Is being gay morally wrong?

Kerotan · 12-17-2007, 07:15 PM

Touchy subject... but then again what is philosophy if its not controversial?

none the less, I think that a philosophy section should discuss matters of such import, especially when a User named Cicero frequents this area of the forum regularly.

on with this post,

According (well as far as i know, he never thought about homosexuality, which helps this post, because it means he theory is less going to be affected by the views of Christian church at the time)to one of histories greatest philosophers, Immanuel Kant, using his moral theory, homosexuality is morally wrong because it universalises the axiom that (putting it simply) we should all have homosexual sex.

he would argue that this creates a contradiction, in that by everyone having homosexual sex, we fail to reproduce, no therefore in time can no longer have homosexual sex.

So using Kants moral theory, we have concluded that being (in Kants eyes) homosexual is wrong.

but where do you stand?, more importantly at this time, where do I stand?

really in answer to that, i have no real answer, none at least that can be justified.

my feeling currently is that Homosexuality isn't morally wrong, taking some morally liberal view, in essence live and let live.

So where do you stand?

Do you believe that homosexuality is against god?
Do you think that homosexuality is the preserve of the rich?

Lets hear it.

(also a little note, yes the poll is cool, but if you could vote and then reply even if you answer was Yes or No, because opinions aren't worth much not backed up)

monster · 12-17-2007, 07:29 PM

My morality is based largely on "treat others as you would like to be treated" and "no harm, no foul".

homosexuality per se neither hurts others nor is hypocritical. So live and let live I say.

As for the no reproduction argument -do we also apply it to anybody who's had the snip or uses contraception or has sex after the menopause? Kant through your interpetation sounds just a teensy bit Catholic to me.

Kerotan · 12-17-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster

My morality is based largely on "treat others as you would like to be treated" and "no harm, no foul".

homosexuality per se neither hurts others nor is hypocritical. So live and let live I say.

As for the no reproduction argument -do we also apply it to anybody who's had the snip or uses contraception or has sex after the menopause? Kant through your interpretation sounds just a teensy bit Catholic to me.

well Kant was from the 18th century prussia, and it would foolish not to think that Kants ideas may have been affected by the catholic church.

When i studied Kant another example was suicide, and how this was a moral contradiction.

here is a bit more information about what I am talking about in the OP, what I more or less refering to is the first formulation of the categorical imperative which is "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." from his book "groundwork of the metaphysics of morals"

SteveDallas · 12-17-2007, 07:40 PM

I've got the feeling there's some missing background here...

You state, almost as an afterthought, that you don't feel homosexuality is morally wrong.

You have cited Kant as an opposing viewpoint... but, given the entire history of philosophy and morality to choose from, you don't have anyone to support your viewpoint.

Why Kant? Why now? "Hey, I've been wondering about this whole homosexuality thing.. hmm... a tough nut to crack..... HEY! I know, let's pull down Kant and see what he says!!"

Pie · 12-17-2007, 07:51 PM

That only works if you assume Kant was anything other than a real pissant.

Kerotan · 12-17-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

I've got the feeling there's some missing background here...

You state, almost as an afterthought, that you don't feel homosexuality is morally wrong.

You have cited Kant as an opposing viewpoint... but, given the entire history of philosophy and morality to choose from, you don't have anyone to support your viewpoint.

Why Kant? Why now? "Hey, I've been wondering about this whole homosexuality thing.. hmm... a tough nut to crack..... HEY! I know, let's pull down Kant and see what he says!!"

Firstly,
all that I have made reference to is available to all, (Philosophers can't use a encyclopaedia or wikipedia, there is no hope for us all)

yes my feelings on homosexuality are a rather an after thought, and as I said i can't really justify my feelings or reference any philosopher who went on record and blasted out "man love rules ok".

above the live and let live system (which has always seemed to me as a withholding of belief) subscribed to by monster, I have no other justification of homosexuality not being morally wrong.

so why now you ask, wellity wellity wellity,

not being able to answer the question "what do you think of homosexuality?" seems to be a good reason, more or less i am seeking justification for a belief i believe in very strongly, but have little reasoning behind. (a little side note here about my belief system, I hold beliefs because they are true, or I hold my beliefs but i don't know why they are true, rather much like a child, which for a teenager is rather apt)
Also I think that philosophy needed more drama.

so why kant?

well I always knew about kants position on homosexuality since i studied him, i thought his ideas would be interesting enough to get a debate going.

Pie- you get extra points for the drinking song reference

Edit-my attempt at drama has failed because i can seem to find some evangelical Christians or any evangelical religious people for that mater.
We shall see.

Pie · 12-17-2007, 08:10 PM

Overpopulation is a problem.
Lack of procreation (in moderation) is a possible solution to overpopulation.

Ergo, lifestyles that are not traditionally associated with procreation have a moral benefit to humanity, or are at least value-neutral.

(This is how I justify my childless state to those who think such a choice is sinful.)

LJ · 12-17-2007, 08:15 PM

there are no morals

Kerotan · 12-17-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ

there are no morals

So what would I do if I raped your (metaphorical) sister, slept with your (metaphorical) mother and killed you (metaphorical) father?

how would you feel?

do you feel nothing?

should I got to prison?

Clodfobble · 12-17-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerotan

So what would I do if I raped your (metaphorical) sister, slept with your (metaphorical) mother and killed you (metaphorical) father?

Ha! I like the implication that his sister wouldn't be willing, but his mom totally would be. Almost certainly unintentional, but that's funny stuff.

Kerotan · 12-17-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Ha! I like the implication that his sister wouldn't be willing, but his mom totally would be. Almost certainly unintentional, but that's funny stuff.

I was tempted to put in brackets (because your metaphorical mum is a slut), but decided against insulting LJs metaphorical parents.

what is funnier?

me planing the implication or spontaneous implication as originally suggested?

piercehawkeye45 · 12-17-2007, 10:00 PM

How can homosexuality be morally wrong against anything but God? It doesn't affect anyone else and unlike some drugs, it isn't bad for you either. Wear protection.

Undertoad · 12-17-2007, 10:20 PM

Homosexuality has been proven to be biological in origin, so those who question it as a moral choice are on shakier and shakier ground these days.

LJ · 12-17-2007, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerotan

So what would I do if I raped your (metaphorical) sister, slept with your (metaphorical) mother and killed you (metaphorical) father?

how would you feel?

do you feel nothing?

should I got to prison?

yes yes...but not because of morals. that would be for violating their(metaphorical) rights.

morals are internal and subjective. i don't have the right to impose my morals on you. if you want to suck a dick, that's your business. the only morals that apply in a gay relationships are those of the cocksuckers.

Ibby · 12-17-2007, 10:47 PM

I believe not only that homosexuality is not morally wrong, I believe that it's really fucking awesome.

but seriously though, i actually have a little bit of a problem with monosexuality in general, be it gay or straight. Not like, a PROBLEM problem, but... something about it just strikes me as, wrong. I have trouble wrapping my head around it sometimes.

View Poll Results: Is being gay morally wrong?
Yes	6	11.76%
No	42	82.35%
Depends	0	0%
Other	3	5.88%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

12-17-2007, 07:15 PM	#1
Kerotan Half-Awesome Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 36	Is being gay morally wrong? Touchy subject... but then again what is philosophy if its not controversial? none the less, I think that a philosophy section should discuss matters of such import, especially when a User named Cicero frequents this area of the forum regularly. on with this post, According (well as far as i know, he never thought about homosexuality, which helps this post, because it means he theory is less going to be affected by the views of Christian church at the time)to one of histories greatest philosophers, Immanuel Kant, using his moral theory, homosexuality is morally wrong because it universalises the axiom that (putting it simply) we should all have homosexual sex. he would argue that this creates a contradiction, in that by everyone having homosexual sex, we fail to reproduce, no therefore in time can no longer have homosexual sex. So using Kants moral theory, we have concluded that being (in Kants eyes) homosexual is wrong. but where do you stand?, more importantly at this time, where do I stand? really in answer to that, i have no real answer, none at least that can be justified. my feeling currently is that Homosexuality isn't morally wrong, taking some morally liberal view, in essence live and let live. So where do you stand? Do you believe that homosexuality is against god? Do you think that homosexuality is the preserve of the rich? Lets hear it. (also a little note, yes the poll is cool, but if you could vote and then reply even if you answer was Yes or No, because opinions aren't worth much not backed up) __________________ Is it possible to go off topic in a Philosophy forum? Answers on a postcard please. Last edited by Kerotan; 12-17-2007 at 07:29 PM.

12-17-2007, 07:29 PM	#2
monster I hear them call the tide Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Perpetual Chaos Posts: 30,852	My morality is based largely on "treat others as you would like to be treated" and "no harm, no foul". homosexuality per se neither hurts others nor is hypocritical. So live and let live I say. As for the no reproduction argument -do we also apply it to anybody who's had the snip or uses contraception or has sex after the menopause? Kant through your interpetation sounds just a teensy bit Catholic to me. __________________ The most difficult thing is the decision to act, the rest is merely tenacity Amelia Earhart

12-17-2007, 07:51 PM	#5
Pie Gone and done Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,808	That only works if you assume Kant was anything other than a real pissant. __________________ per·son \ˈpər-sən\ (noun) - an ephemeral collection of small, irrational decisions The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.

12-17-2007, 08:10 PM	#7
Pie Gone and done Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,808	Overpopulation is a problem. Lack of procreation (in moderation) is a possible solution to overpopulation. Ergo, lifestyles that are not traditionally associated with procreation have a moral benefit to humanity, or are at least value-neutral. (This is how I justify my childless state to those who think such a choice is sinful.) __________________ per·son \ˈpər-sən\ (noun) - an ephemeral collection of small, irrational decisions The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.

12-17-2007, 07:40 PM	#4
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	I've got the feeling there's some missing background here... You state, almost as an afterthought, that you don't feel homosexuality is morally wrong. You have cited Kant as an opposing viewpoint... but, given the entire history of philosophy and morality to choose from, you don't have anyone to support your viewpoint. Why Kant? Why now? "Hey, I've been wondering about this whole homosexuality thing.. hmm... a tough nut to crack..... HEY! I know, let's pull down Kant and see what he says!!"

12-17-2007, 08:15 PM	#8
LJ i am myself Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: via blackberry, maybe Posts: 750	there are no morals __________________ Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show ... -C.Dickens

12-17-2007, 10:00 PM	#12
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	How can homosexuality be morally wrong against anything but God? It doesn't affect anyone else and unlike some drugs, it isn't bad for you either. Wear protection.

12-17-2007, 10:20 PM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Homosexuality has been proven to be biological in origin, so those who question it as a moral choice are on shakier and shakier ground these days.

12-17-2007, 10:47 PM	#15
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	I believe not only that homosexuality is not morally wrong, I believe that it's really fucking awesome. but seriously though, i actually have a little bit of a problem with monosexuality in general, be it gay or straight. Not like, a PROBLEM problem, but... something about it just strikes me as, wrong. I have trouble wrapping my head around it sometimes. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)