubber meets the road that things get tricky, and you start having to decide what interferes with what, and what's going to win out.  That's the whole point.