Gay Rights, or gay wrongs

  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?

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.

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.

Mr lee, How do you know gods purpose? last i checked he was still doing the mime role.

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.

Mr. Lee stated:

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:

Mr. Lee then paradoxically stated:

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:

…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:

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:

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:

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?

triple posted somehow.

Sorry for the triple post, out of all seriousness it was by accident.

Here Here Magius 3x the love!
Remind you to buy you a lagger.

Alan Turing is a second rate entertainer?

Ludwig Wittgenstein is a comedian?

This is a philosophy site, you know?

But also:

Hart Crane is second rate?

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


Uccisore,

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

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

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

The Sexual Revolution in general has been going on for a long time. It began with the invention of the backseat. :slight_smile:

I once stated:

Uccisore responded:

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

Let me know…

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

BluTGI stated:

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

What’s your take?

Suicide isn’t illegal in the UK, just euthanasia, helping someone to commit suicide. I think it was only about 20 years ago that it was taken off the statute books though, not sure exactly when.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

othering. a result of fear.

Uccisore stated:

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

Uccisore stated:

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

An innate inclination; a tendency.

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

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

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

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

Uccisore stated:

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

Uccisore stated:

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

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

What’s your take?

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

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

Johan

Was that question directed towards me Johan?
It helps if you let everyone know whom you are referring to. This is usually easily solved by adding the persons nickname. Ie. Magius