This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Homosexuality General Discussion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Jubilee
Your opening post is a direct address at MyTie. And in any event, knowing this forum, this sort of topic is religious flame-bait anyway. If morals are subjective, then this topic doesn't serve any purpose. If they're objective, then what we're really disagreeing about is the context of our objectivity.
I started off by stating that the topic is about the morality of homosexuality. I then cautioned that this might turn into a religious dabate, but that we can give it a go anyways to see. I then jump started the discussion by replying to the specific post that prompted me to make the thread, which as it happens falls under the religious heading. I then proceeded to have a bit of a conversation with him, and answer a few points about using biology as the norm with some other people.
I went ahead and described all that because I'm not totally sure what I did wrong. Is the thread title the only thing wrong? I'll change it if it's a problem, but I was hoping for exactly what it said, a discussion on the morality of it.
Finally, isn't that the case for every debate thread ever? If things are subjective, we're yelling at brick walls. If things are objective, our principles are different. That doesn't stop us from having a ration discussion about the topic. I learned quite a bit about MyTie from his answer, so whatever else this thread becomes, it was completely worth making as far as I am concerned.
Post by
Squishalot
Jubilee, have you ever heard of a non-religious
moral
argument against homosexuality?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Jubilee
I have. They generally follow a philosophical line of reasoning involving the nature of physical relations and their place in the love between two people, and how such love is impaired if the physical aspect is impaired. I'm still a little confused though. Whether I have heard an argument before or not shouldn't have any bearing on my willingness to entertain such an argument if someone choose to bring it forth. Are you just discussing this as a fellow poster or are you telling me something's wrong as a mod? I don't want to argue if this is a modding issue, I'll change what needs to be change, just say so, or you can change it yourself.
Post by
Squishalot
As a fellow poster, though I think from a moderator's perspective, there is little utility in this thread above and beyond the other dozen homosexuality threads we've got. I'm hoping to be convinced otherwise though.
The reason I ask if you've heard of one is that I don't want yet another thread to turn into yet another religion vs non religion argument, which is the path that it's going.
Post by
MyTie
Your opening post is a direct address at MyTie. And in any event, knowing this forum, this sort of topic is religious flame-bait anyway. If morals are subjective, then this topic doesn't serve any purpose. If they're objective, then what we're really disagreeing about is the context of our objectivity.
I disagree, Squish. If morals are subjective, this topic offers to influence the minds of the ones discussing the topic, due to the influence of the peers. If morals are objective then the context of the objectivity IS the point. Anyway, the same points can be made against the discussion of any moral topic, but that doesn't mean moral topics shouldn't be discussed.
Post by
MyTie
The reason I ask if you've heard of one is that I don't want yet another thread to turn into yet another religion vs non religion argument, which is the path that it's going.
Any topic on society can burn down to this singularity.
Oh, and here is another angle: If morals are subjective what is their value beyond feeling? I feel like feeling, therefore I feel? Is feeling good an end all? I feel much more comfortable within boundaries and given purpose. If I give myself purpose, then my purpose dies with me, and is meaningless beyond myself.
Edit: I guess what I am saying is that establishing the objectivity of right and wrong is the first step toward defining morality. Without that, the holocaust is as meaningless as making breakfast.
Post by
Skreeran
@MyTie:
I think that thinking of Objective and Subjective as an on-off switch isn't necessarily correct. On a human scale, is murder objectively wrong? I would say that for all practical purposes it is, because nearly all human cultures accept that it is wrong, and it is more or less hard-wired into our brains to believe that murder is wrong. Human morality, derived from millions of years of evolution, dictates that murder is wrong, because it hurts people who don't deserve it. However, on a cosmic scale, I think that murder is not objectively wrong, because the universe is indifference to human behavior and life itself. The only cosmically objective laws are the laws of physics.
I'm going to try to avoid getting into a religious argument, because that won't get anywhere in this thread and you all know my views anyway.
Let me say this:
People with religious objections to homosexuality: Live and let live. No one is harmed by homosexuality. If there is no victim, then don't worry about it, and let God sort it out in the end. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that. If no one is hurt, then you shouldn't have to intervene. You live your life, and let them live theirs, unless you think it would be fair for someone else to force you to conform to
their
moral standards.
People with biological objections to homosexuality: You're just making excuses. Hundreds of things aren't biologically optimal. Evolutionarily, masturbation is an imperfection. Evolutionarily, condoms are counter-intuitive. Evolutionarily, if a woman has a defected baby, she is best off eating it to recoup some of her investment and give her a better foundation to have stronger babies (I'm not making this up, either; in mammals who give birth to several children at a time, it's not uncommon for the mother to eat the runt so she can produce more milk for the stronger babies).
There are too many humans on Earth. There is a natural cure for overpopulation, and that is starvation. Once a population goes beyond its environment's carrying capacity, there is not enough food to go around, and people die slow deaths from not having enough to eat. This is simple biology. If we follow the evolutionary path, we will consume this planet like locusts.
I sincerely hope that we're smart enough as a species to realize that we have to use our big, specialized human brains to make decisions about how to preserve the human race, instead of just blindly following instinct.
With that in mind, don't tell people that they can't be in love because they can't make babies.
Post by
MyTie
@MyTie:
I think that thinking of Objective and Subjective as an on-off switch isn't necessarily correct. On a human scale, is murder objectively wrong? I would say that for all practical purposes it is, because nearly all human cultures accept that it is wrong, and it is more or less hard-wired into our brains to believe that murder is wrong. Human morality, derived from millions of years of evolution, dictates that murder is wrong, because it hurts people who don't deserve it. However, on a cosmic scale, I think that murder is not objectively wrong, because the universe is indifference to human behavior and life itself. The only cosmically objective laws are the laws of physics.
So you determine objectivity of right and wrong by looking at what culture accepts? or by evolution?
If culture defines right and wrong, then the holocaust was the right thing to do because the vast German culture accepted it. Saying that objectivity can be found within people's subjective opinion is to miss the point of objectivity.
Evolution supports murder as a natural thing. Strong conquer the weak.
I've thought long and hard about it. The only source I can think of for objective right and wrong is religion.
Post by
donnymurph
The only source I can think of for objective right and wrong is religion.And what of religions other than Christianity?
Post by
MyTie
The only source I can think of for objective right and wrong is religion.And what of religions other than Christianity?
That is the next logical question, yes. I answered it before, twice, on wowhead.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
donnymurph
And we're supposed to read all your posts to get the answer?
Post by
Skreeran
Evolution supports murder as a natural thing. Strong conquer the weak.You, my friend, should read some Dawkins. ;) He's one of the best minds in his field (evolutionary biology), and he's gone over the evolutionary origins of human morality several times. The Selfish Gene is an especially good read.
Anyway, my point is that there are many moral concepts that are practically universal throughout humanity. Those concepts I consider "objective" on a human scale, because nearly all humans hold them.
On top of that, even considering that all subjects of morality are subjective in a cosmic sense, by no means does that mean "the holocaust is as meaningless as making breakfast."
Subjectively, I like waffles more than pancakes. Also subjectively, I think that men and women should have equal rights. Those are both subjective opinions that I hold, but I don't consider them to be equal in magnitude.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in
truly
objective morality. And yet I still find the Holocaust atrocious. Why? Because I have a belief that killing is wrong that is based on a desire to prevent harm that stems from empathy that came about through evolution in early hominid communities where most of the people an individual knew were related to him or her.
I've thought long and hard about it. The only source I can think of for objective right and wrong is religion.Good for you? I could say that I based my morals solely on the doctrines of Little Red Riding Hood, and have commandments that stated "Thou shalt stay on the path" and "Don't talk to strangers", but it's not really impressive to someone who doesn't share my beliefs.
Edit: Note that I'm still not trying to get into a debate about religion itself. I'm just saying that saying "We should all do this because my religion says so," is not a very convincing argument to me.
Post by
Atik
Edit: I guess what I am saying is that establishing the objectivity of right and wrong is the first step toward defining morality. Without that, the holocaust is as meaningless as making breakfast.
Several thousand corn pops died to feed my apitite this morning. We should mourn their loss for years to come and have me labeled as a truely evil person.
Post by
MyTie
And we're supposed to read all your posts to get the answer?
No. However, I've already gone down this road and would like to sit out and see what other conclusions people come to.
Post by
MyTie
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in
truly
objective morality. And yet I still find the Holocaust atrocious. Why? Because I have a belief that killing is wrong that is based on a desire to prevent harm that stems from empathy that came about through evolution in early hominid communities where most of the people an individual knew were related to him or her.
What about someone who thinks that the holocaust was a good thing? What about their subjective opinion that
religion
evolution has led them to?
Post by
xaratherus
Either a god or gods exist, and we have an objective morality*, or they don't, and morality is subjective - or possibly something else, I really am too tired and (for once) hung over to offer up a way out of what's probably a false dichotomy. I subscribe to the latter, mostly because I find far too many contradictions in all the gods that I've thus read of.
For those arguing that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, that's a very presumptuous argument. Where's your evidence that it doesn't serve some evolutionary purpose that we just haven't discovered yet?
For those arguing that love/eros serves the purpose of procreation, you're right - but you're wrong in claiming that it is the only purpose it serves; there's a lot of scientific data on the various positive adjustments of body chemistry that occur because of sex. There are multiple medical studies, for instance, that show that a regular sex life, or regular masturbation, has a positive impact on many of your bodies functions and organs.
To Atik: I mourn your Corn Pops, and I will open a museum in remembrance tomorrow, if I remember.
Those who have seen me around on the community know that I am gay, and thus I'm staying mostly out of this debate. To me, trying to convince me that my sexuality makes me immoral would be as useful as me trying to convince you that the color of your hair makes you immoral.**
*This statement, of course, assumes that I'm using the word 'god' to mean some sort of creator being who would continue to have an interest in us and would be willing and able to judge our actions. There are schools of theistic thought out there that state a creator being could have just as easily created us and then gone off to do something else. Based on the Epicurean problem of evil, this type of creator deity makes far more sense than the 'personal' deities of most mainstream religions.
**And no, I do not really accept claims that there are 'ex-homosexuals'. The APA and the AMA have stated since declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in the 70s that sexuality in some people is a fixed characteristic, but in others it is a fluid characteristic. An "immutable homosexual" might become a healthy celibate, but cannot become a healthy heterosexual.
Post by
Adamsm
What I find amusing is that homosexuality is a 'sin' but being bi-sexual isn't.
That said, other then one passage in the Bible(which, let's be honest, has been altered so many times in the last few thousand years that it is merely a story book at this point) which says man who lies with man is a sin(paraphrased); for the most part it doesn't really say much else on the subject.
Biology also will play a large part of this, since homosexual coupling exists in the natural world...so, again, unless God Itself is wrong here, I don't see it as being an actual moral quandary.
And to end it up: I don't give a flying %^&* if Adam and Steve live together, screw together and raise a child together, since it's none of my damn business in the first place.
These are the views of a singular person, and one who follows his own religious beliefs about 'Do what you will, but harm none'.
Post by
gnomerdon
I support gays, but I don't want them anywhere near me, near my kids, near anything related with me. That's just how I am.
edit: does that make me hypocritical?
Post by
MyTie
What I find amusing is that homosexuality is a 'sin' but being bi-sexual isn't.Bi sexual is two sexualities, one of which is a sin, so how can you say that it isn't a sin? That's like saying murder is a sin, but murder while your eating ice cream isn't even mentioned in the Bible.That said, other then one passage in the Bible(which, let's be honest, has been altered so many times in the last few thousand years that it is merely a story book at this point) which says man who lies with man is a sin(paraphrased); for the most part it doesn't really say much else on the subject.The Bible has a lot to say about relationships and the way they work. As for it being altered over the last two thousand years... not really. Most Bibles (there are some who are altered to mean what they didn't originally mean) are direct translations from Greek texts written in the first century AD. You can actually still read the Greek words that were used. I do, on occasion, just to make sure my Bible is accurate to the original meaning.Biology also will play a large part of this, since homosexual coupling exists in the natural world...so, again, unless God Itself is wrong here, I don't see it as being an actual moral quandary.Just because something occurs naturally doens't mean God approves of it. Consider murder, for instance. It does occur in the animal kingdom. Ever seen meercat manor? That show was all about drama and murderous meercats (devious little things).And to end it up: I don't give a flying %^&* if Adam and Steve live together, screw together and raise a child together, since it's none of my damn business in the first place.Me neither. It isn't any of my business. If they don't want to hear what I think about the situation, I'll keep it to myself.These are the views of a singular person, and one who follows his own religious beliefs about 'Do what you will, but harm none'.Wise words. It's nice to see another gentle soul out there.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.