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 BluTGI » Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:19 am

and with the return of evil I must return to ballance the scales.
BluTGI
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 5:50 am
Location: NC

Postby Truthseeker » Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:29 am

After reading all my message that's all you can say, PLAH, *I spit on you!*
Truthseeker
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 9:24 pm
Location: Michigan/Canada

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:43 am

Hi, Mr.Lee. Good to have another point of view on board.


gay people are starting to turn down the same road as blacks and "american" indians


You mean by cashing in on the negative sterotypes about them, while at the same time condemning anybody who believes the sterotypes are true? Absolutely.

I beleive everyone is straight until pushed to be gay and that's all there is to it.


I would say that probably happens sometimes- maybe even most of the time. I personally have watched friends of mine 'decide' they were gay well into their late teens, for no reason other than they couldn't get a girlfriend, and they were in an environment were guys were coming on to them regularly.
On the other hand, I do think there are people that are gay because of something going on genetically. There's a whole bunch of psycho-sexual disorders, of which homosexuality was considered one of until about 30 yeras ago, and these are a lot more complex than being 'pushed into it'.
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 20, 2002 8:48 am

Lee,
always a kidder.

Lee stated:
It's good to finally hear that someone believes in banning public displays of homosexuality.


Uccisores argument against public displays of homosexuality is based on obligation towards a community that chooses to not accept it, not that there is actually anything wrong with homosexuals (as far as I understand it). According to this logic, since you agree with it, you shouldn't be saying anything cause this community right here doesn't accept the way you articulate yourself. But hey, to each his own.

Lee stated:
<b>In order for there to be peace about ANY subject it must be kept behind closed doors.</b>


Do you realize the consequences of what you say? Do you realize how obtuse the above is? The presumption being that all subjects are to be behind closed doors, cause otherwise we will have no peace. It's not possible even if all 6 billion people were to concur with your statement.

Lee stated:
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.


What the hell you complaining for? You shouldn't communicate such information and views cause you are informing others of your opinion and that means you are opening the doors to your views, but we have to keep things behind closed doors in order to have peace. Or is your sole purpose to come here, be puerile and cause plight in the lives of others?

Lee stated:
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!


You know it's people like you that elate themselves by going through life complaining and demeaning everything but themselves. You would sooner look to your neighbours backyard and complain that they have a mess before you would look to your own backyard to see if it was a mess. Metaphorically speaking ofcourse. So here's my version of your above statement "As for Mr. Lee, he should count himself lucky. When I first came on the board and found Mr. Lee shooting his mouth off I found out that anyone can go around shooting their mouth off without consideration for anyone. I want to know why I have to put up with Mr. Lee because his views are confounded, he is rude, pretentious, and is puerile in his views of homosexuality, amongst other things. I want to know why Mr. Lee gets to demean others and tell them that they have to hide what they are and I get him telling me rude and demeaning things!"

Mr. Lee stated:
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.


People aren't taught how to be gay! Even if all of us wanted to teach others to be gay, how would we do it? We aren't even taught how to be straight in school. We are taught the body parts, but teachers don't go around saying "now boys and girls make sure you keep inserting those penis' into the verginas". No one would agree to children being taught how to be gay in school. Wow Mr. Lee you have actually figured something out for yourself, congrats. Now how about getting back to the topic, which is "why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to act as a hetersexual couple in public?" By which I mean, the majority don't take issue with seeing a young heterosexual couple kissing on a park bench. So why shouldn't homosexuals be extended the same courtesy?

Mr. Lee stated:
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.


Out of all seriousness, Mr. Lee, why do you believe that in a school somewhere a little girl or boy is being asked if they like someone of the same sex? Who are they being asked by? And what does being asked if you like someone of the same sex have to do with schools teaching kids how to be gay?

Mr. Lee stated:
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.


Mr. Lee, are you afraid you might be gay? What makes you think that the weak-minded go along with what society tells them to do? If that is true, and you agreed with Uccisore then you should realize that the majority of people are against homosexuality, so if the weak minded go along with what society tells them to do then everyone should be against homsexuality, like yourself. But that is changing, and that is what scares you. So if the majority of society is against homosexuals, and there is a turn happening, wouldn't that suggest that people are getting stronger minded? Able to comprehend and accept homsexuality for what it is cause they can see the future implications and know that it doesn't affect heterosexuals. Ie. If you go back to one of my first posts to you, you will find that I told you of an article that stated how homosexuals have raised kids on their own and their kids grew up to be healthy members of the society, and guess what...they were straight! I have never heard from society, in any way, shape or form that I should be gay. Where did you get that absurdity from? Furthermore, when you say that a teen is pumped full of this force of being gay, what force are you talking about?

Mr. Lee stated:
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.


Mr. Lee, if you had researched homosexuality, your statements wouldn't be so obtuse and would be much more in-depth. If you want to base your argument on research, then source it and I will source mine. Let me know...

Mr. Lee stated:
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?


Okay...
Ellen DeGeneres, US comedian
Boy George, British musician
Elton John, British singer, musician, composer
Matthew Shepard, famous victim of violent hate crimes murder (and subject of Emmy winning films "The Laramie Project" and "The Matthew Shepard Story")
Jimmy Sommerville, lead singer for Bronski Beat, The Communards, and solo performer
Pedro Zamora, Cuban AIDS activist and The Real World participant.
Ian McKellen, British actor (X-Men, The Lord of the Rings)
Roberta Achtenberg, US Politician
Edward Albee, US Playwright, author of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Horatio Alger, US Author
Chad Allen, US Actor
Hans Christian Andersen, Danish author
W. H. Auden, British poet
Augustus Caesar
Kevin Aviance, dance music singer
James Baldwin, US author
Tallulah Bankhead, US actress
Samuel Barber, US composer
Alan Bates, US actor
Clive Barker, Author, director, artist. Known primarily for his work in the horror genre
Amanda Bearse, US actress (Married...with Children), director
Alison Bechdel, American cartoonist (Dykes to Watch Out For)
Sandra Bernhard, American comedienne, singer, author and actress
Mark Bingham, United Airlines flight 93 passenger
Chastity Bono, US activist, daughter of Cher and Sonny Bono
Easter Bradford, US musician, actor and human rights activist
Scott Brison, Canadian member of Parliament
Benjamin Britten, English composer
Brody (The Distillers) she claimed at a Phoenix concert on November 17, 2002, she was dedicating a song to her wife.
William S. Burroughs, US Beat author (Naked Lunch, Junky)
Truman Capote, US author
Willa Cather, US author
Luis Cernuda, Spanish playwright
Margaret Cho, US actress and comedienne
Montgomery Clift, US actor
Kate Clinton, US comedian
Roy Cohn, US lawyer and henchman of Joseph McCarthy
Aaron Copland, US composer
Quentin Crisp, British actor and wit
Aleister Crowley, British occultist
Libby Davies, Canadian member of parliament
Samuel Delaney, science fiction author
Bertrand Delanoë, mayor of Paris
Lea Delaria, US comedian, jazz singer, author
Ani DiFranco, US folk singer
Divine, US actor
Perry Ellis, clothing designer
Melissa Etheridge, US singer, musician, composer
Harvey Fierstein, US actor, playwright (Torch Song Trilogy)
E. M. Forster, British author
Michel Foucault, French scholar
Pim Fortuyn, assassinated controversial Dutch politician
Barney Frank (D, MA), US Representative
Stephen Fry, British actor, comedian, and novelist
Federico García Lorca, Spanish poet and playwright, martyred in the Spanish Civil War
Candace Gingrich, activist, half-sister of former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich
David Geffen, music producer and recording industry executive
Allen Ginsberg, Beat poet (Howl, Kaddish)
Gustav III of Sweden
Gustav V of Sweden
Manos Hadjidakis, Greek composer
Hadrian, Emperor of Rome
Marc Hall, Canadian student and activist
Harry Hay, US gay rights activist, founder of the Mattachine Society
Sean Hayes, US actor
Nigel Hawthorne, British actor
Hedda Lettuce, drag performer
Rock Hudson, US actor
Christopher Isherwood, British novelist
Joan Jett, musician
Mychal F. Judge, Franciscan priest, WTC victim
Julius Caesar
John Maynard Keynes, British economist, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize
Billie Jean King, world tennis champion
David Kopay, US football player
Lady Bunny, drag performer
Nathan Lane, US actor and singer
k.d. lang, Canadian country and blues singer, musician
Liberace, US musician
Bjorn Lomborg, critic of environmentalism
Audre Lorde, poet, author
Greg Louganis, US olympic diver
Ashley MacIsaac, Canadian musician
Christopher Marlowe, Elizabethan playwright
Robert Mapplethorpe, US artist
W. Somerset Maugham, British author
Armistead Maupin, U.S. author
Réal Ménard, member of the Canadian parliament
James Merrill, US poet
Freddie Mercury, British lead singer for Queen
George Michael, British singer
Michelangelo, Italian Renaissance artist
Harvey Milk, US politician
Yukio Mishima, Japanese author
Richard Morel, US DJ, singer and music producer
Morrissey, lead singer for The Smiths
David Norris, Irish senator and James Joyce scholar [1]
Martina Navratilova, tennis champion
Me'shell N'Degeocello, singer and guitarist
Graham Norton, UK chat show host
Sinead O'Connor, Irish musician
Rosie O'Donnell, US comedian
Joe Orton, playwright
Plato
Queen Pen, US Rap Singer
Christopher Rice, US author (son of Anne Rice)
Adrienne Rich, US poet and critic
Svend Robinson, Canadian member of parliament
Ernst Roehm, leader of the Nazi SA, killed by Hitler
Hilary Rosen, President of the RIAA
RuPaul AKA RuPaul Andre Charles, US drag queen
Sappho, Greek poet from the Isle of Lesbos, from whom the term lesbian comes
Dan Savage, US columnist
Franz Schubert, Austrian composer
David Sedaris, US essayist and radio personality.
Bessie Smith, US blues singer
Chris Smith, British minister of culture
Gertrude Stein, US author, partner of Alice B. Toklas
Michael Stipe, US singer (band R.E.M.) and film producer
Gerry Studds, US politician
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Russian composer
Neil Tennant, British musician (Pet Shop Boys)
Lily Tomlin, US comedian, actress
Pussy Tourette, drag performer
Esera Tuaolo, former NFL player
Alan Turing, British computer scientist and theorist
Gianni Versace, Italian fashion designer
Gore Vidal, US writer
Tom Waddell, US sports
Andy Warhol, US artist and pop icon
John Waters, US film director (Pink Flamingos)
Walt Whitman, US poet, author of Leaves of Grass
Oscar Wilde, Irish poet and bon vivant
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Austrian Philosopher
Tennessee Williams, US playwright
Virginia Woolf, British author
Klaus Wowereit, mayor of Berlin
Will Young, British winner of tv show UK Pop Idol

<b>Persons of debated sexual orientation...</b>
Alexander the Great
Solon, Greek statesman
Susan B. Anthony, US feminist and womens' suffrage activist
Aristotle, Greek philosopher
Socrates, Greek philosopher

Any questions?

Mr. Lee stated:
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.


If that's all there is to it, then there is no point in talking to you about it, cause it means you are not willing to be rational. Most religious people give me a similar line when they begin to see that I have a strong argument against them "It doesn't matter what you tell me, I'm still going to believe in God". Well then how can we blame anyone for doing anything? We should respect all those we might hate, like mass murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc - cause if we tell them they are wrong, they will be justified in saying (according to your logic) "No matter what you tell me, I know I did the right thing".

What's your take?

Oh wait, sorry Mr. Lee, people like you almost make me forget my manners. Welcome back 8)
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Uccisore » Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:59 am

Well then how can we blame anyone for doing anything? We should respect all those we might hate, like mass murderers, terrorists, rapists, etc - cause if we tell them they are wrong, they will be justified in saying (according to your logic) "No matter what you tell me, I know I did the right thing".


I generally agree with everything you said here, Magius, but I would like to point out that homosexuals use the above 'reasoning' the justify their own activity, too. That's why when I'm talking to Clementine, I'm so quick to point out when she makes an ethical pronouncment.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Michael Angelo » Sun Dec 22, 2002 12:15 am

hommosexuals are those type of people who just think theire so special,and don't want to be like every one else.So saying they should have equal right is a no no.I think if they want to be gay then thats them.they shouldnt make it our problem.

And about them adopting kids is VERY WRONG,it was theire decision to be homosexual they shouldn't raise kids or do any thing that "NORMAL HUMANS" do,since they want to be diferent,since they want to allianate themselves from society(HUMANS),then it would be only good if we help them do it..and dispossess them from any "HUMAN" rights they have.


When God created heaven and earth he made Adam and EVE and not adam and Steve,if God wanted a hommosexual world then he would've never created the woman.


LOL,but its funny to me because they don't know what theire missing,woman are just magnificent,God bless the female body :D
Sistine Chapel
Michael Angelo
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 10:48 pm
Location: amarilla

Postby Magius » Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:06 am

Michael Angelo stated:
hommosexuals are those type of people who just think theire so special,and don't want to be like every one else.


So far as I have seen, there isn't a single homosexual here on this forum that has said anything about being special or wanting to be special, it is only you and a few other STRAIGHT people that go about speaking about being above others. Furthermore, whether a person is egotistical, like yourself, it has nothing to do with their sexual preference. You are mixing concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

Michael Angelo stated:
So saying they should have equal right is a no no.I think if they want to be gay then thats them.they shouldnt make it our problem.


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. Gays don't want anything but to be accepted for what they are...homosexual. So that they may go through a park with their significant other and hold hands, or hug, you know the things heterosexuals do with their significant others when they are in love. Yes, they don't get the chance to do those things, amongst others, cause we heterosexuals are always making things their problems.

Michael Angelo stated:
And about them adopting kids is VERY WRONG,it was theire decision to be homosexual they shouldn't raise kids or do any thing that "NORMAL HUMANS" do,since they want to be diferent,since they want to allianate themselves from society(HUMANS),then it would be only good if we help them do it..and dispossess them from any "HUMAN" rights they have.


What's your definition of NORMAL? What is it exactly that NORMAL human do?

Michael Angelo stated:
d created heaven and earth he made Adam and EVE and not adam and Steve,if God wanted a hommosexual world then he would've never created the woman.


Yeah but there never was any Adam and Eve in my opinion. But even if there was, I guess one of the worlds greatest crimes against God is that we make incest illegal. Since, God made Adam and Eve and all other humans were brothers and sisters of Adam and Eve, then incest should be normal.

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

Postby Uccisore » Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:04 am

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.


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

Gays don't want anything but to be accepted for what they are...homosexual.


Back when I first starting being political, the thing pro-homosexual folks said was that they wanted tolerance, and that acceptance wasn't fair of them to ask for. I seem to remember at that time, most anti-homosexual folks were saying "But as soon as you get tolerance, you'll start demanding acceptance next".
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Magius » Mon Dec 23, 2002 9:13 am

As far as I'm concerned homosexuals should be accepted. I wouldn't trust what politicians have to say about anything, especially not a controversial issue like homosexuality.
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Uccisore » Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:41 pm

So, where do you get your 'should's from that you feel you can legitimately apply them to other people?
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Magius » Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:10 am

Uccisore, I am not going to repeat something we have gone over twice in detail already. Concise answer: Utilitarians and John Rawls Veil of Ignorance.
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby BluTGI » Tue Dec 24, 2002 3:31 am

I feel the points discussed here are mute simply because they are too complex. Let me simplify my view of life so this discussion can move quicker, easier and more to a simpler point

A man has a Right to live and a Right to Die, he knows in life that he will not be happy because he only has the right to pursue it.

Now I will judge another man simply because it will either suit to keep me alive or lead to my death, both of which i have a right to. my judgement is made using general logic used by all. Input is considered and a responce is made.

I do not have the right to end a life, For i did not create it. Others do not have the right to destroy the life i create. Even if i disagree with the life i could/would want to end, i still do not have the right.

Now If you feel you should End a life that does not belong to you, you are a fool and should have your life ended.

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.


So to simply even further
A man has rights
These rights are to Die and Live
A gay man is a man thus he has the same rights as any other man gay or not.
A man does not have the right to kill another that does he does not own.

Also I will list for an example Rights you as a man Do NOT Have:
You do not have the right to live Well or Poor only.
You do not have the right to food.
You do not have the right to unearned currency.
You do not have a right to any earthly thing(house, Car, Fridge, Horse, Plow).
You do not have a right to any right that is not given to you by what ever religion or club or organization you are a part of unless that right is given to you, this is because you choose to be part of that organization. They have as the organization to give rights to whom ever, whatever they wish beause it is theirs.
BluTGI
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 5:50 am
Location: NC

Postby Uccisore » Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:50 am

I agree with most of the above, except I still don't think speaking in terms of 'rights' is productive.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Uccisore » Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:54 am

Utilitarianism gives some people the right to ban beliefs and ideas, but not others? If someone doesn't accept utilitarianism, does it have authority over them anyway? Sorry, I've been told I've no right to 'push my morals on others' way too many times to accept that the pro-gay agenda has an objective moral mandate. They simply argue against any such thing far too often. [/quote]
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby BluTGI » Tue Dec 24, 2002 3:24 pm

No Because that organization has no rights, they exist in the same tense as what i described.

BUT you must also see my posts on power. Untill you take power FROM them they have it and will use it either for you, with you or against you.
BluTGI
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 5:50 am
Location: NC

Postby Magius » Tue Dec 24, 2002 4:06 pm

I stated:
As far as I'm concerned homosexuals should be accepted.


Uccisore responded:
So, where do you get your 'should's from that you feel you can legitimately apply them to other people?


I responded with:
Uccisore, I am not going to repeat something we have gone over twice in detail already. Concise answer: Utilitarians and John Rawls Veil of Ignorance.


Uccisore responded with:
Utilitarianism gives some people the right to ban beliefs and ideas, but not others? If someone doesn't accept utilitarianism, does it have authority over them anyway? Sorry, I've been told I've no right to 'push my morals on others' way too many times to accept that the pro-gay agenda has an objective moral mandate. They simply argue against any such thing far too often.


If your taking what I said to mean that utilitarianism is banning yours or Mr. Lees beliefs and ideas, you got another thing coming. I feel I can legitimately apply them to other people because as long as those other people are rationale, I believe that their rational through utilitarianism and the veil of ignorance will make them see that homosexuals should be accepted. This isn't about banning beliefs, I don't force my beliefs on others about homosexuality, if you want to believe it is wrong or unnatural I will tell you my opinion after which if you are not convinced, I will not proceed to hate you or to track you down and kill you, or to somehow coerce you into accepting my belief. If you don't accept utilitarianism than don't. No I don't think it has AUTHORITY over them, but I think it wins over majority of the time because it is logical. Just like 99.9% of the population is convinced 1+1=2, that doesn't mean that MATH has an AUTHORITY over them. Furthermore, I think your argument stating "They simply argue against any such thing far too often" is obtuse, for it says nothing. Can something be argued often and be right? Sure, happens all the time. Can something be argued often and be wrong? Sure, that happens all the time too. So stating that a group of people argue something far too often has no basis and adds no weight to your argument except to relieve the pangs you feel on the issue. Which inadvertantly get put on those who read your post.

Utilitarianism: "The greatest happiness for all concerned"
Veil of Ignorance: Imagine you have to decide on a principle for all those in society, but you don't know who you will be in society. Would you choose to be in a society that works by the principle of 'Gays should stay in the closet and left felt isolated from the rest of society'? Sure you might, but what if your position in society was as a gay person? You don't want to be disadvantaged in any way. But you may say, well chances are that you wont be gay. Let's say that the chances are 15%. Well what you if you were straight, well you wouldn't be disadvantaged but you would either be the one disadvantaging or ignoring, or you would be quietly disagreeing with the treatment of gays but not saying anything. But if you chose a society that accepted gays, you chances of being disadvantaged are 0%, whether you are gay or straight. This also leads to utilitarianism which states that we are to do actions that lead to the greatest happiness for all concerned.

I hope this has helped you understand my view.

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

Postby Uccisore » Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:42 pm

Can something be argued often and be right? Sure, happens all the time. Can something be argued often and be wrong? Sure, that happens all the time too. So stating that a group of people argue something far too often has no basis and adds no weight to your argument except to relieve the pangs you feel on the issue. Which inadvertantly get put on those who read your post.


My point in saying that was that in order for homosexuality to gain the degree of acceptance it so far has, it was nessicary (at least in public discussion) to appeal to subjective ethics, and the idea that religious groups can't push their morality on other people. With that in mind, I find it hypocritical and contradictory for the same movement to say that *I* am morally compelled to accept homosexuality.
Regarding issues of force, and not wanting to force certain beliefs on people, legislation is certainly a kind of force.
I'm trying to understand your view of utilitarianism, but doesn't it presuppose it's conclusions? We can only say the Veil of Ignorance is a useful method if we come to it with the *assumption* that certain groups should be accepted. Someone who didn't have those assumptions could use the same example you give of homosexuality as an argument that the Veil of Ignorance is flawed, couldn't they?
Also, assuming utilitarianism, I think it's clear there are situations where public displays of homosexual behavior would cause much more discomfort and unhappiness than happiness.

BUT you must also see my posts on power. Untill you take power FROM them they have it and will use it either for you, with you or against you.


Exactly. Any group of people will do whatever makes them happy in their natural state. Adding to that mix a series of 'rights' changes nothing at all. Only restrictions and obligations have any real meaning.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Brad » Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:34 am

I don't really understand what's going on here. Gay Rights, Civil Rights, Women Rights etc. are based on a secular ethical system, not a subjectivist one. It is not subjectivism, it is Liberalism that believes an individual can do what he or she wants as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.

Why? Because in the long run we believe it benefits everyone else. What moral compulsion arises from that to 'accept' homosexuality. The acceptance of the homosexual community is much more a case of 'to each his own' for most people than it is a problem of forcing a different moral viewpoint. In this sense, one can just as easily make the case that religious functions should be denied their ability to assemble (because they offend homosexuals directly) as can homosexual assemblies be banned because it offends religious sensibilities. Nature and Normal have nothing to do with these questions, neither do subjective feelings.

It's a political issue: Neither assemble or both assemble. One or the other would contradict the establishment clause or the right to the pursuit of happiness. I say both.
Brad
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:18 pm
Location: Chejudo, South Korea

Postby Uccisore » Thu Dec 26, 2002 4:08 pm

It's a political issue: Neither assemble or both assemble. One or the other would contradict the establishment clause or the right to the pursuit of happiness. I say both.


Two questions on this: Do you think there should be limitations on one or the other's right to assemble based on location? As in, should I be allowed to have a conservative religious rally in a gay bar, or should a gay-right rally be allowed in a church?
Second question- what do you think current trends are heading towards- freedom of both groups to assemble freely, or restrictions of one in favor of the other?
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Postby Brad » Fri Dec 27, 2002 11:35 am

Sure. Location does matter and there shouldn't be any attempt to provoke the other.

I don't know what the trend is right now. I don't live in North America. From the outside, it looks as if it is moving in a conservative direction.
Brad
 
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2002 4:18 pm
Location: Chejudo, South Korea

Postby Truthseeker » Fri Dec 27, 2002 3:55 pm

This is directly toward Magius:

Magius, your list of gay people have nothing to do with anyone contributing to society!
A bunch of loser actors and musicians of which do nothing but entertain people. You named no one who actually had a hand in making direct peace with anyone, or who fought for the freedom of all, etc.
Gay people are very one-minded and "set" in their ways once they are forced to be gay.
Your state about you having to put up with me is the same as me and my whole family having to put up with all the gay crap that exists.
Now I understand that there isn't any way that gays are directly involved in my life and if I found out a person I knew was gay, I would cut them off completely from knowing me, simple as that. (in order for gay people to understand what's wrong with them, they need to know they are gay first).
I have every right in the world to complain about anything sir, gays seem to do it all the time and everyone feels sorry for them. I don't feel a bit sorry for them, they need to change and start acting right.
It's like I said before, if God intended for people to be gay, he wouldn't have made their sexual organs like so.
Truthseeker
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2002 9:24 pm
Location: Michigan/Canada

Postby BluTGI » Fri Dec 27, 2002 3:58 pm

Mr lee, How do you know gods purpose? last i checked he was still doing the mime role.
BluTGI
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 5:50 am
Location: NC

Postby Uccisore » Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:25 pm

It looks like you and I basically agree, Brad. My next question would be, how large a group or area can be such that it would be considered innapropriate to demonstrate homosexuality or religious conservatism? Could a large club, or a small town universally decide that religious or homosexual displays were offensive and thus not allowed?
I would disagree about our country having a conservative trend, at least as far as sexual issues are concerned. Maybe in the past couple months, but certain not over the span of the past 10 years.
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 27, 2002 9:19 pm

Mr. Lee stated:
Magius, your list of gay people have nothing to do with anyone contributing to society! A bunch of loser actors and musicians of which do nothing but entertain people. You named no one who actually had a hand in making direct peace with anyone, or who fought for the freedom of all, etc.


Mr.Lee, I see that debating rationally with you is a waste of time. You will speak as though you know all people, all things, and all places when you couldn't be more wrong. You say that the list of gay people have nothing to do with contributing to society - you obviously know nothing of the people in the list. You project by demeaning the people on the list as 'losers' who do nothing but entertain people. You say I named no one who actually had a hand in making direct peace with anyone, how wrong you are, yet again because you know nothing of the people in the list. Why do you direct the post to me? You afraid of what people may say in response to your post?

About those who fought for the freedom of all - who might that be? You see, I wish you were right. But a large majority of the population fights for their own freedom, their families freedom, or their countries freedom - but who might these people be, that fight for the freedom of all, and who are they fighting against? It can't be people, cause you can't go around killing people when you are trying to free them. Your patriotism is blinded by anger and fury Mr. Lee, you have been wronged by people and extremist ideas, this much is clear to me. I just hope you one day learn to deal with your anger in a more productive way, to give thought to anger and statements, for you never know what their impact may be on someone - and worse yet you may realize one day you are wrong.

Even if you meant, what I assume you meant, the many soldiers of a plethora of battles throughout history, are you trying to suggest that not one soldier was a homosexual?

Mr.Lee stated:
Gay people are very one-minded and "set" in their ways once they are forced to be gay.


Mr. Lee then paradoxically stated:
Now I understand that there isn't any way that gays are directly involved in my life and if I found out a person I knew was gay, I would cut them off completely from knowing me, simple as that.


Alright, so you cut gay people out of your life, yet you know them so well. You KNOW that they are very one-minded and 'set' in their ways once they are forced to be gay. Well guess what Mr. Lee, if you are right, then you are gay. Cause I have told you time and time again, that homosexuality is not a choice. I have shown you so using your own evidence against you some time back with an article you posted. You are VERY one-minded and 'set' in your ways. Remember, you said:

(in order for gay people to understand what's wrong with them, they need to know they are gay first).


...you see, you just need to realize that you are gay and you will understand what is wrong with you. You draw your own correlation to gays when you said:

I have every right in the world to complain about anything sir, gays seem to do it all the time and everyone feels sorry for them. I don't feel a bit sorry for them, they need to change and start acting right.


Take a hint Mr.Lee, you like what you believe of gays complain about anything. Funny, that I too feel sorry for you. So change Mr.Lee and start acting right.

Let's digress and extend your logic to all people who are very one-minded and 'set' in their ways; well gosh Mr. Lee, it appears that there are more people on the planet who are gay then there are straights, run for the hills Mr.Lee - your worst nightmare has come true. All psychologists should now be required to adopt this new view and change the DSM IV to include homosexuality as a bad choice, that when taken, is accompanied by one-mindedness and a 'set' mind.

Mr.Lee stated:
Your state about you having to put up with me is the same as me and my whole family having to put up with all the gay crap that exists.


Well it's about time I started getting through to you, yes this is exactly what I was trying to point out.

Mr.Lee stated:
It's like I said before, if God intended for people to be gay, he wouldn't have made their sexual organs like so.


Warning! Error, Error, You No Compute! A Critical Error has Occured...
1. You assume there is a God
2. You assume you know what God intends
3. You assume to know what God would and wouldn't do

But I will play along....alright, let's suppose you are right. Lets analyse your 'if...then' statement. IF God intended for people to be gay, THEN he wouldn't have made their sexual organs like so.....okay, why not?
Mr. Lee, I have spent a good deal of time explaining to you that even animals, many animals, perform homosexual and even bisexual tendencies. This has been well documented. So what are you going to tell me now? Maybe that those animals are unnatural and that if God intended for those animals to be gay then he wouldn't have made their sexual organs like so? Well here is another PARADOX Mr. Lee, you agree homosexuality exists, you say that if God intended for people to be gay he wouldn't have made their organs like so, so then why are they gay and who made their organs like so? If God didn't INTEND on gays, where did they come from?

Please be thorough and don't ignore 90% of my arguments against you, for I think I have thoroughly disproven your statements and shown them to be contradictions and paradoxes. Answer each one of my points would you please? Furthermore, please don't repeat things over ten times again and again as though I hadn't responded to them, you bring nothing new to the conversation. It's like a boring circle that you must continue in hopes of just annoying me out of responding to you because you are so very one-minded and 'set' in your ways.

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

Postby Magius » Fri Dec 27, 2002 9:21 pm

triple posted somehow.
Last edited by Magius on Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users