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 Marshall McDaniel » Wed Dec 11, 2002 3:38 am

--
----- Good post clementine!
--
----- If being gay is a "social byproduct", why do you find it all the way back through the ages, the ancient greeks training boys, the Japanese circa 1600's going to the theatre to pick up boys (in addition to geisha girls, and prostitutes). I'm not proceeding from the Argumentum ad populam, i'm just saying that if it has gone on for this long as well as in nature, then perhaps there is an unknown reason for it.
--
----- In a beehive there is a Queen, as well as worker bees, drones, a different caste to take care of the queen and to nurture the young. Every type serves it's purpose for the betterment of the whole hive. perhaps "gays" are something similiar to this, but this is pure speculation.
--
----- Sex is pleasurable. Anything between two consenting adults should be none of the state's business.
--
----- Nature or Nurture? There lies the riddle. Has anyone here read Foucault's (he was homosexual by the way) history of sexuality? one of the things he says is that gays & Lesbians haven't had many courtship rituals. I also know from friends who are gay that they frequently have to keep being gay a secret. They are DENIED a lot of the privileges that we heterosexuals take for granted. Roanoke, Va, USA where i am from is the place where about five people got shot in a gay bar a while back, it was one of the biggest hate crimes in the USA. If, as some here contend, young people are getting talked into this, there is not a lot of incentive for it. I know of no other group (except maybe muslims) that gets a worse rap here.
"..All life is the struggle, the effort to be itself. The difficulties I meet with in order to realise my existence are precisely what awaken and mobilise my activities, my capacities.."GASSET"..For enjoyment and innocence are the most modest things: neither want to be looked for. One should have them-but one should look rather for guilt and pain!.."NIETZSCHE"..The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.." CAMUS
User avatar
Marshall McDaniel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 11:11 pm
Location: Roanoke, Va, U.S.A.

Postby Magius » Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:09 am

Marshall Mcdaniel stated:
Sex is pleasurable. Anything between two consenting adults should be none of the state's business.


I agree. But, to borrow a line from the movie 'The American President' (starring Michael Douglas and Michael J. Fox) the president echoes the same sentiment but gets the following answer "the American people have a funny way of making it their business". Ofcourse we all want our privacy, but yet privacy always gets out. We would all like our privacy to be kept private, but the important question is 'what do we do about acts of privacy that go on behind closed doors?' Especially in such a way that one or the other person isn't being abused.

Furthermore, if it should be none of the state's business what happens between two consenting adults, then wouldn't the logic follow that the state should just say they don't care about what straight people are doing to them, because it's about what they do as two consenting adults (sexually) which is out of the hands of the state? Where would gay rights be?

See most people like to say that the state shouldn't poke their nose into things which make others happy. Let's say you were gay and you had a boyfriend. You wouldn't want the state to have anything to do with what goes on between you and him in a bedroom. But when something starts to go wrong, let's say he is taking advantage of you (ie. rape), then all of a sudden you want the state in on it to protect you. See the problem is, the state can't do both. It needs to have laws about all kinds of acts of sex before any are violated so that when they are violated they can be dealt with (whether heterosexuals or homosexuals).

The thing is that it is the states business of what happens between two consenting adults, on many different levels. It is so, because it works better than if the state kept it's nose out of everyone's business. I'm not saying that what the American government does is correct, I'm just trying to show what their thought pattern is behind why they do what they do.

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

Postby Marshall McDaniel » Wed Dec 11, 2002 5:58 am

Magius stated:
Furthermore, if it should be none of the state's business what happens between two consenting adults, then wouldn't the logic follow that the state should just say they don't care about what straight people are doing to them, because it's about what they do as two consenting adults (sexually) which is out of the hands of the state? Where would gay rights be?


--
----- I trust that i understand your statement correctly. If i do, it does matter what straight people do to gay people, because activities like demeaning others, violence, etc do not fall within the realm of "sex between consenting adults." I find very few people (gay or straight) who willingly consent to wanton violence, for example.
--
----- I remain receptive to your point, but your hypothetical example of my boyfriend raping me is not a case of sex between consenting adults and thus falls out of the realm of my statement. If you could give me another example that meets these criteria it would be very helpful.
--
----- I do not understand the State's rationale in prosecuting "victimless" crimes. If a man wants to puff on homegrown while his boyfriend gives him fellatio, then let him.
"..All life is the struggle, the effort to be itself. The difficulties I meet with in order to realise my existence are precisely what awaken and mobilise my activities, my capacities.."GASSET"..For enjoyment and innocence are the most modest things: neither want to be looked for. One should have them-but one should look rather for guilt and pain!.."NIETZSCHE"..The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.." CAMUS
User avatar
Marshall McDaniel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1922
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 11:11 pm
Location: Roanoke, Va, U.S.A.

Postby Clementine » Wed Dec 11, 2002 12:26 pm

Ofcourse we all want our privacy, but yet privacy always gets out.


The problem is no your privacy getting out. To have to keep your homosexualism private is the problem in my view. We shouldn’t judge people by their sexuality. Obviously, heterosexuals are not private. They kiss, hug, hold hands on the streets with no fear because they are free to do so, there is no law saying ‘heterosexuals have the right to show their sexuality on the streets’. But for gays you might have to have such law. That implies that they are different because of their sexuality, they are classified.
I know that only in a perfect society we could ignore gays as we ignore heterosexuals, but that’s something we should look for. The right to be normal and not the right to be gay.

The state is obligated to interfere because certain types in society would think they are allowed to do hate crimes. So unfortunately, we still have to put up with the battle for gay rights.


But when something starts to go wrong, let's say he is taking advantage of you (ie. rape),


Heterosexual relationships do go wrong also, and there are more heterosexual rapes than gay rapes, I assume. Doesn’t heterosexuals look for the law for justice? Why would it be any different with homosexuals? The main problem is not the sexual preference there, but the rape itself. What Marshall McDaniel is probably trying to say is that the state shouldn’t discriminate people because of their private life (in this case sexual preference), but it’s obvious that in case of sexual offences, like any other offence, the state must interfere.

The thing is that it is the states business of what happens between two consenting adults, on many different levels. It is so, because it works better than if the state kept it's nose out of everyone's business. I'm not saying that what the American government does is correct, I'm just trying to show what their thought pattern is behind why they do what they do.


People have a funny view about government. They are there, if in a perfect society, to organize the state and keep it a place where different sort of people could live in harmony. Even tho that’s not what happens, the state must provide help to stop hate crimes, and if that means invading peoples privacy then that’s what must be done.
I guess is not a problem of the state tho… it’s people who are against gays and end up forcing the government to hold back laws to make hetero and homos equal. But that’s too simplistic… there are other issues, like religious morality… which prefer hate crimes to accept other people’s sexual preferences.

I don’t know the USA government in relation to gay rights. But here in the UK gay rights have been a lot on the news. Gay couples are now able to adopt children. It’s a great step. The next generation will have teenagers who were brought up buy gays, so maybe then the hate crimes and prejudice will go down a bit. Still they can’t get married… but gays are one of the strongest and persisted groups I’ve ever seen, so I believe they will get there. Hopefully, in a near future, we won’t need to be having this discussion.
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 Uccisore » Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:03 pm

"Oh by the way, I have a secret opinion that most people are really bisexual. They just round it up."


This contradicts who whole "most people don't have a choice" thing. If most people (including most gays, I'm assuming) are really bisexual, this implies they had the choice to be involved in heterosexual relationships and be confortable in them.

We shouldn’t judge people by their sexuality.


Should? That's an ethical pronouncement, and the source of my ethics says homosexuality is wrong. I'm definately not alone in this, in fact I'm in the vast majority in my community.
That said, If I liked to have sex with vegetables, farm animals, my siblings, or whatever, I have a moral obligation to keep that to myself so as not to offend the sensibilities of my neighbors. This obligation comes before any discussion of my 'rights'. In the same way, gays have an obligation to keep that element of their lives private and out of the public eye *if* they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, or whatever.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Magius » Thu Dec 12, 2002 10:27 pm

Uccisore stated:
That said, If I liked to have sex with vegetables, farm animals, my siblings, or whatever, I have a moral obligation to keep that to myself so as not to offend the sensibilities of my neighbors. This obligation comes before any discussion of my 'rights'. In the same way, gays have an obligation to keep that element of their lives private and out of the public eye *if* they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, or whatever.


If that is so, what does it mean for freedom? In the same way, were slaves suppose to keep their complaining to themselves? What about freedom of speech? The right to express yourself? You may argue that one has the freedom to do as they please as long as they don't infringe on someone elses rights; which is about the oldest paradox in the book. Anyone can use this as an excuse, slave owners could say that slaves speaking out against slavery is infringing on their rights to own slaves, etc. Just because you are not comfortable with homosexuality doesn't mean homosexuals shouldn't complain about how they are mistreated. Remember, the debate isn't about homosexuals making YOU a homosexual, this is about homosexuals being mistreated! I don't give a shit what the norm of a community is, if I feel like I am being mistreated you better damn believe that I will complain pronounce how I will stop them, I know cause I have. This discussion doesn't come before your rights. If you have sex with vegetables and you speak of it to others, they have the choice of leaving and not listening to you. I truly hope you are not trying to compare having sex with vegetables to same sex partners. Remember, the truth hurts, so if I am being offensive to my community because they are mistreating me - I have the right, no the obligation to stand up for myself and all future people like myself. What if I was born with three arms and my community found me disgusting as you say, luckily the society I live doesn't work as you say, and instead of being put in a room where no one could see me I would most likely be on TV, have a charity of my own, and have scientists do experiments on me to see what they can learn from my disability and maybe change my situation to what I see fit. People have become much more sympathetic to differences in people. THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE NEGATION OF WHAT YOU PROPOSE.

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

Postby Uccisore » Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:16 pm

First of all, I don't argue from a position of rights anyway, I don't believe in them. I argue from a position of obligations. We have an obligation to treat others a certain way, and obligation to repay debts, and etc. I would certainly agree that the right 'to do as you please as long as...' is paradoxical and contradictory, I would say all rights are equally nonsense. "Freedom" is a byproduct of a community in which most people live up to their obligations.

Just because you are not comfortable with homosexuality doesn't mean homosexuals shouldn't complain about how they are mistreated.


I'm not saying homosexuals should keep quiet when they are beaten up, threatened, or have other things done to them that are illegal regardless of their sexual orientation. I'm addressing the issue that someone brought up saying that homosexuals are justified in making their practices public, and that the rest of the world is at fault for not being comfortable with it.

This discussion doesn't come before your rights. If you have sex with vegetables and you speak of it to others, they have the choice of leaving and not listening to you.


Of course then can walk away if they want to. I, though, am in the wrong if I talk to someone about such a topic knowing that it will offend or upset them.

I truly hope you are not trying to compare having sex with vegetables to same sex partners.

I mean vegetables in the literal sense, not comatose humans. With that understanding, of course I'm making the comparison. They're both devient sexual activities that don't hurt anybody else. Same with my other examples. There is no single argument that can be raised in defense of homosexuality that cannot also be raised in favor of adult siblings having sex. We simply haven't 'progressed' far enough for the latter to be accepted yet.

What if I was born with three arms and my community found me disgusting

Completely different. You have control over your behavior, not your number of limbs. The slavery example is also completely different. Slaves were being abused, and the very notion of slavery goes against moral obligations. As I said, to the extent that homosexuals are being abused, they have a right to protest that the same as everybody else.
My point is that if a person makes a public display of their homosexuality, in whatever form, knowing that that display will upset or offend most of the people exposed to it, they are at fault. It's part of the responsbility that comes with the freedom of being allowed to have a deviant lifestyle.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Magius » Fri Dec 13, 2002 2:42 am

Uccisore stated:
I'm not saying homosexuals should keep quiet when they are beaten up, threatened, or have other things done to them that are illegal regardless of their sexual orientation. I'm addressing the issue that someone brought up saying that homosexuals are justified in making their practices public, and that the rest of the world is at fault for not being comfortable with it.


Your twisting the topic. What you say above to be the topic of discussion is originating from the below quote from your previous post. The two are far from being correlated in a close proximate fashion. You go from saying that gays have an obligation to keep their private life out of the public eye if they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, etc - to the issue that someone brought up saying that homosexuals are justified in making their practices public, and that the rest of the world is at fault for not being comfortable with it. The only things in conjunction with the theme of the discussion present in both is that you disagree with homosexuals making their practices public. I hope you are not trying to dodge the issues of my previous post.

That said, If I liked to have sex with vegetables, farm animals, my siblings, or whatever, I have a moral obligation to keep that to myself so as not to offend the sensibilities of my neighbors. This obligation comes before any discussion of my 'rights'. In the same way, gays have an obligation to keep that element of their lives private and out of the public eye *if* they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, or whatever.


Personally I have never met a gay person who complained of wanting MORE rights than any other human being. All I have ever heard is their desperate plea for equality. In that I agree whole heartedly. Most gays are actually quite understanding why people are not okay with their sexual preference, they don't think that the world is at fault for not being comfortable with it. As stupid as it may sound I couldn't go with my ex-girlfriend to a common coffee shop in our area where people our age hang out, cause any time we would kiss (whether it be on the cheek or on the lips) we would get told to find a room. Not in a rude way, but in a way that was said to be taken as a fact but purposefully said in a nice way in order for it to be understood. Don't get me wrong, it's not like we were in there making out. I'm talking I might have kissed her once in a two hour period. So am I to keep my mouth shut and comply with their request because they are uncomfortable with the fact that a guy is kissing his girlfriend in public and they are either jealous or uncomfortable? NO. Too bad for them, I'll kiss her and she'll kiss me whenever I want to. I do know of the concept of PDA (Public Display of Affection). Personally, when I see a couple kissing or holding hands I get a warm happy feeling in my stomach because these people are so happy. Why not extend this to homosexuals? If they want to kiss, let them. If they want to hold hands, let them. Where's the utilitarian side of you?
I'll tell you that my cousin was here (Canada) from Czechoslovakia (former) to visit. One of my friends (a bi-sexual) asked me if I wanted to come with her and her friends to the gay parade. I asked my cousin if she would be willing to go, she said yes. So we went. There was an estimated 1 million gay people in the streets of Toronto, Canada. Not once did I hear anyone say a thing about how they are discriminated against. Not once did anyone say anything hateful against straights, against the world, or against anyone. Actually, everyone was very kind, happy, courteous, and most importantly they were all respectful. Not just to me or others, but to themselves. There was a group of about ten of us together, we went to a bar which was extremely pact. We got on the dance floor which was almost impossible to even stand without being bumped. Now I got looks, but not a single guy touched me or passed into my personal space (by which I don't mean proximity necessarily). When I saw two guys dancing, none of them had that stupid look on their face that guys get in clubs when they are dancing with a sexxy girl where all they can think about is their chances of not getting slapped if they grab her boob or butt. There wasn't any purposeful pushing, bumping, or conceited looks on guys or girls faces like I find daily on the street or especially in clubs. Everyone was respectful of your space despite the compressed nature of this bar. When someone did accidentally bump into you they apologized...sincerely. There's a lot people can learn from gay people. Personally, I have found that gay people are some of the most peaceful people on the planet.

Uccisore stated:
I, though, am in the wrong if I talk to someone about such a topic knowing that it will offend or upset them.


What!?! Are you telling me that if you are being picked on by the school bully, you going up to him to tell him that it's not a joke to you and that it is really hurting your feelings, is the wrong thing to do? See your drawing a differentiation between gays and straights within all your examples. Every one of us gets into situations on a daily basis that consist of telling some something that we know will offend or upset them. When you are in a hurry to get somewhere and the gas station attendant is taking their precious time and you yell at them to hurry the hell up, you know it will offend or upset them; that's why your doing it. Because you are so mad, you need to put some of the anger onto someone else. If you want to follow what you have said above, you should have NEVER said anything about gays in your posts, don't you know it may offend or upset someone? You should stick with what you are saying. According to your own logic you are in the wrong. If you were in front of me physically I would have you apologize to all the members of the ilovephilosophy message board and then I would wash your mouth out with soap.

Uccisore stated:
Completely different. You have control over your behavior, not your number of limbs.
I take it then that you assume homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with? Do some research into the topic Uccisore and you will find that there is ground breaking scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic in males. They still can't find the gene in females. So it's without choice, atleast for men. Personally I don't think it's choice with women either. Do you truly believe that you have CONTROL over your sexual preference? What can we say about our society if we can't feel comfortable to be within society and kiss, hug, or hold hands with our significant other? Did you contemplate your sexual preference first before thinking of anyone sexually, or did the sensation of attraction happen first? I would be my money on the sensation of attraction. For you (a guy I presume) felt attracted to a female. Well what if you had felt attracted to a male? Where on this planet is it written as an absolute truth that finding the opposite of sex attractive is wrong?

Uccisore stated:
The slavery example is also completely different. Slaves were being abused, and the very notion of slavery goes against moral obligations. As I said, to the extent that homosexuals are being abused, they have a right to protest that the same as everybody else.


MOST slaves didn't complain about their being abused. Uccisore, most slaves were actually treated with respect. We think all slaves were treated badly because only the bad stories get told, especially in movies ;) which is where I presume most of your views come from. If you read about slavery from authors that have done research you will find otherwise. The point here is, that slave wanted equality. They complained they wanted equality. In the same way MOST homosexuals don't complain about being abused, they complain about equality.

Uccisore stated:
My point is that if a person makes a public display of their homosexuality, in whatever form, knowing that that display will upset or offend most of the people exposed to it, they are at fault. It's part of the responsbility that comes with the freedom of being allowed to have a deviant lifestyle.


I wonder, Uccisore, what would you say about a gay couple NOT knowing that their homosexuality will upset or offend anyone actually do offend someone? Would you now pertain to the argument that they SHOULD have known? Furthermore, if you reread your own above quote I wish to ask how you are so sure or how can anyone be so sure as to say or to know that MOST people who are exposed to homosexual public displays will be offended? Where does it say that being wrong is part of the responsibility that comes with the freedom of being allowed to have deviant lifestyle? Define for me your definition of societal norm. Which the word 'deviant' is dependant on. Then, Uccisore, I want you to elaborate for my edification what EXACTLY is the accepted norm for society on homosexuality.

Lastly, do you have any of your own views on aspects of life or do you base all your views on societal norms? Of those aspects of life that you would say are not societal norms, do you think yourself wrong? If your final answer is 'NO' you need to rethink your own paradox.

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

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 13, 2002 4:37 am

Your twisting the topic. What you say above to be the topic of discussion is originating from the below quote from your previous post. ... I hope you are not trying to dodge the issues of my previous post.


I certainly wasn't intending to. Let me clarify. I made a post saying that gay people ought to keep their private life to themselves if they live in a community that would be disturbed by their lifestyle if it were public. Your reply say that on my reasoning, slaves should remain slaves rather than speak up, and homosexuals should stay quiet when they are mistreated.
I'll repeat, using different words, that I thing homosexuals *ought* to speak up when they are mistreated. People ought not assault or persecute homosexuals any more than anyone else. What I object to is the idea that homosexuals are somehow entitled to be public about their sexuality, despite their community's wishes. If a community doesn't want to see two guys holding hands or kissing in public, etc., then people should respect that.
If you don't think this addresses what you had to say in your previous post, let me handle each question in that and this most recent post of yours:

In the same way, were slaves suppose to keep their complaining to themselves?


No. Protesting being locked up, treated as property and worked without pay is different from having a sexually explicit parade because you suspect the community doesn't like what you do in your bedroom.

What about freedom of speech? The right to express yourself?


I don't believe in rights, and this is one of the reasons why. Obviously some forms of speech are hurtful or offensive towards other people for no good reason. I think people have an obligation not to hurt or offend people when they can help it. Of course, this obligation extends also to people who would hurt or offend homosexuals.

Not in a rude way, but in a way that was said to be taken as a fact but purposefully said in a nice way in order for it to be understood. Don't get me wrong, it's not like we were in there making out. I'm talking I might have kissed her once in a two hour period. So am I to keep my mouth shut and comply with their request because they are uncomfortable with the fact that a guy is kissing his girlfriend in public and they are either jealous or uncomfortable? NO.


It depends. If the people telling you to stop the behavior either owned the establishment, or had been long regulars at the establishment before you came along, then I would say Yes, you ought to comply with their wishes. If you owned the place yourself, or if they were newcomers trying to make you stop a behavior that you had been allowed to do a long time before they showed up, then I would say no, you didn't need to follow their request. This seems much more natural and ethical to me than to justify being offensive because of some 'right'.
To extend this to homosexuals, if a homosexual wants to kiss their SO in a place and they are asked to stop, they should honor that wish if they are newcomers to that environment. Similarly, if a straight person goes into a gay-friendly environment and asks that everybody stops doing what they've been doing for years, there's no obligation to listen to him.



Your next couple questions seem not to apply since I disagree with you about the above.

Not once did I hear anyone say a thing about how they are discriminated against.


Which leads me to believe that the parade had nothing to do with protesting mistreatment, and everything to do with forcing acceptance. The rest of the paragraph seems to pointing out that gays are often nice people, which doesn't seem overly relevant to me.

What!?! Are you telling me that if you are being picked on by the school bully, you going up to him to tell him that it's not a joke to you and that it is really hurting your feelings, is the wrong thing to do?


I think, by the time you get to this reading of this post, you'll understand that this isn't what I'm saying at all.

If you want to follow what you have said above, you should have NEVER said anything about gays in your posts, don't you know it may offend or upset someone?


To put it in perspective with the above examples, it seems like this place is the sort where dissenting opinion is encouraged, and discussion is enjoyed. Am I wrong? You wouldn't see me going to "www.gaymessageboard.com" or whatever and telling them all they're immoral- assuming that message board doesn't welcome that sort of thing.


I take it then that you assume homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with?


Actually, my point is saying that we have control over our behavior was to say that a homosexual has control over whether or not they demonstrate their homosexuality in a public place. The person with three-arms may not.

some research into the topic Uccisore and you will find that there is ground breaking scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic in males.


I imagine violence and pedophilia are influenced by genetics as well. Is there a 'demonstrate your sexual orientation in public even when it will offend most of the people in attendence' gene?

Where on this planet is it written as an absolute truth that finding the opposite of sex attractive is wrong?


Nowhere that I know of. I'm discussing behavior, not internal workings of the mind.

MOST slaves didn't complain about their being abused. Uccisore, most slaves were actually treated with respect.


Well, ok, so slavery wasn't so bad after all. Still, homosexuals aren't treated at all like slaves, and I don't see the comparison as valid.

I wonder, Uccisore, what would you say about a gay couple NOT knowing that their homosexuality will upset or offend anyone actually do offend someone?


If they unknowingly offend someone, then what can they do? They have no obligation to change their behavior until they are approached and asked to, or they have other good reason to beliee they're being offensive.

Define for me your definition of societal norm. Which the word 'deviant' is dependant on. Then, Uccisore, I want you to elaborate for my edification what EXACTLY is the accepted norm for society on homosexuality.


No problem. Which society?

Lastly, do you have any of your own views on aspects of life or do you base all your views on societal norms?


Just because my view is that people should respect societal norms doesn't mean It's not my own opinion. Does a view have to be outrageous to be credible?

Of those aspects of life that you would say are not societal norms, do you think yourself wrong? If your final answer is 'NO' you need to rethink your own paradox.


I'm afraid I don't see the comparison between "Having an opinion most people would disagree with" and "Knowingly engaging in offensive behavior in public".
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Magius » Fri Dec 13, 2002 7:21 am

Uccisore stated:
I'll repeat, using different words, that I thing homosexuals *ought* to speak up when they are mistreated. People ought not assault or persecute homosexuals any more than anyone else. What I object to is the idea that homosexuals are somehow entitled to be public about their sexuality, despite their community's wishes. If a community doesn't want to see two guys holding hands or kissing in public, etc., then people should respect that.


To draw an analogy do you think Galileo should have kept his mouth shut about the earth being round and not square? Believe me the community didn't want to hear that. Had he not been on good standing with the church he would have been killed for it. In the end he was put under house arrest by the church despite many letters of warning. But Galileo wanted to show the society the truth... a truth that they wished not t o hear or see. Gays only want society to see the truth that the society does not wish to hear. It's true that there are gays and lesbians and that they have sex. This is the truth, in the same way society should know the truth.

Why should gays not be themselves in public when heterosexuals can be in the context of sexual preference? Gays ARE entitled to be public about their sexuality because heterosexuals are. Equality. It's something society has to get use to. Welcome to the new millenium. You can fight it or you can accept it. Homosexuals are discriminated against by the simple fact that they have to hide, they can't be themselves. People can figure out when someone is gay, the minute they do they treat them DIFFERENTLY, this difference is the exclusion a homosexual had to live with which affects their ability to get a job, make friends, lead a normal life style, etc.

You continually speak of a communities wishes. So tell me, what are the wishes of the Mississauga, Ontario, Canada community? More importantly, explain to me how you can know that. Each community will have some of it;s members for and some against homosexuality. The reform is still quite new, so many communities will have more people against homosexuality than for. But this is because they don't understand it, they fear it, they act as though it is contagious. A prominent author Timothy F. Murphy on the topic of homosexuality has done extensive research into the topic of homosexuality, societal mentality, and even with the legislation of gay rights. He has found that gays have actually raised children up to be healthy, smart, developed, and...straight.

It's as though we are justified as a community in doing whatever we want, if we don't like something we can get rid of it without hesitation. Haven't we progressed further than merely working on first impressions and gut instincts?

Lastly, within the context you speak in there is the erroneous theme that homosexuals are somehow apart from the community. You speak of gays respecting the wishes of the community, but the homosexuals are the community. As are straights. Your argument could be turned on its head by saying that straights should be the ones abiding by the homosexuals view since homosexuals are not infringing on straights ability to express their sexual preference in public, it's the straights that are infringing on homosexuals ability to express their sexual preference in public. But you cannot do away with homosexuality, so it is up to heterosexuals to come to terms with it.

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

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 13, 2002 8:32 am

To draw an analogy do you think Galileo should have kept his mouth shut about the earth being round and not square?


If Galileo went to church services with a tee-shirt saying "Don't be a Flat-head" or held a "Roundness Pride" parade through the middle of Vatican city, then I would say he was violating his obligations. Discussing his views in an environment intended for such discussions, though, is perfectly acceptable. The Church's reaction is an example of an instituion violating their obligation to the individual.
This all has very little to do with views themselves, and very much to do with appropriate and innapropriate ways to express and demonstrate them.

Gays only want society to see the truth that the society does not wish to hear.


Point of note, what gays are advocating is an ethical, and therefore subjective, point of view. They are not right in the sense that Galileo was right, even if their view does gain dominance.

Why should gays not be themselves in public when heterosexuals can be in the context of sexual preference? Gays ARE entitled to be public about their sexuality because heterosexuals are. Equality. It's something society has to get use to.


Gays, Straights, and everybody else have moral obligations that vary slightly depending on their community, for no reason other than ethics are so tied up in inter-human relations. It happens to be that homosexuality is found to be repulsive in a majority of Western communities. There are always going to be groups and practices that society doesn't want to hear about.
Why does society 'have to' get used to something? If I invent a completely new thing...say, covering myself with skunk-stink and walking around reeking, how many people do I have to get to do it with me before I'm suddenly entitled to do it in public and society has to put up with me?

People can figure out when someone is gay, the minute they do they treat them DIFFERENTLY,


Because the majority of people believe homosexuality is a immoral, disgusting thing. This *will* affect people's behavior, there's nothing to be done about that. As I said, there will always be practices that society thinks are immoral and disgusting. What I haven't seen is any good reason why homosexuality shouldn't be one of them, other than they happen to be the most vocal right now.

So tell me, what are the wishes of the Mississauga, Ontario, Canada community?


I'm sure I don't care. The community will have wishes, though, things they consider acceptable and not-acceptable, and people are obligated to honor those wishes until they go through the proper channels to change them.

But this is because they don't understand it, they fear it, they act as though it is contagious.


The Mississauguans sound like a ignorant, fearful lot. Fortunately, most people in my area who object to homosexuality aren't like that. We're intelligent, thoughtful people just like you who have different ideas of ethics. One thing I've learned is that saying "People who disagree with me about issue X just think that way because Y" is never ever true.

It's as though we are justified as a community in doing whatever we want, if we don't like something we can get rid of it without hesitation. Haven't we progressed further than merely working on first impressions and gut instincts?


No, society hasn't and society never will. The pro-gay movement, just like every political movement, isn't seeking to educate people, it's seeking to replace current gut-reactions with a new set of gut-reactions.

Lastly, within the context you speak in there is the erroneous theme that homosexuals are somehow apart from the community. You speak of gays respecting the wishes of the community, but the homosexuals are the community.


I think you're viewing community as "Everybody everywhere", which isn't what I mean to say. A community could be a city, a country, a cafe full of people, or four children in a car. Whatever group of people you're affecting, and are affecting you in turn, regarding the issue in question. There's a town a few miles from where I live, called Crouseville, where the church is the biggest building in town, the only other public building is a post office, and there's only 2 streets. It's a very conservative community. If a group of homosexuals went there to protest at the Church, the only thing they would accomplish is angering adults, scaring children, and generally messing with otherwise simple lives (some people would probably get a laugh from it, too). Those townsfolk aren't hurting anybody, there's nothing to be gained by attacking their political views in an unwanted way. This is hypothetical (and unlikely) example of an immoral violation of community standards.
By the same token, if I went into a gay bar holding a placard listing a selection of Bible verses condemning homosexuality, I may make some people angry, others depressed or uncomfortable (some people would probably get a laugh from it, too). The people weren't hurting anybody, and no good came from my action. This is another example of an immoral violation of community standards.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Clementine » Fri Dec 13, 2002 1:39 pm

Uccisore
Should? That's an ethical pronouncement, and the source of my ethics says homosexuality is wrong.


So for your ethics is right to give a different treatment to people who don’t like the same thing that you do?

Uccisore
I'm definately not alone in this, in fact I'm in the vast majority in my community.


So you can’t use your ethics outside you community.

Uccisore
That said, If I liked to have sex with vegetables, farm animals, my siblings, or whatever, I have a moral obligation to keep that to myself so as not to offend the sensibilities of my neighbors. This obligation comes before any discussion of my 'rights'.


Right… I live in London and I work in the middle of a Muslim community. Most women are covered up. I don’t like it, I think it is oppressive. Considering that England is not a Muslim country, I suppose I have then the right to tell them to hide their costumes, and pretend they are not Muslims because it is my right to not be offended by people. Same goes to those odd freaks who wear baggy clothes, and those with dyed hair… Oh! And those with lipsticks… just the red ones… and the pinks ones… other are fine by me.

Uccisore
In the same way, gays have an obligation to keep that element of their lives private and out of the public eye *if* they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, or whatever.


Have you thought that maybe gays find you disgusting and offensive for being heterosexual?
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a world where we get only what we like of it, and noticing that and adapting to it is part of growing up. So I find you statement very childish.

Uccisore
I argue from a position of obligations. We have an obligation to treat others a certain way, and obligation to repay debts, and etc.


You have the obligation to accept differences… don’t you?
I remember a guy who didn’t like differences… he was born in Austria and came to power in 1933… you know how he sorted his problem with differences out? He killed them.

Magius
take it then that you assume homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with? Do some research into the topic Uccisore and you will find that there is ground breaking scientific evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic in males.


Still… what is they were choosing to be gays? It doesn’t change anything. Socialists don’t born socialists, but they were also repressed for many years… still are. Even choosing to be, doesn’t change the fact that you can show what you believe and what you are.

Magius
MOST slaves didn't complain about their being abused. Uccisore, most slaves were actually treated with respect. We think all slaves were treated badly because only the bad stories get told, especially in movies which is where I presume most of your views come from.


Actually, at least in the country I am from, many slaves didn’t want to be freed because they had no place to go, a house to leave, food to eat… so their freedom just meant a new kind of imprisonment.

Uccisore
My point is that if a person makes a public display of their homosexuality, in whatever form, knowing that that display will upset or offend most of the people exposed to it, they are at fault


If you feel offended by gays, then you are the problem, not them. They aren’t preaching or wishing you to be homosexual. They aren’t doing anything to YOU… you are feeling it yourself, it’s not their fault.

Uccisore
Because the majority of people believe homosexuality is a immoral,


Only because the church said so. It all depends on what sort of thing is immoral. For me it’s to tread people differently and to repress them. For the church it’s the opposite. For Nazis everyone that wasn’t catholic and German were immoral. For many countries in Africa not circumcised women is immoral. For Muslims not covering yourself (women) is immoral. For Jews, eating pork and working on Sabbath is immoral…

Uccisore
This is another example of an immoral violation of community standards.


If a Alien came to eath and said that in their planet kicking children is moral, doesn’t give them the right to come and kick our children. So if you can’t live in a world of differences, you can’t leave your community, can you?

Uccisore
f I went into a gay bar holding a placard listing a selection of Bible verses condemning homosexuality, I may make some people angry, others depressed or uncomfortable (some people would probably get a laugh from it, too).


Gays don’t go to churches holding flags saying they are gay and the heterosexuals are wrong. Do they? It’s your ‘sacred’ place, like the gay bar is their sacred place… but, a normal pub can have hetero, homos, muslims (having a glass of water), jews, catholics, atheists… right? That’s the world we live in… we created it. The church created it, the heteros, the cultures… You and your community, won’t change the fact that there are differences in the world, whatever they are… of sexual nature, cultural, religious… Now, you have the change of feeling offended and suffer your whole life… cos it won’t change… or you can do like the Austrian man, become powerful and kill all the people you don’t find it goes with your ethics and morals… or you can accept it and let people be different. You decided…

Would you like someone telling you that you can’t be what you are and what you wanna be? So don’t do it to others… you are not better than anyone else for the rules to apply to others and not to you.
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 Uccisore » Fri Dec 13, 2002 6:58 pm

So for your ethics is right to give a different treatment to people who don’t like the same thing that you do?


You're assuming your position, that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable thing. The above sentence could be used to defend pedophiles or incestuous relationships too.

So you can’t use your ethics outside you community.


Fine. Communities that accept homosexuality can be allowed to continue to do so, and communities that reject homosexuality can be allowed to do that too. Why do I get the idea, though, that you wouldn't be satisfied with that?

Considering that England is not a Muslim country, I suppose I have then the right to tell them to hide their costumes, and pretend they are not Muslims because it is my right to not be offended by people.


Didn't you say most of the people in your community dress that way? If so, they have no obligation to listen to you.

Same goes to those odd freaks who wear baggy clothes, and those with dyed hair… Oh! And those with lipsticks… just the red ones… and the pinks ones… other are fine by me.


Well, if you are honestly offended or repulsed by those people- and so are the majority of folks in your community- then yes, you can bring up that they way they dress is upsetting everybody, and they have an obligation to stop it. This is verysimple, really.

Have you thought that maybe gays find you disgusting and offensive for being heterosexual?


What, homosexuals are bigoted? No, that didn't occur to me. I would hope, if anything, they find a set of behavior offensive, not a state of being.

You have the obligation to accept differences… don’t you?


I have an obligation to not hurt or persecute people- including, but not limited to, those with 'differences'. I don't see what I have an obligation to 'accept' diddly-squat. As far as I know, I'm allowed to have any opinion about any behavior that I think it's reasonable to have. Right?

I remember a guy who didn’t like differences… he was born in Austria and came to power in 1933… you know how he sorted his problem with differences out? He killed them.


Wow! Are you saying that I'm going to kill people, or that I should kill people, or that people who don't like homosexuality are guilty of genocide, or that I'm a German dictator, or that every belief that a person who commits evil acts has must be incorrect or...?

Only because the church said so. It all depends on what sort of thing is immoral. For me it’s to tread people differently and to repress them. For the church it’s the opposite. For Nazis everyone that wasn’t catholic and German were immoral. For many countries in Africa not circumcised women is immoral. For Muslims not covering yourself (women) is immoral. For Jews, eating pork and working on Sabbath is immoral…


OK, if there's no objective ethics, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I'll try to make my agenda stick in the world, you'll do the same, and neither of us has any special moral validation. Agreed?
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Clementine » Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:59 am

You're assuming your position, that homosexuality is a normal, acceptable thing. The above sentence could be used to defend pedophiles or incestuous relationships too.



No, I was confirming what you stand for, that’s all. Pedophilia is sexual abuse, incestuous relationships are, most of the time, mental or sexual abuse. If a mother wants to have sex with her adult son, is wrong, because she will be betraying her husband, the same goes to father and daughter. I have no objections in a brother and sister relationship apart from the fact that they could have problems with their offspring.


Code: Select all
 Fine. Communities that accept homosexuality can be allowed to continue to do so, and communities that reject homosexuality can be allowed to do that too. Why do I get the idea, though, that you wouldn't be satisfied with that?



Well, you can’t own a community, a piece of land, and not allow gays to step in it. What I say about keeping it to your community is that you can’t go out protesting against gays as they can’t go protesting against heterosexuals. You keep your feelings to yourself, and your community keep their feelings to themselves…

Didn't you say most of the people in your community dress that way? If so, they have no obligation to listen to you.


I see, so it is the majority then? The so called democracy. Right, so… if the majority of a community decide that you committed a crime, and you didn’t, but they are happy in blaming you, than that’s the right thing to do, as it pleases the majority?
I see… so, in this case, your community could be invaded by gays, so then you would have to accept them. Good to know… is a good way of sorting things out.


Well, if you are honestly offended or repulsed by those people- and so are the majority of folks in your community- then yes, you can bring up that they way they dress is upsetting everybody, and they have an obligation to stop it. This is verysimple, really.


So, in your opinion, people should all be just like the other? Like a perfect race… with perfect morals and ethics… if am not mistaken that sort of thing happened already…

As far as I know, I'm allowed to have any opinion about any behavior that I think it's reasonable to have. Right?


Yes, you can have any opinion you want… white people had an opinion about black people some years ago, so they enslave them.

Are you saying that I'm going to kill people, or that I should kill people,


Am I? I am saying that that was an episode in history (actually there were many) and that is the solution that some of them came up with. Does it means you will do the same? You decide it… not me.

or that people who don't like homosexuality are guilty of genocide,

If they kill them, yes

or that I'm a German dictator, or that every belief that a person who commits evil acts has must be incorrect or...?


I commented what this sort of hatred against differences can cause… if you gonna do anything, that’s your problem.
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 Uccisore » Mon Dec 16, 2002 11:20 pm

Well, you can’t own a community, a piece of land, and not allow gays to step in it.


Oh, and why is that? Would it be unethical?

I see, so it is the majority then? The so called democracy. Right, so… if the majority of a community decide that you committed a crime, and you didn’t, but they are happy in blaming you, than that’s the right thing to do, as it pleases the majority?


OK, we're back to the analogy thing again. No, guilt or innocence of a crime is a matter of fact, which can be proven or disproven. Locking an innocent person is prison is a violation of social obligations.
By contract, sexual devients keeping their kinks to themselves is a matter of common courtesy, if they are in a community that they know would be made uncomfortable by them. "People should accept homosexuality" or "People should not accept homosexuality" are not statements that can be proven or disproven like a court case. They are ethical statements that will differ from individual to individual depending on certain foundation beliefs about God, humanity, and such. Since you have no objective mandate that your point of view is correct, you have no grounds on which to force your ideals on society.
In other words, a society that wants to reject homosexuality is perfectly entitled to do so, as long as they don't violate other obligations by commting violence against gays and so on.

So, in your opinion, people should all be just like the other? Like a perfect race… with perfect morals and ethics… if am not mistaken that sort of thing happened already…


You're on to me. I'm Hitler reincarnated. :roll:
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Clementine » Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:33 pm

Uccisore
Oh, and why is that? Would it be unethical?


Because you can own what it doesn’t belong to you.

Uccisore
OK, we're back to the analogy thing again. No, guilt or innocence of a crime is a matter of fact, which can be proven or disproven. Locking an innocent person is prison is a violation of social obligations.


So, imprisoning a person that hasn’t committed any crime is a violation of what? Of his freedom, right?
Why do we lock up criminals? Because they can’t live our society. Why? Because they do thing we don’t approve… oh wait.. isn’t what you are suggesting then? So actually you are ‘locking up’ gays because you think they are criminals… isn’t it?

Uccisore
You're on to me. I'm Hitler reincarnated.


Don’t play the victim here. You might never do a gay any harm, but that’s you,… if you spread hatred, soon it will reach someone who will hate gays more than you do and they will committee crimes against them because they think like you do.
Once in history, black people were slaves because the white man thought they were different and didn’t like this difference. Time passed by to prove that no black people were inferior than white (actually they are biologically stronger), but they still have to fight for the right of being… black? Do people NEED to fight for the right to be what they are? Depending on people like you, yes… some still fight for the right to BE. So i am afraid i will have to pick on you till you either give up or change your mind.
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 Uccisore » Wed Dec 18, 2002 3:07 am

Because you can own what it doesn’t belong to you.


Could you elaborate on how this relates?

So, imprisoning a person that hasn’t committed any crime is a violation of what? Of his freedom, right?


You can't violate freedom because freedom doesn't dictate anything to violate. Freedom is just the space between obligations. Locking someone up who didn't do anything wrong is a violation of how we're obligated to treat people.

So actually you are ‘locking up’ gays because you think they are criminals… isn’t it?


Yeah, if you say so.

Don’t play the victim here. You might never do a gay any harm, but that’s you,… if you spread hatred, soon it will reach someone who will hate gays more than you do and they will committee crimes against them because they think like you do.


Uh-huh. I don't know where you got the idea that "Some people who agree with you do terrible things, therefore you must be wrong" is rational, but it's certainly been well ingrained.

So i am afraid i will have to pick on you till you either give up or change your mind.


Showing me how ignorant and irrational your point of view is isn't going to make me change my mind. You can be as dogged as you want, but comparing me to Hitler, accusing me of things I haven't done, and making horrible analogies to make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not isn't making me agree with you, or even get frustrated with my point of view.
I'm sure you've seen the tactics you're using work quite often, but they're generally used to humilate the 'other side' for the benefit of a third party. In other words, shrieking "You're Hitler! You're Hitler" until I get bored with you and stop replying may convince another person that I am, in fact, evil or whatever. But you and I will always know that you just didn't have anything credible to say.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Clementine » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:55 am

Because you can own what it doesn’t belong to you.


Could you elaborate on how this relates?


Right… because you live in a place doesn’t mean you own it…the land was there before you and, like anyone else, shouldn’t consider it as you property.

So actually you are ‘locking up’ gays because you think they are criminals… isn’t it?


Yeah, if you say so.


If you think they are criminals, what else can I say, but that you are wrong. Having gay sex isn’t a crime. Is proved that in nature there are many species who have homosexual relations. You religious ‘morals’ make it a crime, it doesn’t mean it is a natural crime.
As you admitted, you think they are criminals, so why don’t you like when I compare this situation to the Nazis? It’s the same line on thought… in many places people are killed because they are criminals… is that what you suggest? So everyone that doesn’t live the way Uccisore likes, is wrong. Aren’t you playing God there? Judging who should do what, and how?

Uh-huh. I don't know where you got the idea that "Some people who agree with you do terrible things, therefore you must be wrong" is rational, but it's certainly been well ingrained.


You came to that conclusion, not me.
Is a person go out preaching hatred, doesn’t mean they will or already committed any crime, but they might influence others to do so.

Showing me how ignorant and irrational your point of view


Oh please…. You are the one who hate gays for no reason, you are the one who wants to ban other people from your community, you are the one judging others, you who havent give me a good reason to believe gay people deserve to be banned, that they are worse than you. As far as I can see, you are the ignorant, irrational, sexist and probably racist (following your line of thoughts). You just told me gays are criminals… how irrational can this be?

comparing me to Hitler, accusing me of things I haven't done,


Haha.. I have to laugh not to cry on such absurd argument. I compared your line of thought to the Nazi only because, in case you don’t know, didn’t accept the differences we have in our world… just like you. LINE OF THOUGHT. I haven’t ACCUSE you of anything… I said AGAIN that this line of thought can case wars. I don’t know where you come from, but if you don’t read the news, the tragedy with the twin towers was because of hate, because some Muslims think they have the right to kill who is not Muslim. Is a line of thought again… if you can’t understand that, then you should argue about it.

even get frustrated with my point of view.


I do. I am frustrated that there are people in the world claiming to be religious and still carry much judgment and hate in their hearts. I am actually very sad that you have such opinion about other human being and I can’t believe that for you to be a better person you must prove how ‘awful’ other people are. Are you afraid that for accepting gays into your community that you won’t be close to God anymore? Seems so… so why don’t you just be good yourself and stop judging… free will, remember?

I'm sure you've seen the tactics you're using work quite often, but they're generally used to humilate the 'other side' for the benefit of a third party. In other words, shrieking "You're Hitler! You're Hitler" until I


For f**k sake mate! Go back to my posts and find where I said ‘You are Hitler’! Where have I humiliated you? I thought we were discussing about you not liking gays. As I think they are no different from me, I will stand up to this. I do fight for gay rights, as I fight for women right, immigrant rights, refugee’s rights… etc. I only want you to understand that they deserve the same rights as you do and is not because they aren’t perfect to your eyes doesn’t mean they are less than you are. If that’s humiliation for you, which isnt,… then you shouldn’t have started the arguing.


get bored with you and stop replying may convince another person that I am, in fact, evil or whatever.


I didn’t say you were evil, I don’t even know you to say such thing. What I know about you is your view on gay rights, and that’s what we are discussing. If you think they are criminals, I don’t, and we will discuss it till you change your mind of give up, because I can’t accept you labeling and generalizing all gay people as criminals… it’s absurd… this is a misunderstanding of the nature of gays. You are obviously allowed not to like them, and to reject them in your home… but you can’t alienated them from a community, a society or the world, is just not fair.
If you come to a forum to argue about your thoughts on it, you have to be opened to other opinions… and to people like me who will defend gay rights and their freedom to be gay.
If anyone comes to the forum ranting black people, I will do the same… So don’t take it as a personal thing, remember, I don’t even know you to be personal… I only know what you have showed me.

But you and I will always know that you just didn't have anything credible to say.


Well… you should read the posts again, all you can say is that you have the right to ban gays because they are criminals. That’s far from being credible. Is pure prejudice and fear. If you want to ignore everything I said, then do it, I can’t do nothing but keep being frustrated by people with this sort of hatred against another human being.
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 Johan » Wed Dec 18, 2002 2:07 pm

I will put in a short note about this matter as well.

It's not wrong or evil being gay. It's nature (or Gods will if you prefer) that have created this variation, so in those cases it's not up to the individuals to decide if they should be gay or not. In some cases people that are not born homosexual are being brought up this way. It's also popular today in some groups to be gay, and just because of this people act as homosexuals. In those cases I think it's wrong. A person should follow his/her biological nature. A successful psychotherapy will sort out those that act as homosexuals from those that have this natural. It's not right to try to convert a true homosexual in to heterosexuality. This will not create a whole and happy individ, but an individ that goes against his/her nature.

It's possible that homosexual people are superior to heterosexual people from one standpoint: Nature always try new ways to find successful solutions; and homosexuals might be the first step towards a new human. Androgyny would be superior to the human as we see him/her today, and homosexuality might be the first step. So it's not up to us to judge if homosexuality is wrong or not, the future will tell if this is a successful solution.

Homophobia however is not based on the fact if homosexuality is right or wrong. It's a mental illness that resides in the judger, and blown out of proportions. I've seen this come from Christians a lot, and it's understandable because most Christians (that I know) are very dogmatic.

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

Postby Uccisore » Wed Dec 18, 2002 7:16 pm

Right… because you live in a place doesn’t mean you own it…the land was there before you and, like anyone else, shouldn’t consider it as you property.


Ah, I see. I think we can agree, though, that various societies have different rules, and that the bounds of a society is pretty typically defined geographically. Gay rights aside, communities of people in a certain area have always made rules to live by that apply to that area. Whether or not homosexuality is accepted would be one.

So everyone that doesn’t live the way Uccisore likes, is wrong. Aren’t you playing God there? Judging who should do what, and how?


Sorry. I won't use confusing things like "Yeah, if you say so" anymore. What I should have said was "The idea that I think gays are criminals is so wrong and so irrelevant that there's no good reason for you to have brought it up. Therefore, I will dismiss it and hope you said something more rational further down the post". Sorry for leading you astray.

Oh please…. You are the one who hate gays for no reason, you are the one who wants to ban other people from your community, you are the one judging others, you who havent give me a good reason to believe gay people deserve to be banned, that they are worse than you. As far as I can see, you are the ignorant, irrational, sexist and probably racist (following your line of thoughts). You just told me gays are criminals… how irrational can this be?


First, I never said or implied that I hate gays. Second, I never said or implied that I wanted to ban anybody from any community. That, of course, would be why I haven't given a good reason for it. Third, I overestimated you when I figured you would realize "Yeah, if you say so" wasn't an endorsement of gays being criminals so much as me saying "You seem determined to characterize me a certain way regardless of the truth, so I'll let it go".

Haha.. I have to laugh not to cry on such absurd argument. I compared your line of thought to the Nazi only because, in case you don’t know, didn’t accept the differences we have in our world… just like you.


OK, and what's the purpose of the comparison? Did the fingers just type away for no particular reason? To what conclusion was I supposed to be lead when you talked about my similarities with Nazis?

I am frustrated that there are people in the world claiming to be religious and still carry much judgment and hate in their hearts. I am actually very sad that you have such opinion about other human being and I can’t believe that for you to be a better person you must prove how ‘awful’ other people are. Are you afraid that for accepting gays into your community that you won’t be close to God anymore? Seems so… so why don’t you just be good yourself and stop judging… free will, remember?


OK...it's getting obvious that you say all this same stuff to anybody who disagrees with you about homosexuality, because you clearly haven't been reading what I've said in the least. If you had been paying attention, you'd realize that my view has nothing to do with hate, nothing to with religion, nothing to do with any of the above. My point is simply that when a person enters a community, they are obliged to abide by that communities customs of acceptable public behavior. What the heck does that have to do with hating or banning anybody?

I thought we were discussing about you not liking gays.


Well, you thought wrong. We're not discussing what I like or dislike at all. Or, at least, I'm not.

If you come to a forum to argue about your thoughts on it, you have to be opened to other opinions…


Well, certainly. But then, I'm not the one who feels an obligation to force someone to either change there mind or be silent. I'm not the one who repeatedly makes analogies between the views of the people I'm talking to, and the views of what most would consider the most evil human being in recent history. How open to my opinion are you?
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Clementine » Thu Dec 19, 2002 1:52 pm

of people in a certain area have always made rules to live by that apply to that area. Whether or not homosexuality is accepted would be one.


Yes, they always have rules… like immigration. In Saudi Arabia few years ago, no one was allowed in without and invitation. Doesn’t mean it’s right. I think all countries and communities that possess a peace of the world and claim their land, is wrong. As I said, we don’t own lands, we use it… we borrow it from nature, from the world… from God, if you want to see it that way. So it’s everything that lives should be able to move around the face of the earth as they pleased. But that’s in a large scale… still, there are rules in the free countries that allow free coming and going. You can’t own a street, it belongs to the government, which means it belongs to everyone in the country. So, even if your community dislikes gays, they can’t ban gays from it, because the land is free to anyone who wants to walk on it. You, then, have you privacy in your home,… if you don’t like them, you are free not to let them in.

The idea that I think gays are criminals is so wrong and so irrelevant that there's no good reason for you to have brought it up. Therefore, I will dismiss it and hope you said something more rational further down the post".


If you want to ban someone’s freedom to come and go, if you (and you community) want to ban someone from your society is because the person doesn’t fit the ‘rules’ of your society. That’s what we do with criminal.

I never said or implied that I wanted to ban anybody from any community.


You didn't said YOU wanted to ban them, but you suggested:
‘In the same way, gays have an obligation to keep that element of their lives private and out of the public eye *if* they live in a community that finds them disgusting, offensive, or whatever.’… ’ Communities that accept homosexuality can be allowed to continue to do so, and communities that reject homosexuality can be allowed to do that too’… ‘society that wants to reject homosexuality is perfectly entitled to do so’

Maybe you are using the wrong word there… cos rejection means to throw away, cast away.

First, I never said or implied that I hate gays.


True. You just think they are wrong.

Third, I overestimated you


You shouldn’t overestimate people.

To what conclusion was I supposed to be lead when you talked about my similarities with Nazis?


Line of thought… prejudice against what is different from you, non acceptance of other ‘cultures’

it's getting obvious that you say all this same stuff to anybody who disagrees with you about homosexuality,


Of course I say the same thing… if a person has prejudice against gays I does disappoint me, so I would say the same, why would i say differently if that's what i feel?

My point is simply that when a person enters a community, they are obliged to abide by that communities customs of acceptable public behavior.


We are talking about gays in a community that rejects them. You think they have the right to reject them, I think they haven’t go this right. I think that the community who rejects gays is because they have religious morals which implies that gays are wrong and they should hide it a pretend they are not to please the society. If you allow a society grow up thinking gays are wrong and they are disgusting and should hide themselves from other, they will soon bring homophobia to their houses and soon hatred and crimes against gays. To believe that this can’t happen in ignore history and all the things we see today, even in societies that have gays from long time. Like in britain.
Not allowing gays to say or just be gay in public is censorship and violation of their right to free expression. They are harming no one kissing other males on the street, as its not a harm to a heterosexual to kiss on the streets.
I am against your point of view that a community should have the right to reject them. The hatred and banning come as a consequence of this right.


Quote:
I thought we were discussing about you not liking gays.

Well, you thought wrong. We're not discussing what I like or dislike at all. Or, at least, I'm not.


True. This is a very important subject to me, and I mislead the discussion when I said that. But I made my point above of what we are discussing.

But then, I'm not the one who feels an obligation to force someone to either change there mind or be silent.


I do feel the need to change peopels mind about gay prejudice and rights. I don’t think it is a bad thing to feel this need, as it’s not a bad thing to change our minds either.

I'm not the one who repeatedly makes analogies between the views of the people I'm talking to, and the views of what most would consider the most evil human being in recent history. How open to my opinion are you?


Again… I said line of thought. I never compared you, as a person, to Hitler or the Nazis, I compared the line of thought. Prejudice leads to hatred, and (as I said before) you might not be the person who will committee anything against gays, but someone who will agree with your that a community has the right to reject gays, will committee a crime against them if they think that ‘that gay couple over there is kissing in public and they are not supposed to. Which is what happen with the Nazis. Not all German was against Jews, but the ones who were against them were free to treat them badly after they were told they were allowed to.

You aren’t bringing to me any new opinion or point of view. I heard all this ‘right to reject gays’ before, so I have an opinion about that already.
Is not right to censor a people because of their sexuality, is not right to reject them or ban they freedom of expression, as it would be right censor or reject other cultures and people from other origins if they aren’t casing you any harm.
The argument that you feel OFFENDED is not good enough, the problem there is within the person, not with gays or whoever they are repressing.

Now, I apologize for saying you hate gays, you didn’t say that, however it doesn’t dismiss the rest of my arguments. And as I said, I am not against you, I am against what you said in this subject. The same things I said to you, the same comparison with your line of thought and the Nazi line of thought, I say to parents and my brother and to anyone who think gays are not allowed to the same things as heterosexuals.
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 HVD » Thu Dec 19, 2002 4:36 pm

Ucciscore, you say that a community has a right to exclude gays, but does this right extend to other groups, such as women, blacks, the old/young?

Also, how do you define "community"? Is it a group of people living together, or can it be more abstract, such as a club or society?
HVD
Thinker
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2002 1:00 am
Location: England

Postby Uccisore » Thu Dec 19, 2002 8:47 pm

Ucciscore, you say that a community has a right to exclude gays,


No actually, I don't. I say a community can place limitations on public behavior, in the defense of their tastes and beliefs. Related to gays, a community can state 'We don't want people to engage in same-sex public displays of affection, or wear clothes bearing slogans with pro-homosexuality messages', and newcomers to that community are obligated to abide by those rules. It's the exact same reason why I wouldn't go to a country where cows are worshipped, and walk down the street eating a steak sandwich. Do I think eating beef is morally wrong? Not at all.

but does this right extend to other groups, such as women, blacks, the old/young?


I would say it depends on the size of the community. Can I throw a party in my apartment where only white, male, 30 year olds are allowed to show up? Sure I can. I would think I could even have a large club or small business that held to limitations like that. However, if my 'community' was large enough that those restrictions were making it hard for some people to be employed or have housing, then I would say the limitations violate fair-treatment obligations to blacks, women, etc.
It goes without saying that I also think a group can legitimately formed that excludes men, whites, the middle-aged, and so on.

Also, how do you define "community"? Is it a group of people living together, or can it be more abstract, such as a club or society?


Good question.
For the sake of this discussion, I would say a community is any group of people that when considered together, have controlling interest over the place/organization in question. Therefore, the community of my apartment would be me and my roomate, the community of my town would be everybody living and paying taxes there, the community of a club would be everybody paying dues (or whatever else is required for legitimate membership) and so on.
Also, communities can influence larger communities, and their actions must be judged in the context of the larger community they affect. In other words, the community of my apartment doesn't have sole rights to decide how loud I can play my music at 3 a.m., as this has serious impact on the larger community of "People who live in the same building". A community of people living in an apartment building across town need not be involved, though (unless I get a lot more money to invest in a sound system, that is).

Yes, they always have rules… like immigration. In Saudi Arabia few years ago, no one was allowed in without and invitation. Doesn’t mean it’s right.


Certainly. However, unless you establish an objective mandate of ethics, any attempt you make to force Saudi arabia to open it's borders is no more right than any attempt they make to keep them closed. With that kind of subjectivity, the only relevant question is "Who gets to make the decision", and the only answer can be "Each particular community".


You, then, have you privacy in your home,… if you don’t like them, you are free not to let them in.


I would agree with this, but I think this raises the question of "What's so special about a home, and how precisley is it defined?" I can keep purple people out of my home, sure. Can I keep them off my yard? Can a series of families living next to each other decide to keep purple people off their street? I don't see any definite distinction.

Maybe you are using the wrong word there… cos rejection means to throw away, cast away.


Perhaps I was. I think between by the time you get to this point in this post, you'll understand what I was really trying to say.

True. You just think they are wrong.


I do think homosexuality is morally wrong, yes. But that's based on religious beliefs that not everybody shares. I don't think there's any particular obligation to stop people from performing homosexual acts in private.

Of course I say the same thing… if a person has prejudice against gays I does disappoint me, so I would say the same, why would i say differently if that's what i feel?


Because the same old thing won't nessicarily apply to every argument for a position. For example, my argument is totally independant of the question "Is homosexuality ethical?", and has very little to do with predjudice, so 90% of what you've said so far in the conversation hasn't been as relevant as it could have been.


If you allow a society grow up thinking gays are wrong and they are disgusting and should hide themselves from other, they will soon bring homophobia to their houses and soon hatred and crimes against gays.


If I can teach that homosexuality is wrong and/or disgusting, and have that impact the next generation in the way you describe, why can I not also teach that crimes against gays (or anyone else) are wrong and/or disgusting, and have that stick just as well?

Not allowing gays to say or just be gay in public is censorship and violation of their right to free expression.


I think rights are a farce, so I don't really have anything more to say about this.

I do feel the need to change peopels mind about gay prejudice and rights. I don’t think it is a bad thing to feel this need, as it’s not a bad thing to change our minds either.


I also, don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to change people's minds. The problem is, when some people try to change minds, they're accused of being intolerant or 'forcing their views on people' or whatever, and when other people try to change minds, they're sainted for it.


Again… I said line of thought. I never compared you, as a person, to Hitler or the Nazis,


And, as I said, 'I'm not the one who repeatedly makes analogies between the views of the people I'm talking to, and the views of what most would consider the most evil human being in recent history.' While I'm certainly glad that you didn't say *I* was an evil person, I think comparing my views to Hitler's doesn't say anything meaningful about them. It feels like you're trying to give a reason to dismiss my views without due consideration.

Prejudice leads to hatred, and (as I said before) you might not be the person who will committee anything against gays, but someone who will agree with your that a community has the right to reject gays, will committee a crime against them if they think that ‘that gay couple over there is kissing in public and they are not supposed to.


That doesn't make my view wrong. Someone could read the words you've said in other threads about religion, and go burn down a synagogue full of old ladies because of it. And that doesn't make your views wrong.

I think we covered a lot of ground with this most recent exchange.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Truthseeker » Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:05 am

Hey everyone, I"m BAAAAAAACK!
Looks like my forum message has grown a bit :)

Heya Magius, what's your take?
Truthseeker
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 9:24 pm
Location: Michigan/Canada

Postby Truthseeker » Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:25 am

OOps, also needed to address some things that Uccisore said (or rather his whole message)

I accept everything you have said Uccisore. It's good to finally hear that someone believes in banning public displays of homosexuality.
In order for there to be peace about ANY subject it must be kept behind closed doors. Although I haven't seen too many diplays of public homosexuality (here in Michigan), the TV more than makes up for it.
With show such as Queer as Folk on HBO making mega bucks off the whole gay "scene" it show that gay people are starting to turn down the same road as blacks and "american" indians.
I say this because black people often complain SO much about being treated wrong, yet they choose not to get out of their environments or do something to change it. They risk their life to sell drugs, instead of risk their lives to stop it.
As for native americans, they should count themselves lucky. When I applied for college near my home here in Michigan, I soon found out right from the college handbook that Native Americans get FREE tuition. That's not the only thing, they don't even have to pay other bills either and some times even get free food. I want to know why I have to pay for an education and Native Americans get to be freeloaders!
I want to know why gays and lezbos get to whine all day and why everyone is telling me to be quite! SOMEONE ANSWER ME THAT!

To end this message, I'd like to say that no matter what happens I will never believe that children in schools should be taught how to be gay. My statement may sound a bit "over the edge", but I beleive that right now in a school somewhere, a little girl or boy is being asked over and over if he or she "likes" someone from their same sex. When a preteen or teen is pumped full of this force to be gay, they have to react to it somehow. Mostly the weak-minded go along with what society tells them to do, like when they tell them to be gay. In fact if you search, you will find that most people who are gay are mostly weak-minded individuals with many issues that never got them far in life.
Give me one example of a gay person who made an invention or taught something moral to people or a gay person who tried to make peace with people?
Not to say that gay people were "weak-minded" before they were told they were gay, I beleive everyone is straight until pushed to be gay and that's all there is to it.
Truthseeker
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 9:24 pm
Location: Michigan/Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron