Is being gay morally wrong? - Page 4

classicman · 12-18-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ

do your morals change because of (the people) you move among?

Personally? No of course not, yours?

I was trying to create the situation where two different sets of moral exist and collide. What is the outcome of that? Where in the outside world one set is more prominent whereas in another situation the inverse is true.

(Sorry, I am having a difficult time explaining/describing this)

LJ · 12-18-2007, 10:42 PM

wrong is in the eye of the beholder?

classicman · 12-18-2007, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ

wrong is in the eye of the beholder?

not always though

smoothmoniker · 12-18-2007, 11:29 PM

LJ, I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to hit at is that invoking the idea "rights" means you're trying to introduce some governing principle into the interaction between two people. If someone is trying to kill me, saying "you ought not to do that; I have a right to live" and saying "I wish you wouldn't do that" are two very different things, no?

The appeal to "rights" says that something should limit the actions of others, something other than my preference.

If we can agree on that much (I hope I'm not presuming too much), then the next logical question is this: is there any good reason why we should call that external thing "moral"? It sure waddles and quacks like morality.

LJ · 12-19-2007, 12:08 AM

Quote:

any good reason why we shouldn't call that external thing "moral"?

I assume?

well, no...i guess not....

you're just pointing out that rights are based on 'moral' precepts? and so a violation of a right is a violation of a moral?

smoothmoniker · 12-19-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

you're just pointing out that rights are based on 'moral' precepts? and so a violation of a right is a violation of a moral?

And, by extension, that the phrase ...

Quote:

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

... doesn't make sense. If your sense of indignation is based on the rights of your mother and sister being violated, then it is moral indignation.

LJ · 12-19-2007, 10:13 AM

well, yeah....but the reason for the distinction....

you can violate my morals without violating my rights. I can get offended (passively) if you violate my morals, but violate my rights, and I'll defend them.....actively. If someone goes to jail for rape, they go for infringing on the rights of their victim...not for offending their morals. makes sense to me.

Spexxvet · 12-20-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LJ

well, yeah....but the reason for the distinction....

you can violate my morals without violating my rights. I can get offended (passively) if you violate my morals, but violate my rights, and I'll defend them.....actively. ...

Are you saying that you differentiate between morals and rights by whether you react passively or actively?

classicman · 12-19-2007, 11:03 AM

Thats an excellent distinction LJ.

Ibby · 12-20-2007, 01:58 AM

You're interpreting this wrong, under Kant. Even under his philosophy, being gay isn't morally wrong.
It's not about heterosexuality or homosexuality. It's about loving whoever you want, loving whoever it just feels right to love.

If everybody loves the person that makes them happiest, then everything is right with the world, as far as I'm concerned. That is why, EVEN WITH kant's philosophy, there is nothing immoral about being gay.

Cloud · 12-20-2007, 08:32 AM

Mercenary and PierceHawkeye: Not sure I agree that age has much to do with it. I'm older, and I never believed being gay was wrong. Not ever.

TheMercenary · 12-20-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cloud

Mercenary and PierceHawkeye: Not sure I agree that age has much to do with it. I'm older, and I never believed being gay was wrong. Not ever.

Well I may be going out on a limb here but there is certainly a subgroup of the population from the 60's and 70's who experienced a profound transformation and their views have not changed much since when it comes to how people relate to each other sexually. Then there is the other group, which I believe is the majority who did not experience the profound changes, and or who came after that time and religion played a bigger part of their lives. I believe it is this group who places moral value on many issues to include the issue of homosexuality. You are right though, age as a brod indicator may not have been the best choice to describe the differences. I do believe that older people are more interested in religion and it may play a larger part of their decision making when it comes to issues like this.

Cloud · 12-20-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I may be going out on a limb here but there is certainly a subgroup of the population from the 60's and 70's who experienced a profound transformation and their views have not changed much since when it comes to how people relate to each other sexually.

For me, it wasn't so much as a transformation, as original indoctrination.

LJ · 12-20-2007, 11:07 AM

No

Shawnee123 · 12-20-2007, 11:18 AM

Well, it is more mainstream now, for women anyway. Look at the proliferation of girl on girl in things like Girls Gone Wild. If I were a lesbian, I would be offended by pretend lesbians who just think it makes them sexy, and gets them attention from males, so use the alternative lifestyle to raise a couple boners. How vapid.

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

12-18-2007, 10:42 PM	#2
LJ i am myself Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: via blackberry, maybe Posts: 750	wrong is in the eye of the beholder? __________________ 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

12-18-2007, 11:29 PM	#4
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	LJ, I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to hit at is that invoking the idea "rights" means you're trying to introduce some governing principle into the interaction between two people. If someone is trying to kill me, saying "you ought not to do that; I have a right to live" and saying "I wish you wouldn't do that" are two very different things, no? The appeal to "rights" says that something should limit the actions of others, something other than my preference. If we can agree on that much (I hope I'm not presuming too much), then the next logical question is this: is there any good reason why we should call that external thing "moral"? It sure waddles and quacks like morality. __________________ to live and die in LA Last edited by smoothmoniker; 12-18-2007 at 11:30 PM. Reason: invoke -> invoking

12-19-2007, 10:13 AM	#7
LJ i am myself Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: via blackberry, maybe Posts: 750	well, yeah....but the reason for the distinction.... you can violate my morals without violating my rights. I can get offended (passively) if you violate my morals, but violate my rights, and I'll defend them.....actively. If someone goes to jail for rape, they go for infringing on the rights of their victim...not for offending their morals. makes sense to me. __________________ 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

12-19-2007, 11:03 AM	#9
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Thats an excellent distinction LJ. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

12-20-2007, 01:58 AM	#10
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	You're interpreting this wrong, under Kant. Even under his philosophy, being gay isn't morally wrong. It's not about heterosexuality or homosexuality. It's about loving whoever you want, loving whoever it just feels right to love. If everybody loves the person that makes them happiest, then everything is right with the world, as far as I'm concerned. That is why, EVEN WITH kant's philosophy, there is nothing immoral about being gay. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

12-20-2007, 08:32 AM	#11
Cloud ... Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,360	Mercenary and PierceHawkeye: Not sure I agree that age has much to do with it. I'm older, and I never believed being gay was wrong. Not ever. __________________ "Guard your honor. Let your reputation fall where it will. And outlive the bastards!"

12-20-2007, 11:07 AM	#14
LJ i am myself Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: via blackberry, maybe Posts: 750	No __________________ 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

12-20-2007, 11:18 AM	#15
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Well, it is more mainstream now, for women anyway. Look at the proliferation of girl on girl in things like Girls Gone Wild. If I were a lesbian, I would be offended by pretend lesbians who just think it makes them sexy, and gets them attention from males, so use the alternative lifestyle to raise a couple boners. How vapid.

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