The ethics of homosexuality.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Undecided, Feb 11, 2005.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Okay, I'll clarify. My argument wasn't to prove my position right but to prove yours wrong.

    And if anything you’ve strengthen my position, thank you.

    You stated before that Christians believed homosexuality unnatural and then attempted to prove it by animal evidence. I stated what most people really believe when they say homosexuality is unnatural, which, if true, means you began your argument on the wrong track.

    That argument doesn’t make any sense towards the end; I’m not even sure what you are trying to say. Christians believe that homosexuality is unnatural, because God says it is, not because it really is. That definition is without merit without proof of God’s existence. There are so many problems with the theory of God its hard to believe in him sometimes (I do), but I believe that since Jesus never spoke about homosexuality in the NT and since so many Christians ignore many of the value judgements in the old testament, homosexuality is about as valid as not cutting your hair.

    But, again, there is at least one difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, in that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex.

    You assume these people exist in the first place, which imo they don’t. There isn’t a homosexual or heterosexual out there, they choose which one they act on, or alternatively there are varying degrees of heteo/homo feelings.

    Whether this is a disorder or not, and how severe, depends on an individual's own beliefs.

    That’s absurd, one’s beliefs doesn’t change objective fact. Do you even know what nonsense is coming out of your mouth? If it’s a disorder, it’s a disorder no matter what the hell you believe. This is the KEY reason why hard core Christians and homophobes cannot be taken seriously, they are ignoring facts for what they choose to believe is true.

    After all, a similar case arises with pedophila. A grown man or women is sexually attracted to children. The general public calls this attraction a disease because the attraction seems to us dangerous and harmful. Homosexuality of course is not nearly as dangerous as pedophila, but the general form should apply.

    Pedophilia unlike homosexuality, or heterosexuality harms the children it goes against the harm principle, and even if the child consents to the sex the child does not understand what it really entails. Now here you are assuming that homosexuality is en par with pedophilia and not heterosexual sex, I make no such distinction because they are one in the same. All the nonsense you are saying is merely showing how indoctrinated you are by society, and its “moral” tenants.

    I don't see this going any where. Animals are different from us in many ways. They don't speak, they don't wear cloths, they don't have any code of conduct. Why muts what is natural to them be natural for us?

    Cloths? Whatever that may mean, I assume you mean clothes? That is also unnatural, there is a reason we have body hair, secondly code of conduct of course they do, although its not written its there, that is the instinct of survival, if that wasn’t there all animals would die. What is natural for them is natural for us because we are animals too, we are merely more advanced animals and we have animal instincts as well and repressing those leads to unnatural results, like homophobia. Also there is debate as to whether Whales, and Dolphins have a language…so let’s not be so egocentric to believe we are so different.

    Spain didn't kill 10's of millions in the Inquisition.

    I wasn’t talking about the Inquisition, and the Inquisition also shows how sick “Christian” morality can be.

    Hitler was originally raised a Catholic, but in his later years he was not a practicing catholic; in fact his regime persecuted the Christian church.

    He used our Christian God on numerous occasions to excuse his actions.

    So what? Read his interview in table talk. It was all a sham. He remained quite silent of his anti-christian beliefs , but it was only to wait for a politically opportune time.

    Sham or not, it shows how people use God when it fits them, like religious conservatives in the US, they are against Gay marriage, but for tax cuts that make people poor. Think about it…it’s all Bull Shit.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    By evidence is the prevalence of homosexual sex/actions by the majority of the population who claim to be "heterosexual". Since 70% of the population is doing both…without admitting it alas “not choosing it” imo there is no real distinction.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Athelwulf Rest in peace Kurt... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,060
    Undecided, good post.

    Perkele,

    What the fuck are you talking about?

    For example . . . ?

    . . . What?!

    Say that again in English, and without ignorant comments.

    You really don't know what ye'r talking about. Don't assign stereotypes to all members of the group.

    And there are better ways to comunicate yer opinion than making ignorant comments.

    Goths have just as much a right to be who they want to be as homosexuals do.

    They like being who they are! Who are you to talk?

    Thersites,

    Good. I'm in total agreement.

    okinrus,

    "Homosexuality is a disease" is somewhere in the Cesspool. How 'bout ya talk about this "disease" there?

    By the way, I'd like to see some argument that doesn't talk about this God of yers. Telling us that some god doesn't like it convinces us of nothing.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. I believe that homosexuality is no worse or different than S/M tendencies or Japanese schoolgirl fetishes. Some fetishes have victims and that makes them intrinsically bad. If no one but consenting adults are harmed it is no worse than smoking. A person cannot choose what excites them. They can choose what desires they act on.
     
  8. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,005
    Do I really want to know why?
     
  10. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    The OT doesn't even talk about homosexuality, only the behavioral aspects.

    Homosexuality wouldn’t exist without behaviour, so it’s a pointless point.

    Well, no. I'm viewing disorder as viewed by the individual. Like I said, if I was green and was happy about it, it wouldn't be a disorder to me, it would be to everyone else. Does everyone else beleiving it is a disorder make it a disorder? No.

    Then if objectively the fact that homosexuality is natural, and is not a disorder, or a disease, or anything but being a human then the problem is not with those who admit or accept their homosexual side, but those who believe bull shit nonsense and its completely illiberal if they restrict the rights of those who lean towards the more homosexual side of the spectrum simply because they believe in idiocy. The problem then is with society, and what you’ve been doing is saying the problem is with the sexually liberated.

    But if you care to view it by God's standard, or by some official standard, you might be make a farther reaching claim.

    I cannot waste my time doing that, I live in a secular liberal society which is ruled by rights for all individuals as long as they don’t harm someone else, it is immoral in our society if we deny people their rights for something they cannot control, and doesn’t effect anyone else’s rights.

    No, the harm occurs when a pedophile acts on his impulse. The condition of pedophile, so stated, doesn't really harm anyone else but the pedophile.

    It harms the child quite obviously, psychologically the child is not prepared for it, and it can’t understand what is happening to them. Also the child cannot legally consent to having sex, now from a Christian perspective (since procreation is the be all end all) pedophilia is acceptable as long as the female can give birth, and thus so is marriage. Anti-Gay activists never speak of the consequences of their ideals.

    We label the man who's attracted to a child as one having a disorder. We do so because we feel this attraction has the potential harms both the pedophile--he cannot enjoy a normal relationship--and the children around the pedophile.

    I don’t necessarily believe it’s a disorder until it is proven as such, until there is physical evidence of something seriously wrong with a pedophile’s mind, genetic code, etc. Also I would imagine pedophilia is much more widespread then we assume, which of course is a shame. The reason why pedophilia is wrong is because it harms the child, I don’t see how it harms the pedophile he is getting what he wants

    This judgement isn't based upon facts, but upon someone's values and view of the world around them.

    But again I must point to fundamental differences here on opinion one is based on fact and science, and the other on a book that was written by some men back 5000 years ago, and borrowed some stories from the Assyrians (if I am not mistaken Adam and Eve is really a Mesopotamian fable), so one is to be listen too and the other ignored. You as an individual can believe whatever the hell you want, the problem stems when you try to impose your subjective nonsense on all of society. With a liberal perspective what is being imposed is not some belief but factual.

    In any case, because this judgement is based upon values--not facts--your going to have a tough time making your case.

    I am making my case to people are rational, if you can’t honestly attack my position in a coherent secular manner then your beliefs no matter how deep are quite unfounded.

    These Tyrants do anything to remain in power, and sometimes they will even portray a false image.

    Bush does it all the time to stay in power; using God is perfect to manipulate the ignorant masses. God is on America’s side for instance is a great propaganda tool for nationalism, God and Politics go together because they both use each other so very well.

    I doubt rejecting the tax cuts would help the poor, though. The excess money given to the government would undoubtly go to fund more goverment programs, and most of this money will land in the pockets of the powerful backers of these programs.

    Who do you think got the biggest tax cut, it wasn’t the poor let me tell you that. And since the Gov’t is going to cut spending on education, and healthcare, and reform Social Security (so it better suits the rich) the New Deal and the traditional Social contract is going to the garbage, and the poor will suffer most.
     
  11. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Homosexuality can just mean same-sex attraction. There's no need to imply behavioral, just like not every heterosexual is sexually active.

    Well, the lack of gay marriage isn't restricting homosexual rights; it's retricting homosexual marriage too all US citizens.

    You live the US? If so, you live in a free society but not necessarily a secular one, depending of course on what you mean by secular. Each citizen and politician should have a right to practice his or her religion, or no religion, and make informed decisions--which do not break any laws--on basic of their religion or unbelief.

    No, it's not immoral. There are numerous of people-to-people relationships that we do not call marriage. Somehow or other they don't meet our definition of the word marriage. You believe gay marriage is marriage because of your values, I think. Likewise, someone else might believe gay marriage isn't marriage.

    A pedophile doesn't necessarily act on their impulse, and while you say it harms the child there are groups out there that believe otherwise. There's no single Christian perspective you've speak of. But traditionally churches such as the catholic church have an age, I think perhaps 16 or 18, before which you can't get married.

    You can say physical evidence; but really, you judge this evidence based upon your own values. You know pedophilia is a disorder because a pedophile desires to do wrong, and you, I might think, know his desire is wrong because of your values.

    Most pedofiles, I'm sure, don't like being attracted to young kids, but are forced to, some how or other by their minds.

    Adam and Eve resembles Gilgamesh a little, but not really. The flood story has Babylonian overtones, but most ancient cultures have flood stories, the native Americans do, and so I wouldn't be suprised if the two flood stories are unrelated.

    So did Kerry. Only Bush could do a better job of it: his social values were in the right ballpark.

    Well, as an issue, religious freedom is important, and I'd expect a president who cares more about his religion to care more about religious freedom. Of course, the opposite could occur.

    I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure the tax cut was proportional or a bit more progressive in nature. Not as progressive as Kerry's, but Kerry, you know, only kept the lower to middle class tax cut to appeal to middle-class vote.

    There're going to have cut someone's social security benefits, eventually, but there'll probably cut the benefits to the rich if they have too. Education is an entirely different issue. I don't know whether education cuts are going to matter. For teachers(at least those who care for their students and teach) whether they have money or not doesn't matter too much. New books don't make better students. Better teaching does.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 1, 2005
  12. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Homosexuality can just mean same-sex attraction. There's no need to imply behavioral, just like not every heterosexual is sexually active.

    I disagree to an extent, by definition one is nothing until one acts upon that impluse. Now sure you be attracted to one sex, or whatever but until you act upon that you aren't either, now acting upon it means everything from masterbation, to actual sexual intercourse, or suggestively looking at another. Merely having an attraction is not enough to make you what you think you are. Of course again I must stress most people are not clear cut homo/hetero-sexual.

    Well, the lack of gay marriage isn't restricting homosexual rights; it's retricting homosexual marriage too all US citizens.

    Its a restriction of basic human rights by a ignorant majority, and it must stop. Of course the lack of gay marriage is restricting the rights of those who have homosexual realtions, by definition, so your destinction makes no sense at all. Which is becoming a common occurance.

    You live the US? If so, you live in a free society but not necessarily a secular one, depending of course on what you mean by secular.

    I personally don't live in the United States, and my country is liberal enough to realize that restricting the rights of others when what they are doing harms no one (no matter what religious folk think, there is no evidence, empirically that it harms anyone) is illiberal and must be rectrified. The United States is a secular nation, meaning that the seperation of church and state is there, and as a result the influence of church laws cannot have any bearing on the laws of the state because that leads to prejudice as we are seeing here now.

    Each citizen and politician should have a right to practice his or her religion, or no religion, and make informed decisions--which do not break any laws--on basic of their religion or unbelief.

    You are again not making sense in the context of your argument, no one here denied the right of the individual to believe, what he believes personally. The problem is when those beliefs (not informed opinion) are made into public policy. They can follow the tenents of their belief, no one is denying that, if they think homosexual acts are immoral so be it. But one must draw the line when they try to impose that on society.

    No, it's not immoral.

    Yes it is according the most basic prefecture of liberalism, which of course is JS Mill's harm principle I will quote from Mill:

    If it does not abide by this liberal principle then it is indeed liberally immoral to prevent people from their rights. The United States is a liberal state, if it were a Christian nation then the laws of the bible imo would be permissable to be enforced. But the United States is not a religious nation, it is by its own definitions a liberal society, and should then live by it.

    There are numerous of people-to-people relationships that we do not call marriage.

    Like?

    Somehow or other they don't meet our definition of the word marriage.

    Your definition not mine, this is exactly the problem you believe that everyone thinks in black and white I don't. My definition of the word marriage is pretty basic:

    "The Union btwn consenting, of age individuals, whose union does not infringe on the rights of those involved in the union, or on society"

    Homosexual marriage does not, heterosexual marriage does not, pedophila does because it harms the child, and it leads to a breakdown of society by the child in later years not being able to trust society. Polygamy is imo ok, I don't object if your stupid enough to do it, and your an adult I have no right not to tell you not to do it. Now according to my definitions it is possible that a abusive relationship could be considered null and void because it infringes of the rights of those involved in the union.

    You believe gay marriage is marriage because of your values, I think. Likewise, someone else might believe gay marriage isn't marriage.

    But you must understand my values matter in a liberal society, if I were living in Iran then no my values are indeed useless. But according to liberal values, a liberal nation should allow people to marry if they do not harm anyone. My opinion in valid, a religious person's is only valid to themselves.

    A pedophile doesn't necessarily act on their impulse, and while you say it harms the child there are groups out there that believe otherwise.

    Empirically evidence suggests that children are mistrustful of others, have deep psychological scars, and even lets assume it is good for the child, the child legally cannot consent to the action. So again it is detrimental to the health of society.

    There's no single Christian perspective you've speak of.

    Tell me one that doesn't promote procreation?

    But traditionally churches such as the catholic church have an age, I think perhaps 16 or 18, before which you can't get married.

    If you could prove that it would be nice.

    You can say physical evidence; but really, you judge this evidence based upon your own values.

    No I don't, why do you think the world is run on values? What because I believe in liberal values I see green and you see red? No stop with this idiotic line of argumentation. What I am saying is if science tells me that yes x is a disorder, its a disorder there is nothing I can do about it. What do you think I am a Baptist? My values don't impede my ability to look at this as objectively as possible.

    You know pedophilia is a disorder because a pedophile desires to do wrong, and you, I might think, know his desire is wrong because of your values.

    Again firstly where's the proof for this? Are you just saying this because you believe this? According to Socrates a human being is incapable of doing wrong on purpose, a human being always does something good for either himself or someone else, if the consequences are bad that has little bearing on the fact the person did something because he thought what he was doing was good, selfish or otherwise. His desire is wrong because it harms the child, but I cannot believe that he is purposely being evil.

    Most pedofiles, I'm sure, don't like being attracted to young kids, but are forced to, some how or other by their minds.

    If that can be proven then we have a conversation over and done with, but until that is proven it is a mystery as to why the pedophile is doing what he is doing.

    Well, as an issue, religious freedom is important, and I'd expect a president who cares more about his religion to care more about religious freedom. Of course, the opposite could occur.

    Of course I disagree on this regard, a very religious president will try to push his religious perspective on others, so by definition religious freedom is trashed upon, it must be understood the atheism is also a faith.

    I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure the tax cut was proportional or a bit more progressive in nature. Not as progressive as Kerry's, but Kerry, you know, only kept the lower to middle class tax cut to appeal to middle-class vote.

    The tax cuts went disporportionately to the rich :

    http://www.bushtax.com/

    There're going to have cut someone's social security benefits, eventually, but there'll probably cut the benefits to the rich if they have too.

    But the difference is with private accounts the rich will actually GET RICHER, while people with small earnings are putting their cash into risky markets and could lose it all becaue they such little money to put in it would be hard for them to diversify like the rich can. Markets crash, and fall and look at the Enron people. Also if Bush's tax cuts didn't happen the US would be in a MUCH better fiscal position and if Clinton levels of surplus were kept Social Security would be paid for.

    Education is an entirely different issue. I don't know whether education cuts are going to matter. For teachers(at least those who care for their students and teach) whether they have money or not doesn't matter too much. New books don't make better students. Better teaching does

    Unless of course the text books says "Martin Luther King is an up and coming figures in the civil rights movement". Money to education does not only go to teachers, it goes into books, technology, better teacher training so better education for children, better schools, safer schools, smaller class sizes, more comprehensive education, etc. It is acknowledged by virtually everyone that the best asset a nation has is its education system, and cutting that back would further seal the fate of an already failing US economy.
     
  13. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Well, look deeper. The current situation doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Any given person one can marry. Only the situation with respect to two people do you have problems. But not any two groups of people can marry. No, problem, however, because our rights are framed towards the individual, not two given people. And what about those wishing to marry as a business relationships? There must be a point to which to draw the line, I think. Not any five, six group can marry either. The case for gay marriage, if there's going to be one, will be made as a pragmatic fashion: does extending marriage to gays improve society?

    Psychologists have stated homosexuality was a disorder; it's no longer consider a disorder. See, the scale they use to determine whether something is a disorder or not is not absolute. They change whether something is a disorder or not, if they change their scale. But this works for all fields of science. Just because some scientist states homosexuality occurs in nature, doesn't make homosexuality is right. We can make that conclusion only if everything that occurs in nature is right.


    The separation of church and state is not a complete separation, in that everyone must either avoid religion or that everyone must make laws uninformed by relgion; rather, no one must make laws infringing on someone else's religion. Any given citizen may inform is conscious by whatever religious or non-religious fashion he or she pleases.

    Well, procreation outside of marriage isn't endorsed. Neither is excessive procreation within marriage. Rather, couples in most of these religions are supposed to show restraint, by that I do not necessarily mean contraception. A consequence view of morality doesn't work for Christians. All things that happen are allowed by God, and so for any thing wrong I do and am allowed to do, there must be good consequences in proportion to the wrong. Practically anything wrong could be allowed if moral judgments were made completely by consequences.

    A distorted view of what is good. Whenever a human makes a rational decision, there's always a motive or force behind the decision. But I wouldn't say this motive is always good.

    Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, was the first to set out the principle of separation of church and state. He was quite a religious guy, I think, so the conclusion you've made doesn't really follow. If someone's religion tells them that all other religions shouldn't coexist, then it follows.

    I'm sure people will only be able to invest a small portion of their Social Security savings, and there'll likely be unable to choose what particular stocks. Right now, millions of people put their money in banks, and these banks make money investing their money. Bush's Social Security, I'm sure, will be a more direct form of this, where the individual will be able to keep most of the profit. The cost to start up partial privatization of Social Security might not be worth it, though.
     
  14. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Well, look deeper. The current situation doesn't restrict anyone's rights. Any given person one can marry.

    No they can’t the only marriages that occur now are btwn man and women, and at that singularly btwn the two. No one would recognize the other person’s marriage, so essentially it’s as good as nothing. The state cannot discriminate against individuals in their society if they are within the harm principle. So I don’t know what nonsense you are talking about because it isn’t making ANY sense.

    And what about those wishing to marry as a business relationships?

    This doesn’t happen? Green card marriages? Marriages to the boss’ daughter? I don’t care if that happens we have no right to tell those people not to marry, if they freely choose their relationships, whatever happened to responsibility in this society, remember God gave us free will to make our decisions, let people be free to do what they want. I know you have no right to tell them not to marry so I don’t see the argument.

    There must be a point to which to draw the line, I think.

    Of course when that marriage is detrimental to the individual, not done out of free will, or is detrimental society at large, otherwise hands off. Again homosexual marriage does not do any of these.

    The case for gay marriage, if there's going to be one, will be made as a pragmatic fashion: does extending marriage to gays improve society?

    That’s not a relevant judgment, the real judgement call is “restricting marriage to homosexuals, how depraved is our society?” Homosexual’s getting married is good for those two individuals, its good for the economy, and its going to be good for society, because tolerance would extend to all individuals. Let me ask you, all these arguments you are proposing to me were arguments against inter-racial marriage, has that destroyed society?

    Psychologists have stated homosexuality was a disorder; it's no longer consider a disorder.

    Because I doubt they had any scientific basis for that call, and once it was shown that no it’s not a disorder it isn’t. I am sure that white men who liked black women were considered sick, the reason why the designation changed was because that judgement had much more to do with a society that was ignorant about homosexuality, and like most people who are ignorant they are afraid of it, and discount its validity by saying “it’s a disease”.

    See, the scale they use to determine whether something is a disorder or not is not absolute. They change whether something is a disorder or not, if they change their scale.

    Or alternatives maybe they were just wrong before? Think of that?

    Just because some scientist states homosexuality occurs in nature, doesn't make homosexuality is right. We can make that conclusion only if everything that occurs in nature is right.

    What is right? How does society define what is right? By a liberal standard of rights, not morality like you believe it is. If what in nature is done harms another it is not right, if it does not harm then it is ok. Also when most members if not all members of society are to some extent homosexual, I would think twice about calling it “right or wrong” because your best friend could very well be a practicing homosexual be careful.

    The separation of church and state is not a complete separation, in that everyone must either avoid religion or that everyone must make laws uninformed by relgion; rather, no one must make laws infringing on someone else's religion.

    Firstly the separation btwn church and state is absolute it has to be, the state cannot be interesting in the beliefs of a religious group because that’s all they are, beliefs. The state has to protect the rights of religious citizens right to practice their religion without interference, but that’s it. The imposition of anti-gay laws is by no means a liberal law, it’s a religious law and it infringes on the rights of society. Secondly it must be understood that here in Canada churches are not obliged to marry homosexuals but the government cannot discriminate in civil marriages.

    Any given citizen may inform is conscious by whatever religious or non-religious fashion he or she pleases.
    Who said differently, you are having a different conversation here. I don’t think your getting it either.

    Well, procreation outside of marriage isn't endorsed.

    I didn’t endorse it outside of marriage, what I said sex from a Christian perspective has one prerequisite; The ability to have children Since the child of the age of 10 let’s say can have a child, it is well within the Christian doctrine to marry that child and have sex with that child. In order to have sex with that child you must be married, so these are the consequences of a Christian definition of marriage that goes unnoticed, or unquestioned.

    A distorted view of what is good. Whenever a human makes a rational decision, there's always a motive or force behind the decision. But I wouldn't say this motive is always good.

    It cannot be evil; a human being never does anything if he/she doesn’t feel that someone thing good will come out of it. Hitler killed 12 million people for a better life for the “Aryan race” sure the actions were evil, but were the motives, all Hitler wanted was the best. It isn’t distorted, the only reason you think so is because you think the world is white and black, and I am not that ignorant.

    Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, was the first to set out the principle of separation of church and state.

    He was not the first in the world, please…Voltaire was much more eloquent and most likely predated him.

    He was quite a religious guy, I think, so the conclusion you've made doesn't really follow. If someone's religion tells them that all other religions shouldn't coexist, then it follows.

    Well Bush show’s me right…

    Bush's Social Security, I'm sure, will be a more direct form of this, where the individual will be able to keep most of the profit. The cost to start up partial privatization of Social Security might not be worth it, though.

    Millions of people’s life savings are going to shit, if this goes through because the US economy is going into recession eventually its only when…
     
  15. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Undecided, in general, cannot know for certain whether something harms someone. That is to say, where does society draw the line between progressive taxes and stealing from the rich? Who decides whether an unborn fetus is harmed? What about harm that only comes into being in the future? It's too difficult to be the sole principle in forming ethics, I think.


    I'm speaking of the direct phrase "separation of church of state." It was latter used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. The phrase might have been used by some other figure before him, but I don't think so. Voltair was born in 1694. Roger Williams died 1683/1684.

    Possibly, but there's nothing that really could go wrong in their judgments. A disorder is really anything contrary to order or orderly. If they called homosexuality abnormal back in the 50s, it was because they throught it abnormal. Nowdays, it's not so they changed their position. But it's all really much based on their view of the world and the number of activists who tell them it's not a disorder.

    No, that depends on which Christian denomination/church you go to. Most have age requirements.

    Does the victim or the perpetrator decide what harms?

    Possibly, but I doubt he'd care if I said was wrong.

    Well, you have not defined good. Even harder, you'd have to categorically view a human being always doing something with the belief good will come out of it as good. Clearly this isn't the case. When Hitler decided to kill all those Jews, he should have doubted the process that arrived him there. He didn't, and I'd wager he did so out of pride. How could he admit that his logic was wrong? Many humans make decisions out of greed or pride.

    Our social security system will eventually go bankrupt anyway.
     
  16. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Undecided, in general, cannot know for certain whether something harms someone.

    Yes we can, according to the harm principle it is when there actual harm being done to someone else due to your actions, or their rights are being restricted by your actions. That is what is meant by harm, now can you show me this harm that homosexual’s obviously do?

    I'm speaking of the direct phrase "separation of church of state." It was latter used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter. The phrase might have been used by some other figure before him, but I don't think so. Voltair was born in 1694. Roger Williams died 1683/1684.

    Ok thanks for the useless info but what does this have to do with the argument really?

    Possibly, but there's nothing that really could go wrong in their judgments.

    Obviously something did if the community decided that it was not a disorder.

    If they called homosexuality abnormal back in the 50s, it was because they throught it abnormal. Nowdays, it's not so they changed their position. But it's all really much based on their view of the world and the number of activists who tell them it's not a disorder.

    No I think it was the other way around, the studies of the period showed that the amount of people having homosexual sex, or homosexual actions was so prevalent that the whole population would then have been insane, the only reason it was considered a disorder was because it was not thought of being so prevalent so to their minds those that are caught doing it are eccentric and of course something must be wrong. But nothing was, and there’s no evidence to suggest it is. Much of psychology I would imagine is based on preconceptions of what society thinks is normal, who is to say that heterosexual sex isn’t the disorder? I don’t believe it is, but that question is never asked because our society never thinks of that possibility, its always the other isn’t it?

    No, that depends on which Christian denomination/church you go to. Most have age requirements.

    Ok then source them to me, but there must be those without and even if there is the question must be posed is it a sin?

    Does the victim or the perpetrator decide what harms?

    Neither, an objective non-partisan judge does.

    Possibly, but I doubt he'd care if I said was wrong.

    I think he would, because how can you as a friend treat him like…well shit? I mean how can you treat him as a friend, as an equal, if what you think he is, is wrong? Would you associate with a murderer? Why associate with him if he is sinning as well? This is why you, and so many like you are hypocrites and the sexual equal vent of racists.

    Well, you have not defined good.

    Imo Good- if your motive is good it is good.

    When Hitler decided to kill all those Jews, he should have doubted the process that arrived him there. He didn't

    How do you know where you in his mountain house? Let’s not make wild assumptions here.

    and I'd wager he did so out of pride.

    Let most bets, you’ll end up losing don’t try it.

    Our social security system will eventually go bankrupt anyway.

    Not if you raise taxes, selectively give the benefits to those who need it not billionaires, and get the budget back in surplus.
     
  17. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    Homosexuals harm themselves, but I never agreed to this harm principle. Sounds wiccan to me.

    Roger Williams was a Christian preacher, and so the principle here was first phased by a Christian.



    Only something like 2% of the population is homosexual: more prevalent than some mental illness, but not so prevalent as depression.

    Yes, heterosexuality could be a considered a disorder.

    The Catholic church has age restrictions given by canon law. If a priest tried to perform an underage marriage there's a good chance the couple could have the marriage annulled. Whether it's sinful or not, I don't know. If the couple for some reasons didn't know the age restriction, their intentions would make this a mistake but not a sin, I think. If they did know, they have committed sins such as scandal or sacriledge.

    How is stating something is wrong treating a friend badly?

    People sin. I sin. Frankly, I'd want a friend to tell me not to do something bad.

    Hitler outlines his reasoning in some of writings he's done. But it shouldn't matter. If logic told me to kill millions of people, I wouldn't trust either the logic or the premises I'd used.

    Okay, at what point is the government "stealing" from the rich. If the government taxed the rich 100% of their income, wouldn't that be stealing? Bush reduced the taxes in order to provide economic growth. If Busraised taxes, he might stagnate the economy. If the economy stagnates the taxes will be higher but the money going back into the government will be less. Better for businesses to make more money and then pay more taxes to the government than for private citizens to pay more taxes. Greenspan spoke today. He thinks the US economy is doing okay, I think.
     
  18. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Homosexuals harm themselves, but I never agreed to this harm principle. Sounds wiccan to me.

    Oh I don't care if you don't agree with it or not, it has no bearing on its legitimacy in a liberal society. So I think I've proved my point, secondly homosexual sex is safe if you know how to do it, and for a man by design his anus is designed for in and for out, I would have to argue that anal sex with women is the greatest danger, and homosexuals can't do that, straight couples do. So really the highest risk sex is btwn a man and a woman up the ass, not two men.

    Roger Williams was a Christian preacher, and so the principle here was first phased by a Christian.

    ....and?

    Only something like 2% of the population is homosexual: more prevalent than some mental illness, but not so prevalent as depression.

    Sorry but I provided stats showing that 80% of the population has have homosexual experiences, secondly your position doesn't make anysense when 10% of the population admits they are "gay". So please don't lie...it doesn't bode well for you.

    Yes, heterosexuality could be a considered a disorder.

    Exactly my point, neither are because both are natural sexual tendencies within the population. You do honestly believe that people are exclusively homo/hetero? Please, that's nonsense, its like saying one is exclusively good and bad, its not happening.

    Whether it's sinful or not, I don't know.

    No its not, that's the funny thing because no where in the bible to my knowledge does it speak of age restrictions, but it does about procreation so according to logic a child can have sex, and be married once she is able to have a child.

    How is stating something is wrong treating a friend badly?

    Because it would be en par with you telling a black "friend" that he is stupid for instance, just because he is black. Again homosexuality (which I don't agree exists) but u do is natural then you telling him that what is doing is wrong would be the same as a KKK members telling a black person that their existence is wrong. I don't see the distinction, you are the equalivent of a racist b/c u are judging people for something they cannot control, and as a result you are the lowest form of human life.

    People sin. I sin. Frankly, I'd want a friend to tell me not to do something bad.

    Who says that what is doing is bad? I was debating with muslims yesterday about this very subject, now you tell me about "bad"

    The discussion revolved around the Islamic concept of punishing homosexuals for their actions. Punishing here means death, I asked people here in Canada who were muslim if they supported that, some didn't want to comment, and other's did. I said to those who refused to answer "well how valid is God's commandments even if you seem to agree it is immoral, this goes to the problem of whether what God commands is because its moral or is it moral because god demands it." Read the Euthyfro:

    http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

    If it is moral because God demands it, then anything could be moral. Like killing homosexuals...is that moral my friend?

    If logic told me to kill millions of people, I wouldn't trust either the logic or the premises I'd used.

    Hitler didn't want to kill the Jews, he wanted to kick them out of Europe, and since no one wanted them he had to (in his opinion) accept the conclusions from the Wansee conference to kill them.

    Okay, at what point is the government "stealing" from the rich. If the government taxed the rich 100% of their income, wouldn't that be stealing?

    No one is advocating stealing from anyone, what we advocate is sound fiscal policy. The US in a war, ask yourself who is stealing from whom? Aren't you stealing an economic future from your children because of your tax cuts, Greenspan says so:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/03/news/gspan.html


    Bush reduced the taxes in order to provide economic growth. If Busraised taxes, he might stagnate the economy.

    Bush tax cuts have provided short term growth at the expense of long term growth. I'd rather have a recession then a long term stagnation of the economy as Greenspan is saying.

    He thinks the US economy is doing okay, I think.

    Much like your 2% stat, you don't know what you are talking about.
     
  19. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    It's well known that the percentage of gays is estimated between 1% to 10%. The 80% figure seems distorted, and you have never explained the meaning behind "gay experience". http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

    Yes, heterosexual aren't sexually attracted to other men. No inclination whatsoever.

    Whether something is in the Bible or not doesn't automatically make or unmake whether something is a sin. But notice also that I didn't say the marriage was a sin. The disrespect to the sacrament, combined with the age restrictions the Church has placed on it, would likely make it sacriledge, if the participants knew of course.

    You're treating this more than it really is. Ciggarettes are bad, candy is bad. Here, physical harm takes place. In the same way, somethings we do are spiritually bad. Calling an action bad does not judge the person but the action. I can't just judge a person, or know the true reasons and mitigating circumstances why they'd do something.

    Like I said, the same problem arises when you attempt to determine what harms someone. Only by the natural law instilled within all hearts do we have clear view of what's "bad", and even then it can get blurry sometimes.

    Well, muslims will counter by either saying this the commandment doesn't occurr in the Qur'an but in the Sunni writings or in the Hadith, or by saying the context for which Muhammed said has changed. In practice however the law requires four or so witnesess. To actually be caught is quite unlikely.

    Bush's rationale, outlined on the whitehouse webage, shows that reduced taxes have historically been better over the long term. What I meant before was that Greenspan doesn't see the current economy in a crisis. The foreign debt to other countries was ok, he said.
     
  20. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Where are you getting that number from?

    Cite specific sources please.
     
  21. boppa Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    59
    But traditionally churches such as the catholic church have an age, I think perhaps 16 or 18, before which you can't get married.

    If you could prove that it would be nice.

    (quote from up there somewhere)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    there was this guy that wrote a whole bunch of plays ages ago-william somebody or other-some pommie from ages ago 1564-1616

    and he wrote some plays about his times

    `The church-sanctioned age for marriage was at a minimum 14 years for men and 12 years for women' from a website about this guy

    imagine that!!

    the church marrying 12 year old girls off

    hmm food for thought-do all these religious types really want to turn back the clock

    and why???

    sick puppies (tic-sorta)
     
  22. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    boppa, they updated canon law, somewhere around 1900s. Before, the age restrictions were fairly young; but remember, back then the life expectancy was about 30 years and children, loosely speaking, grew up faster.
     
  23. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    It's well known that the percentage of gays is estimated between 1% to 10%. The 80% figure seems distorted, and you have never explained the meaning behind "gay experience". http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_AIM_Talk.html

    Read my initial post I gave everything, even a breakdown of the figures, secondly that cite you posted only showed those who admit they are homosexual, of course those figures are deflated, it is not possible that only 10% of the population has feelings for the same sex, I gave you the stats, read my post again and don’t bother asking me this stupid question again.

    Yes, heterosexual aren't sexually attracted to other men. No inclination whatsoever.

    Exactly, that’s what the definition is but that’s just a word not a reality. The reality seems to suggest that most men are bisexual. What I wrote in the intial post again explains this, and you obviously didn’t understand or read it correctly.

    Whether something is in the Bible or not doesn't automatically make or unmake whether something is a sin.

    So then homosexuality isn’t a sin then?

    The disrespect to the sacrament, combined with the age restrictions the Church has placed on it, would likely make it sacriledge, if the participants knew of course.

    There is disrespect to the sacrament if the sacrament imposes no age limits, the only limit the bible places is that of procreation, if that can be achieved you can get married, and have sex.

    You're treating this more than it really is. Ciggarettes are bad, candy is bad. Here, physical harm takes place. In the same way, somethings we do are spiritually bad. Calling an action bad does not judge the person but the action. I can't just judge a person, or know the true reasons and mitigating circumstances why they'd do something.

    Smoking cigarettes is a choice, eating candy is a choice, homosexual sex is not a choice so much as it is a natural inclination. By definition homosexual sex cannot be wrong if our bodies are designed for homosexual sex, the anus for instance serves two purposes, one for feces, and the other for pleasure. If God intended us not to have homosexual sex then why by design would our bodies be made for it? If the anus was only to serve one purpose it would not need to feel pleasure, thus it is not possible for homosexuality to be wrong if we are designed for it, that’s why you are acting like a racist because you are reject someone based on something they cannot control. You can hate a smoker because he willingly chooses his choice but a person who has homosexual sex is naturally inclined to it and thus cannot be wrong.

    Like I said, the same problem arises when you attempt to determine what harms someone. Only by the natural law instilled within all hearts do we have clear view of what's "bad", and even then it can get blurry sometimes.

    Like I said natural law doesn’t exist, it is a individual interpretation and thus means nothing. The only laws that matter are those which are universalistic in nature, and really only liberal philosophy accomplishes that to any great degree.

    Well, muslims will counter by either saying this the commandment doesn't occurr in the Qur'an but in the Sunni writings or in the Hadith, or by saying the context for which Muhammed said has changed. In practice however the law requires four or so witnesess. To actually be caught is quite unlikely.

    Regardless, ppl are being killed for something humans do by nature, which also goes to show that sometimes God is more immoral then we are, which goes back to Socrates point which I am sure you’ve read.

    Bush's rationale, outlined on the whitehouse webage, shows that reduced taxes have historically been better over the long term. What I meant before was that Greenspan doesn't see the current economy in a crisis. The foreign debt to other countries was ok, he said.

    Well actually the biggest boom in US history occurred when Clinton raised taxes, and got the budget into surplus, and in the long run the biggest threat to the US economy according to the economist is the tax cuts.
     

Share This Page