Hi, Mr.Lee. Good to have another point of view on board.
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 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'.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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…
Persons of debated sexual orientation…
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:
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
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.
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
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:
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:
What’s your definition of NORMAL? What is it exactly that NORMAL human do?
Michael Angelo stated:
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.
I have to disagree with both of these on the basis of personal experience.
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”.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
