Gay Rights, or gay wrongs

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Postby Magius » Fri Dec 27, 2002 9:23 pm

Sorry for the triple post, out of all seriousness it was by accident.
Last edited by Magius on Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby BluTGI » Fri Dec 27, 2002 10:13 pm

Here Here Magius 3x the love!
Remind you to buy you a lagger.
BluTGI
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 5:50 am
Location: NC

Postby Brad » Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:47 pm

Alan Turing is a second rate entertainer?

Ludwig Wittgenstein is a comedian?

This is a philosophy site, you know?

But also:

Hart Crane is second rate?

John Nash didn't win the Nobel prize for economics?

---------------------------------

Uccisore,

Well, the details would have to be determined by the situation. I see nothing wrong with a 'million man march' on Washington by either group for example though I find it difficult to believe that any religious group would have a march based on the 'bashing' of another group. Presumably there are more positive things to march for than simply to march against a particular group. Can a town universally ban one or the other? Given all possibilities, I would say no, but this is a tricky one and often both sides like play the victim -- I've been denied my right to free expression -- when what they were denied was the right to start a riot (Where was the famous Nazi march again?).

As far as trends go, my thinking was primarily based on some of the more outrageous statements after 911: That it wasn't those muslim fanatics that caused this, it was those gays, feminists, and peaceniks that left us weak. It's their fault.

Stuff like that give a whole new meaning to the idea of Transference.

The Sexual Revolution in general has been going on for a long time. It began with the invention of the backseat. :)
Brad
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:18 pm
Location: Chejudo, South Korea

Postby Magius » Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:20 pm

I once stated:
Being gay isn't a choice as far as scholars and scientists have shown. Moreover, Gays don't go around making anything other peoples problem unless someone has made something their problem.


Uccisore responded:
I have to disagree with both of these on the basis of personal experience.


Exactly what do you disagree with and what personal experience did you have that you think scholars and scientists haven't shown that being gay is genetic? Or were you disagreeing with my latter part of the statement about gays not making anything other people problem unless someone has made something their problem?

Let me know...

I also wanted to take the opportunity to compliment BluTGI on a well made point...

BluTGI stated:
Now you must seperate MAN from GAYMAN. Because GAY is your own judgement. It describes the man but it is not the man. A MAN has all the rights listed he has here. him being juged gay either by himself or society has no effect over his rights.


I think this is something people really need to get a conceptual grasp on. Thank you for pointing it out. It is idealistic, unfortunately untrue. I don't agree with the rights that you listed. People think they have the right to live and to die, but we really need to define what it means to live...thoroughly. We say that a person has the right to die, but having a right means to have a choice to do [enter right]. But we do not have the right to choose death, because we have chosen to call it suicide which is wrong on all levels of society. Suicide is seen to be wrong morally, spiritually, and legally. The legal part is kind of funny to me, how can you make something illegal when you can't punish them for it? Isn't it a meager approach to try to stop people from committing suicide because it is illegal? I mean, out of all ways to try to convince people not to commit suicide, they jump on the fear band wagon. Furthermore, we say that man has the same rights as a gay man, just as we say that man and woman have equal rights, just as we say the rich and the poor have equal rights, just as the muscular and the weak have equal rights - but we all know that the society we live in, just doesn't portray this, regardless of how they sugar coat it with words and beliefs. The law, just as rights is/are nothing if people won't enforce it/them.

What's your take?
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Matt » Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:12 pm

Suicide isn't illegal in the UK, just euthanasia, helping someone to commit suicide. I think it was only about 20 years ago that it was taken off the statute books though, not sure exactly when.
Matt
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." -John Lawton
User avatar
Matt
Thinker
 
Posts: 954
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 2:37 pm
Location: Nottingham, England

Postby Uccisore » Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:33 pm

Exactly what do you disagree with and what personal experience did you have that you think scholars and scientists haven't shown that being gay is genetic?


Scientists have not, and never will show that 'being gay is genetic' in the same sense that having brown hair is genetic. They may show that people were certain genes are more likely to be gay than others. But it's a propensity, not genetic causation. Just like genetics might predispose some one to be violent, or religious, or a pedophile. It doesn't force anything.
That said, people have an option on how to behave. I wouldn't say people have a choice to be tempted to commit homosexual acts, but they definately have a choice about what lifestyle they adopt. I've had people tell me that when they were younger they were tempted by homosexuality and successfully put it down and forgot about it because they were taught it was wrong, and they went on to live heterosexual lives perfectly happily. I've also known people who were perfectly happy in heterosexual relationships that decided to be gay because they were single and in a dry spell when only members of the same sex were showing an interest in them. It's just a fact of reality.
I disagree with your statement that gays don't make things other people's problem unless the other people start it, too. Basically because it's a broad generalization. I'm sure there are gay people who keep it to themselves and don't like to start trouble, just like I'm sure there are some that get a kick out of freaking out straight people.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby jedi_pocky » Tue Jan 28, 2003 9:50 pm

hey there... i read through the first page then i got lazy :P some thing vaguely freudian theorized that all people are inherently bisexual.. its the preference that decides one's sexual oreintation.. hetrosexuality is to enable reproduction and homosexuality partialy occurs because of the lack of desire to..
first and foremost i am lesbian. it is not a choice it is just so. undoubtedly i can choose to seek the oposite sex but i wouldnt be happy or content. what is natural or right is subjective (to me).
i have no idea why my preference is such.. never have been abused in any way or had any traumatic sexual encounters.. my family is what society deems as normal and more than sufficient. i have healthy relationships with my parents and sibling and friendships with other males...
yet i am a homosexual. i dunno why. but im happy this way. and all i hope is for people to respect that, and if they can, accept it.. or if not, simply tolerate or ignore it. why some have to express their disapproval and preach ... im at a loss.
anyway i read stuff online about gay sheep and penguins or what have you.
what say you to this?
always learning,

Image
User avatar
jedi_pocky
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:05 pm
Location: a galaxy far away / singapore. ILP's resident nihilistic existentialist.

Postby jedi_pocky » Tue Jan 28, 2003 10:37 pm

okay i just scrolled through the thread and im pretty shocked with some of the view points of some of the posters... i am very proud to say that despite living in 'conservative asia' society has been very gracious and tolerant of my sexuality.. at work, school, clubs and ive had very few unpleasant encounters with homophobes. and yes im very androgynous.
and the rationale behind my perception of homosexuality is that.. who created laws and rules? sexual laws? nature's laws? if sexual organs are made for reproduction (solely) and hetrosexual relationships... then why is there infertility, impotence, erectile dysfunction and various sexual disorders? shouldnt nature not have allowed these as much as homosexuality shouldnt have occurred?

why should people be condemned for who they happened to love? love isnt much of a choice.. think of any case of unrequited love you might once had.

at the end of the day it is convention, dogma, man made codes and "mind forged mannacles" that tie us down.. ignoring the subjectivity of perception. who should decide? why should another pay because of your thoughts? YOU dont pay for who I love (please note the YOU i refer to is just rhetorical) :-?

anyway magius thats an impressive list you got. my particular favourites are foucault (ive yet to read his queer theory), the delightful mr oscar wilde, alex da great, renaissance genius da vinci, michealangelo, tchaikovsky :) having many in the entertainment industry indicates tolerance and acceptance from the public.

and regarding a comment bout hitler somewhere along the thread... there are many rumours as to why he was so harsh with homosexuals. . . . anyone watched american beauty? thats right. closet, denial and insecurity.

othering. a result of fear.
what say you to this?
always learning,

Image
User avatar
jedi_pocky
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:05 pm
Location: a galaxy far away / singapore. ILP's resident nihilistic existentialist.

Postby Magius » Tue Jan 28, 2003 11:14 pm

Uccisore stated:
Scientists have not, and never will show that 'being gay is genetic' in the same sense that having brown hair is genetic.


What exactly is the sense that having brown hair is genetic? And how is it different from the sense of what scientists found to part of genes that is attributed to being gay? (for men that is, cause they can't find it in women)

Uccisore stated:
They may show that people were certain genes are more likely to be gay than others. But it's a propensity, not genetic causation. Just like genetics might predispose some one to be violent, or religious, or a pedophile. It doesn't force anything.


Oh I'm sorry God...ah...I mean Uccisore, I forgot that it is you who decides what scientists may and may not show. On your second point I think we should clarify 'propensity'. According to dictionary.com 'propensity is defined as

An innate inclination; a tendency.

So we must assume innatism is true. But isn't that which is innate, if we are assuming innatism is true, determined by our genes? If you mean tendency, then don't you think that we have a tendency toward that which our genes make us sensitive to. For instance, if I have a propensity for violence, will I not react differently to seeing a well designed sword than a person who doesn't have a propensity for violence? Is this not determined by our genes. If being gay is part of propensity, than we still can't blame them because it is part of their propensity for being gay. Whether part of genes, propensity, or any other word - it is not their fault that they are gay.

Furthermore, you say that one who is predisposed to something is not forced to that something, but if we mean the same thing by predisposed...

To make (someone) inclined to something in advance
source:dictionary.com

than you will have to explain to me how that isn't forced.

Uccisore stated:
That said, people have an option on how to behave. I wouldn't say people have a choice to be tempted to commit homosexual acts, but they definately have a choice about what lifestyle they adopt.


Sure they have a choice about what lifestyle they adopt, what does that have to do with homosexuality? Ofcourse, if I may take a guess, what your trying to say is that homosexuals will be around but they should choose a lifestyle that completely keeps their homosexuality in the closet (so to speak). Let me know if I am right, ofcourse I am open to the fact that I may be wrong.

Uccisore stated:
I've had people tell me that when they were younger they were tempted by homosexuality and successfully put it down and forgot about it because they were taught it was wrong, and they went on to live heterosexual lives perfectly happily.

Okay, I heard and read of homosexuals who raised kids and the kids grew up to be bright individuals and straight for that matter.

Uccisore stated:
I've also known people who were perfectly happy in heterosexual relationships that decided to be gay because they were single and in a dry spell when only members of the same sex were showing an interest in them. It's just a fact of reality.


How conveniant! "It's just a fact of reality" he says. What are you trying to say, that homosexuals are stealing members of the heterosexual group by waiting till they have dry spells and can't find anyone of the opposite sex?
If not, what the hell was the point of the above? Just because something is true for one, or for many, doesn't mean it is A FACT OF REALITY!!!! Your generalizing my friend.

Uccisore stated:
I disagree with your statement that gays don't make things other people's problem unless the other people start it, too. Basically because it's a broad generalization.


Sure, your free to disagree. That isn't the issue here, what I thought we were trying to do is to rationalize and use our intellect (logic?) to decide an 'inference to the best conclusion' based upon what is most rationally sound from both our arguments. In your opinion, why is the above a broad generalization?

Uccisore stated:
I'm sure there are gay people who keep it to themselves and don't like to start trouble, just like I'm sure there are some that get a kick out of freaking out straight people.


See here is the problem, according to you gays are making things our problem by NOT hiding their homosexuality, which is wrong (morally - or atleast based on John Rawls veil of ignorance). A homosexual who doesn't keep their homosexuality to themselves is STARTING TROUBLE, is what you are saying. But what is this 'starting trouble', the fact that people will see homosexuals? That people will know homosexuals exist? Well, it's too late for that. It's already happened Uccisore, it happened a long long time ago. So should we burn all literature that makes mention of homosexuals? Should we start collecting homosexuals and throwing them into gas chambers? No, you won't have the guts to say that, but you will say that they should simply keep it to themselves....which carries many hidden implications. Ie. They shouldn't talk about it in public places because others might hear, they shouldn't exhibit any signs of homosexuality, they shouldn't touch their homosexual other in any sexual way in public (holding hands, kissing, etc), etc.

I don't know how to get through to you Uccisore, a hundred years ago people were arguing in the same way you are about Blacks and slavery, the most elaborate arguments were being thought up about how blacks should only be thankful for slavery for its a better life than they could ever make for themselves, about how blacks can't imagine doing anything worthwhile for society so they need to be told what to do, they need to be put to use, etc - I only fear that it will take twice as long for people to realize homosexuals are just as an important part of society as anyone else. That they deserve equal treatment, equal rights and equal freedoms.
If you agree with the sentence above, you must concede that this can't happen if they hide their sexuality.

What's your take?
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Johan » Wed Jan 29, 2003 2:33 am

Let homosexuality flourish; something very interesting may show up soon that give us the function that justify it from the natures perspective. If nature had homophobia and similar limitations in it's younger years then we would not even exist. Live is not static; we are going somewhere. Let natures creativity flourish and combine itself! Yes; it's genetic in many cases, don't you* have TV?

* = You refers to everyone that have the opinion that homosexuality is developed from social factors only (and don't have a TV).

Johan
Last edited by Johan on Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Johan
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 10:07 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Magius » Wed Jan 29, 2003 2:39 am

Was that question directed towards me Johan?
It helps if you let everyone know whom you are referring to. This is usually easily solved by adding the persons nickname. Ie. Magius
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Johan » Wed Jan 29, 2003 2:45 am

It was directed to everyone, sorry :)

Johan
User avatar
Johan
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 10:07 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Matthew E. » Wed Jan 29, 2003 3:54 am

One evening I happened to switch stations to the Discovery channel. Oddly enough, it was at the exact instant two gorillas were having sex. My lucky day, eh? Anyhow, the narrator surprisingly announced that the two apes were male.

Being gay is natural.

Some people who are gay (empahsis on some) have a natural propensity, inclination, or desire to be attracted toward the same sex, in the exact same manner heterosexuals do with the opposite sex. The reason I say some, is because homosexuality's causes are not always innate or genetic. Some instances stem from being molested as children and other extenuating (non-biological) circumstances. Clearly these "natural gays" have had no choice, the sameway you or I have had no choice, in deciding what we are attracted towards. Whenever I meet someone who is homophobic, I ask them to imagine a world where having intercourse with a person of the opposite sex was considered evil or ungodly. Would you switch and begin having sex with your same sex? I know if I lived in a world where heterosexuality were frowned upon, I'd still be having sex with women (if they let me of course). I have nothing against gays. They are simply people with hopes, dreams and desires. Some similar, and some just different than mine.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
- de Balzac

"Give a woman an inch and she thinks she's a ruler."
-Anonymous

"Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great."

- Comte DeBussy-Rabutin

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Matthew E.
Thinker
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:09 pm
Location: Laguna Beach, California

Postby Magius » Wed Jan 29, 2003 5:12 am

Nicely put Matthew
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby jedi_pocky » Thu Jan 30, 2003 10:24 am

:D

some people like apples, some like oranges, some like neither, some like both.
though most people like apples it doesnt mean that those who like oranges are wrong. they just happen to.
such things are random. likes and dislikes. taste. as random as the universe makes.
what say you to this?
always learning,

Image
User avatar
jedi_pocky
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:05 pm
Location: a galaxy far away / singapore. ILP's resident nihilistic existentialist.

Postby Clementine » Thu Jan 30, 2003 3:37 pm

indeed... and some people think they have the right to tell other how to live without paying any attention to their own live and character.
Doesn't mater what it is, apples or gays, people still judge others before judging themselves... which is... disgusting really
Cle

"Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience. But nothing is a greater cause of suffering." Dostoyevsky
User avatar
Clementine
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 6:37 pm
Location: UK

Postby TheIdiot » Thu Jan 30, 2003 4:32 pm

I don't see what darwin has got to do with the debate, just because something is contrary to darwin's theory does not mean that it is contrary to nature. Darwins theory is a theory of nature, it is not nature itself. I think the term "unnatural" is total rubbish. Everything is ultimately a product of nature.

Why do we have to define ourselves as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, when we must be degrees of each. There are so many people in the world that I cannot understand how someone can say "i am a heterosexual and i will never sleep with someone of the same sex" How can anyone say something like that? Out of all the masses of people in the world there must be at least one person that can force you to deviate from your strict definitions of yourself.

But then i suppose you could equally say that about all the dogs in the world and i suppose i doubt that i will ever find a dog attractive, but then again...never say never.
TheIdiot
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 9:54 pm

Postby TheIdiot » Thu Jan 30, 2003 5:04 pm

Hey Magius, I agree with most of your points but I was gutted to see Will Young of Pop Idols fame in the same list as so many greats!
TheIdiot
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 9:54 pm

Postby jedi_pocky » Fri Jan 31, 2003 9:01 am

TheIdiot wrote:Hey Magius, I agree with most of your points but I was gutted to see Will Young of Pop Idols fame in the same list as so many greats!
*bwahaha* he is pretty cute anyway.. WHAT AM I THINKING

anyway im gonna read up on foucault's queer theory.
what say you to this?
always learning,

Image
User avatar
jedi_pocky
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:05 pm
Location: a galaxy far away / singapore. ILP's resident nihilistic existentialist.

Postby Uccisore » Sat Feb 01, 2003 7:42 pm

What exactly is the sense that having brown hair is genetic? And how is it different from the sense of what scientists found to part of genes that is attributed to being gay? (for men that is, cause they can't find it in women)



It's quite simple, really. What % of people will have brown eyes, if they have a genetically identical twin with brown eyes? 100%. What % of people will be gay, if they have an indentical twin that is gay? Much less than 100%. Don't ask questions you already know the answers to, please.
Genetic propsensity is not the same as genetic causation, especially in behavior issues.


If being gay is part of propensity, than we still can't blame them because it is part of their propensity for being gay. Whether part of genes, propensity, or any other word - it is not their fault that they are gay.


Firstly, I'm not 'blaming' anybody for things. All this genetic stuff only has an impact on my view of homosexuality if you are prepared to say that genetics forces particular acts at particular times.


Ofcourse, if I may take a guess, what your trying to say is that homosexuals will be around but they should choose a lifestyle that completely keeps their homosexuality in the closet (so to speak). Let me know if I am right, ofcourse I am open to the fact that I may be wrong.



I'm saying that even if there was a gene that made people homosexual 100% of the time, which there is not, the individual homosexual would still have control over what they did with those urges, and could express/suppress them in a manner appropriate to their communities' wishes.

Okay, I heard and read of homosexuals who raised kids and the kids grew up to be bright individuals and straight for that matter.


Your point? Is showing that homosexuals must always be bad parents a crux of my argument that I'm unaware of?



How conveniant! "It's just a fact of reality" he says. What are you trying to say, that homosexuals are stealing members of the heterosexual group by waiting till they have dry spells and can't find anyone of the opposite sex?


LOL! Sorry, I forgot I had to forget some of the things I'd seen in the name of being politically correct. You're right, I must not have ever seen that happen, because if I did, it would be evidence for conclusions that homosexuals would prefer I didn't come to. Therefore, it never happened. How dare I imply something that makes a minority uncomfortable!


In your opinion, why is the above a broad generalization?



"Gay people don't make things other people's problems unless the other people start it" is an obvious generalization because it makes a general, sweeping statement about a huge and diverse group of people. That's as close to the definition of "generalization" as I can think of. It's exactly the same as if I said "White people don't commit crimes against blacks unless the black person was asking for it". Not only would that be a racist comment, it would also be a broad generalization, and false to boot.



Well, it's too late for that. It's already happened Uccisore, it happened a long long time ago. So should we burn all literature that makes mention of homosexuals? Should we start collecting homosexuals and throwing them into gas chambers? No, you won't have the guts to say that,


Oh, it's come to that, has it. I'm done talking with you about this.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13278
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Magius » Sat Feb 01, 2003 10:02 pm

Uccisore stated:
I'm saying that even if there was a gene that made people homosexual 100% of the time, which there is not, the individual homosexual would still have control over what they did with those urges, and could express/suppress them in a manner appropriate to their communities' wishes.


Whoa, you are claiming to know what your communities wishes are, but do you in fact know? Do you honestly think any community would come to a census that gays should hide their homosexuality? Furthermore, why should homosexuals hide their homosexuality? Lastly, a communities wishes are almost always decided upon by a committy, if this committy consists solely of heterosexuals, how can they make a decision on something they don't understand? Homosexuals are a part of their community, or have you segregated them already?, so deciding a homosexuals fate based on his sexual preference would have to include homosexuals views. The best way to decide a situation like this one is to imagine yourself as a very powerful person who could have a society do as you wish, but imagine that you don't know what you will come into the society as (ie. male/female, straight/gay, rich/poor) - don't you think you would make a decision based on equality for all to enhance your chances of not being discriminated against? In case your wondering this is the Veil of Ignorance theory proposed by John Rawls.

Uccisore stated:
"Gay people don't make things other people's problems unless the other people start it" is an obvious generalization because it makes a general, sweeping statement about a huge and diverse group of people. That's as close to the definition of "generalization" as I can think of. It's exactly the same as if I said "White people don't commit crimes against blacks unless the black person was asking for it". Not only would that be a racist comment, it would also be a broad generalization, and false to boot.


You would be correct if the analogy was a proper correlation to homosexuals. But it isn't. To say that whites don't commit crimes against blacks unless the black person was asking for it is ridiculous because there is no advantage for the black person to make it others problem. They can carry on doing what they do without making it others problem, for the most part. But a homosexual can't carry on hiding their homosexuality in a closet, there is a huge advantage for a homosexual to make their problem our problem, because their problem exists because of us. Hence we started it, no homosexual would have a reason to call out for gay rights if they were treated equally. Just like I won't go around yelling about my rights, unless they have been violated. This is why it is a proper generalization, because it is true (generally) of all people. Let me say it again "People will not make an issue of their rights, unless their rights have been violated".

What's your take?
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users