roadkill

Philosphoically is Homosexually wrong?

Its their choice to be that way, but they can't reproduce. According to our government its wrong but, they are makeing choices for people who aren't being equally represented. (By our country I mean America; I sadly don't know enough about the world to be speaking on their behalf.)

So is it morally ok to be homosexual?

MageB420666

Well, that depends on your moral viewpoint. From my moral standard it is ok to be homosexual, but from others it may not be. Morals change from person to person, there is no standard code of morality.

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

irateplatypus

i hate to take this into Tilted Politics type stuff... but it must be pointed out that US government makes no judgement whether or not homosexuality is wrong. the state cannot make moral judgements, only determine whether an act is lawful or not. a legal act is "right" within the context of the state... and illegal one is "wrong". homesexuality is not unlawful. thus, the state makes no judgements on the right or wrongness of the act.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

MageB420666

Well, actually many states do have anti-homosexuality laws. many are in the form of stating what positions and orifices are legal and illegal, I know that in Tennessee, or maybe it's just Knox county, it is illegal to have oral sex. I do no that many states have anti-sodomy laws. I don't know what laws are in place for lesbian sex.

So it may not be illegal for you to be a homosexual, but in many states it is illegal for you to practice that homosexuality.

I'm not saying that people abide by these laws, I'm just saying that they are there, and it's not just limited to banning gay marriages

__________________
Apathy: The best outlook this side of I don't give a damn.

The Phenomenon

For me, personally, being homosexual is wrong. But its not for me to say whether its right or wrong for other people, its their responsibility, not mine.

roadkill

sorry I wasen't clear I ment in the contex of marrage; and I'm trying to keep this out of politics, just hypithitocals.

Journeyman

Best as I can tell, when it comes to morals you may have to hit up a religion. You can read the bible word for word and come to the conclusion that homosexuality is detestable in the eyes of the lord, or you can take a figurative approach to the big book and figure homosexuality to be a gift from god to the orphans of the world: People who can't reproduce (naturally) but still couple together and desire to raise children.

Personally I hold dear to the second idea. Strange how the people who want to consitutionally criminalize gay marriage are the same people who want to criminalize abortion (ie marching in a legion of Oliver Twists to the world).

irateplatypus

that's unfair. those people would tell you that they wouldn't want a monster in their closet OR under their bed. instead, they take the third unstated choice, they choose "no monster" (if you catch my meaning). i.e. they choose no homosexual marriage and no orphans... sexuality being intended for the institution of marriage alone.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

itch vaccine

In a study made by a psychologist, homosexuality is just an immaturity. Homosexuals will eventually become heterosexuals overtime.

But I beg to differ though. Hmm.. I'll look for the site and post it up here.

brianna

Frankly i don't see how one can call someone's sexual preference immoral, i think we should be less willing to look down on something that an individual cannot change (and for those of you who are still holding on to the belief that sexuality is a choice i assume that you could easily and willingly choose to enjoy sex with either gender.).

I see no difference between homosexuality and interracial marriage and prohibiting either is nothing short of bigotry.

Actually all of these laws were effective rendered unconstitutional last year when the Supreme court ruled on the sodomy case in texas.

irateplatypus

you're grossly oversimplifying.

first of all, there are many people who have no qualms with homosexuality but maintain that the institution of marriage is something separate. are these people biggots because they won't change the label of an institution as old as civilization to suit the current political climate?

secondly, the bigot word is thrown around too much these days. just because someone condemns something that you do not does not make them a bigot necessarily.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

It certainly has been a while since we had one of these gay threads, hasn't it?

I've heard the "marriage as a seperate institution" argument before. What i haven't heard is a logically sound basis for this argument. You can't argue for it from a sense of tradition, because the only traditional aspect of marriage is the fact that every society defines marriage differently depending on what is convenient for them. Marriage has traditionally been a transfer of property. Marriage has traditionally been the only means by which to have righteous sex. Marriage has traditionally been a means of subjugating the rights of women. Marriage in america is, mostly, none of these things. How can it be traditional?

The argument could be made for the seperation of marriage and gay on the basis of biology. Two guys can't have a kid, right? To be consistent though, you would have to advocate a fertility test be included in the prerequisites for getting a marriage licence to make sure only those who could actually bear children are allowed to marry. Which is completely fucking absurd.

brianna

i don't think i am. before the civil rights movement a large majority of americans were against interracial marriage, it was seen as immoral and dangerous and the bible was often used to justify this belief. i fail to see a difference between this and the current resistance to gay marriage. in both cases you have a bunch of people who are afraid of change (And i don't blame them, change is scary) and who are butting into other people's bedrooms in order to stop it. who someone else chooses to love or fuck is none of your business and it does not effect your life.

irateplatypus

filtherton,

that is a sophistic twist on the argument of tradition. it's logically inconsistent to say that because marriage isn't exactly the same for all people at all times... therefore it follows that it is perfectly acceptable that it become something it has never been before. ludicrous.

the argument of tradition has relevance. there are many things that marriage is, and many things that it has been. at all times the constant has been a contract between a man and woman. this is the elemental essence of marriage. to change that isn't to add another wrinkle to the equation, it is to change the fundamental foundation of it.

when that happens, you no longer have the thing you start with... you have a brand new institution that the previous idea cannot include.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

irateplatypus

this is interesting. i think you're on a slippery slope here. you seem to be saying that we know homosexual marriage to be a normal extension of marriage based on the fact that interracial marriage was once frowned upon and is now widely accepted, is that correct?

if so, then were do we stop? if we take a prior moral change in an institution and base our acceptance of subsequent moral issues on the grounds that the previous one worked... then all moral changes must be changes for the better. the logical conclusion of this reasoning is that all change must be good because a previous change was good. this leads us furthur down the road because it necessarily entails that the ideal is that all things must be acceptable at all times. i do not buy this and i'll wager that you do not either.

i think it's far more practical to take each moral question by itself. just because a previous moral issue was resolved doesn't follow that all subsequent ones are just an open mind away from being right.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

asaris

Philosophically? No, philosophically, there is nothing wrong with gay marriage. I object to it on religious grounds, but for precisely that reason, I think it's the biggest civil right debacle of our time. On the other hand, I would object if the state required churches to marry homosexual couples. Of course, since no one is suggesting that...

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

zen_tom

You have to first ask what is the philosophical purpose of marriage, and then decide whether same-sex marriage fulfills, supports or otherwise maintains that purpose.

Of course, your answer to the first question depends on your own personal philosophy...What is your own personal philosophy? What in your view is the nature, or purpose of marriage?

brianna

no that's not what i'm saying. i'm pointing out that the tradition argument that you advocated a few post back is invalid -- the same argument has been used throughout history to oppress people and brings nothing logical to the debate.

I don't see how limiting someone's rights based on a genetic trait be it skin color, gender or sexual preference can be seen as anything other then prejudice. and i've yet to see any arguments against homosexual equality that do not lean heavily on religion or tradition, both of which are moot points when it comes to making a legal argument. more importantly i am at a loss to come up with any viable reason why people are so opposed to equality -- i don't see how allowing homosexuals to visit their partners in the hospital or inherit property or share health benefits effects anyone outside of the couple's private relationship.

irateplatypus

gosh, i hate to keep hounding ya, i'm not trying to be mean but...

tradition has everything to do with legal arguments. have you ever seen a judge do something based on precedence? that is good ol' tradition adding legitimacy to the ruling. do you think it's morally right to drive on the right side of the street? nope, it's tradition in one of its most practical applications.

don't flatter yourself into thinking that you're for equality and people who argue against you are not. homosexuals can be granted all the legal benefits and obligations that marriage is (thus legal equality) without calling it "marriage"... something that it clearly isn't. equal doesn't mean identical.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

I'm saying that those who claim to love the shit out of homosexuality, but can't get past the traditional definition of marriage have no idea what marriage has traditionally been. I agree that it has always been between a man and a woman, or multiple women. What i don't agree with is the idea that the heterosexual exclusivity of marriage has any roots in any rational reasoning other than, "because that's the way we've always done it". It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to break through that line of reasoning. It doesn't even reach a high enough standard to be sophistical. Why is it that it has always been done that way and are those reasons relevant anymore? Parenting has traditionally been something done by pairs of opposite sexed people. The fact that two parents are male or female has no demonstrable effect on their ability to raise a child. The increased acceptance of gay parents has not created a brand new institution in place of "traditional" parenting. Parenting is the same as it has always been. You could choose to see modern parenting as a pale shell of what it was before homosexuals started doing it, but you'd be deluding yourself.


I guess it depends on what you want to emphasize more in determining the significance of marriage. You could claim, as many seem to want to do, that marriage is significant solely because it is an agreement between people of the opposite sex. That's fine, but doing so i think misses the point why getting married is a meaningful act, especially in the religious sense. The foundation of marriage is commitment, not sex. It's not penis in vagina, it's two people who have so much interest in maintaining a relationship that they want to make a binding legal, and usually spiritual, commitment to eachother for an implied eternity. In the religious sense it's being confident enough in your feelings for another person to the extent that you're willing to go in front of your creator and make an eternal commitment under penalty of damnation(if you believe in hell). If you can't see why that makes marriage significant, moreso than the underwear contents of those involved, than i think you miss the point of marriage altogether.

How does the significance of marriage have any basis in the gender of those involved beyond, "Well, that's how we've always done it"? How much value do you give and opinion when its sole basis seems to be "Because that's how we've always done it." in any context?

One thing i forgot to include in my earlier post: If we are a nation who values the free expression and protection of religious beliefs, why is it that we want to outlaw gay marriage despite the fact that there are at least a few churches who have no problem performing such marriages? So many people oppose this issue on religious grounds without realizing that they are, in effect, limiting someone else's religious freedom.

Don't worry about hounding me, you're a civil guy.

Precedence is not tradition. Driving on the right side of the street serves a purpose in that, for our sytem of roads and highways to actually work, we all have to behave in a somewhat predictable manner. Precedence helps make our legal system consistent. Those "traditions" are functional, they attempt to serve a purpose that benefits society as a whole. There is absolutely zero demonstrable functional benefit to society as a whole in keeping marriage hetero.

I don't care about flattering myself. All i have to do is look at my ass in tight pants and i feel nice for days. Seperate doesn't mean equal either.

roachboy

this is a political question.
because, fortunately, this remains something of a pluralist society, religious or "moral" arguments only hold for partcular communities, none of which are in a position to dictate in those terms to those outside themselves. to reach beyond these particular communities, people have to make arguments for their position.
so it is therefore, and necessarily, a political matter.

for myself, i think questions about the "morality" of being gay to be absurd, and the idea that gay folk should be denied the legal protections of marriage--which like it or not is a secular institution--indefensable. but that too is a political matter.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

asaris

zen_tom makes a good point; what we think marriage is will, to a large extent, determine whether or not we think society is obligated to extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples. The conservative argument against gay marriage, at least when it's made intelligently, is based on the notion that the purpose of marriage, or at least the primary purpose of marriage, is to produce children, to provide them with a secure environment, and to provide them with role models of both genders. Since the state has a valid interest in seeing that children are reared in the best possible enviroment, it has a valid interest in encouraging specific forms of personal union to the exclusion of others. Most of the previous argument I agree with. But I'm not sure that two women or two men can't do an adequate enough job raising a child. (Note that the issue is not, nor should it be, whether or not a gay couple can raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple. I'm sure that, even if it turns out that, on average, gay couples are worse than hetero couples at raising children, whatever that means, many gay couples will be better at it than many hetero couples. And we don't issue marriage licenses on the basis of how good a couple will be at raising children anyway.)

So what about the procreation issue? Well, I think it's pretty much bunk. Procreation is not the only purpose of marriage; it's not even the primary purpose of marriage. Marriage is primarily, if I can get sentimental a second, about the union of two souls. From a civic standpoint (since I don't see a valid interest for the state to promote the union of souls), it provides a generally more stable structure for society as whole, outside of the whole issue of providing for children. And, of course, minus any specifically religious objections, gay couples can form a stable relationship at least as well as hetero couples.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

irateplatypus

filtherton,

about the hounding part... i was directing that at brianna since most of my posts had been aimed squarely at responding to her assertions. but it's good to know you're a big boy too, i'm sure we've had more spirited debates in the past anyway

this brings us to an interesting crossroads... it appears that "doing things a certain way because that's the way it's always been done" holds little value for you... or at least less value than what i place on it. there are a lot of sociological implications to this. if the old ways have no governance in how we perceive emerging ways... then that certainly changes our social dynamic. lasting civilizations and cultures are undeniably built upon such traditions and shared mores. what do you think are the ramifications of discarding tradition so easily? i fear that if not tempered with caution it could lead to a irreconcilable fracturing of society and lead to a lack of communal belonging. perhaps a second tower of babyl event? without tradition how would we speak to eachother in a shared/meaningful context? of course this would be the extreme conclusion to this line of thought, but i think we're starting to see symptoms of this in our culture already.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

filtherton

I know that tradition serves a purpose in preservation of culture, but i know that it can also hold us back as a culture. Tradition is fine as long as one group isn't trying to deny another group something for no reason other than tradition. I don't believe tradition should be the sole justification for anything, especially anything as huge as deciding who can get married or who can't. Do you think tradition should be given more sway than functionality? Why does the tradition of heterosexual marriage take precedence over the tradition of protecting religious freedom?

adysav

Did you not hear about the experiments done with insects?
A slight change in temperature caused the test subjects to change their sexuality.
Not saying that adjusting the thermostat makes you gay, but it does challenge the idea that what appears to be biologically set in stone may well be variable according to the surrounding environment.

Phage

Here is my reasoning why the government should not allow homosexual marriage:

Our country (USA, but it can apply anywhere) is based on people. Duh, it seems pretty clear that having a population of reproducing organisms is important. Marriage was created as a specific union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of making a family (e.g. babies).

All of the agreements and oaths taken in marriage can be reproduced through one or more contracts; the sharing of funds, dual custody, etc. The real issue is tax breaks, insurance coverage... Money. Gays want to have the same preferential treatment the government gives to the traditional marriage concept, and that is not right.

Marriage is a clear term which signifies the union of a man and a woman. The government, insurance companies, etc. recognise this union as something that should be supported. Why should the government not support (but also not outlaw) homosexuality? A good way of determining if something should be supported is by imagining what would happen if everyone was doing it. After all, everyone has equal rights, correct?

If everyone was homosexual, besides some artificial insemination cases our population would die out within a generation. Obviously man-woman pairs is to be encouraged.

Marriage already has an established meaning. Even if only out of principle we should avoid changing words that have a perfectly good meaning.

Mantus

With regards to gay marriage,

Certainly marriage is not about sex, marriage is about commitment. As long as gay couples are capable of fulfilling the vows of commitment they are not in any way weakening the concept of marriage.

If one is against gay marriage then one obviously has the opinion that gay marriage will somehow damage society, after all, why else would someone want to hold on to a tradition if not because they thought that it held some benefit.

So, what benefit does keeping marriage strictly as a union between man and women serve in our society? None. The only difference is between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is that one does not involve a penis and a vagina. So obviously the issue here IS homosexuality itself.

The people who use the tradition argument tell the world that this is “their” tradition. As if marriage was the sole invention of homophobic Christians and they hold the patent. This is emphasized by the simple fact that these groups are against marriage and not against civil union of gay couples. It is the equivalent of putting black at the back of the bus. They cannot get rid of the gays so they want to segregate them from their society.

Yet the fact that this an issue at all obviously comes back to the fact that marriage is seen as allot more then simply a man and a women being together. Just like marriage was determined to be more then a union between a white man and a white woman - despite this being a tradition for centuries. The essence of marriage is the lifelong commitment between partners as long as this reamains true most other issues are cosmetic in nature.

Journeyman

You want to base your approach to a segment of the population by hypothetically homogenizing the population in that segment's fashion? Well then, let's get rid of rich people who sit on their ass all fucking day. Furthermore, what's this about "some artificial insemination cases?" Imagine a society of homogenic homosexuality (no pun intended) where artificial insemination is suddenly the booming business. Whilst half the population (gay men) can't reproduce, the other half (lesbians) now can produce twice as much offspring as the tradional couple (man/woman). I *could* be wrong, but I don't think that being homosexual detracts from a desire to raise children.


While you're at it, outlaw marriages between two people who don't actually love eachother. I'm pretty sure that loving your partner is a feature of the "traditional marriage concept." Also, what is "not right" about granting health care coverage to the same-sex spouse of a worker who works just as hard as another employee with a opposite-sex spouse?

A term's definition is created by it's usage. Apply marriage to the union of man and man, or woman and woman, and Marriage becomes a clear term which signifies the union of two humans.

Halx

I'd like to work backwards on this. My own response is that everything is fine, as long as it does not harm me. Homosexuality does not harm me one bit, therefore it is fine.

First, if homosexuality is not fine to you, then what is harmful about it to you? If it is not harmful to you, then is it harmful to anyone at all? If it is not harmful to anyone at all, then why do you think the way you do?

Is it possible to approach this subject without including religion?

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

filtherton

I already destroyed the marriage as reproductive/biological necessity defense in #12. I don't think we will ever be at a point where homosexuals are in the majority(if that happened this wouldn't be an issue), so the idea that we will somehow "gay" ourselves out of existence is faulty. Man-woman pairs don't need any encouragement, they are the status quo and barring some unforeseen evolutionary curve always will be.

roadkill

Halx its amazing that you pointed out that it really doesn't hurt you but because you (you = government or people objectifiying in this case) dislike or aren't a part of it that you desest it to the point to there the parties involved can't do what they want which isn't harming you

irateplatypus

birthdays parties aren't about someone being born on a particular day. as long as there are presents and balloons and a pretty cake, it's a birthday party.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

wilbjammin

This thread indicates to me just how much laws are meant to enforce hierarchies and systems of power. Social reproduction is certainly something that is legislated and gay marriage is a prime example. This is a moral issue along the same lines that it is a moral issue whether we should give up some of our rights to a society at large to have order. One can argue that those who lose out in this relinquishment of power are a minority and it doesn't matter as long as order is maintained. Others go as far as claiming anarchy or a libertarian bent towards government and laws are the way to go. Typically, most people fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

Personally, I don't see gay marriage as being a threat to anything, nor a moral issue beyond questions of equality and privacy rights. If you're demanding that churches condone gay marriages, that is asking a bit much, but for secularly recognized marriages I see little reason to resist. The social reproduction system is not threatened much by allowing gays to get married.

__________________
Innominate.

roadkill

its hard to have a party of any sort w/o a decor of some kind, its approprite to whats going on ie flowers at a wedding cake at a birthday party stuff like that celebrates whats going on but its also all about my cake so i can eat it

Mantus

...um...wha?

adysav

If you have a party on a day other than your birthday, it's not a birthday party, like marriage without a man and a woman isn't really a marriage. Or that's what I *think* it means.

Someone else said "well once you use the term marriage to describe same sex unions, it means that".
Well spotted there, if you assign a word to something that's what it means, but I could call a dog a giraffe and a giraffe a photocopier, but it would just be fucking stupid.

:::OshnSoul:::

I don't really think that something like this ties in with philosophy, but with morality and religion.
Philosophies are ideas, theories, not necessarily degrating or x-ing out any other ideas or theories. As a moral, issue, many would say homosexuality is wrong- but there's plenty who don't think it's wrong. There IS no real Wrong or Right here, it's a matter of what works for you and what makes you happy.
I'm a straight female, but I totally accept homosexuals and gay marriages. I'm not going to decide what is wrong or right of other people.

filtherton

Birthday have traditionally been for humans only. Anyone who celebrates their pet's or their country's beginnings has no right to call it a birthday party. Perhaps "beginning ceremony" would be better. We must preserve this definition at all costs.

adysav

Why not?
Someone has to do it, and for the purposes of this you might as well put yourself in their shoes.

adysav

Last time I checked birthday parties weren't a matter of law or disputed morality.