Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well then let's just put it this way..A same sex partner is right for homosexuals, but wrong for heterosexuals, so why is there problem? No skin off your nose is it?
There are a lot of things that happen in the world that are "no skin off my nose", yet that does not make them right. A person who steals in another town does not affect me, nor does the action of someone molesting a child in another city, yet does that make it right?
Like I said though, I am attempting to point out the problem with positions. Homosexuality-for is no more valid in terms of the arguments as homosexuality-against. In the end, it is one morality belief pitted against the other. I expect people to believe they are right, but I find it amusing when they act like anyone who disagrees with them are bigots as they display the same features in their position.
For instance, I can understand the argument for, I don't agree with it, I think it wrong. I think it is immoral and unnatural. I think that it is a deviance that seeks acceptance, another perversion that is no different in its moral grounds than any other perversion.
I can respect that people believe they are right in it, but I believe them to be wrong. I can no more force them to my morality than they can force me to theirs. All I can do is argue the positions of it and point out the fallacies in their positions when they begin to proclaim superiority that ignores the subjective nature of their position.
I believe in an absolute truth, I can reason it through my beliefs (just as you did for your own a few responses ago), but in the end they are not "quantifiable", just a line of reasoning. People can accept it or not, but I will not change my belief in those truths to make them more comfortable.
This is why I bring up the majority. The majority ends up defining right and wrong. One can proclaim the majority wrong, but they have to hold to an ultimate truth to do so. That is, they have to believe there is a core truth that is above the grouped opinions of others. They can claim it, and I will respect that this is what they believe, but I will also disagree.
Some support this deviance and yet condemn others, yet they can not explain outside of a subjective morale position as to why one is more valid over the other. This angers them and so they lash out like someone who is afraid that they might be wrong and hates the person for pointing it out.
As I said, why is one deviance right and another wrong if it is not merely the majority accepting one over the other? If it is not merely the groups collective moral structure that defines one correct over the other? Could not this moral structure change with time allowing what is considered "wrong" now to become "right" later?
This is the issue some do not want to discuss. They do not want to entertain this idea as then they truly have to look at their own morality and begin to judge why they believe it is superior over another. It is much easier for them to attack and ignore it.
Just because the majority of society says something is right or wrong, that doesn't mean what they say is right or wrong. That was the point of the cat burning example. Someone can't base their morality on what society necssarily says is right, it could be very wrong. Someone can tell if their morality is correct if doesn't infringe on the freedom of someone else and the other person is respecting them.
Yet what determines one right over another? As I said, I do not personally think might makes right either (social majority), yet I doubt you would accept my reason as to why. I can respect that, but can you?
That is, I can respect that you may believe a line of reasoning is an ultimate truth, something that society can not override by the majority. That this is a truth above any persons opinoin. I may not agree with the line of reasoning you use or the truth you attempt to establish. I may fight against it in political and social realms, but I can respect that is the position you have, I just disagree because I think your "ultimate truth" is merely a personal one that you reason for your own benefit.
You may think the same of me, but can you respect that your position in terms of this argument honestly is no more valid than mine? I can, can you?
I am not saying you should agree with me or that we should compromise. I am merely saying that in the end, we are arguing subjective positions on morality and there is no way to "prove" one right over the other. In cases as these, history has shown that it is the majority (like minded people who came together and formed a moral grounds they agreed on for the basic function of society) which decides right and wrong. Wars are fought over it, people kill to defend it.
As I said, I can respect someones stance, that they believe they are right, that they believe they are moral, but I also believe them to be wrong. I don't need to call people names who disagree with me, it is obvious they have a difference of opinoin and I expect them to defend it with the same conviction I do mine. If those positions come into direct conflict where one side is being forced by the other, there is no solution other than the defense of ones morality. Which is exactly why there is violent conflict. One side must submit to the other when it concerns certain issues.
Not all disagreements require a direct conflict. Some moral grounds can coexist as long as they are kept separate from each other. That is, where one side does not have to be subject to the others actions or beliefs through acceptance, tolerance, etc...
If there is a conflict of such nature, the majority decides in the end. Like I said a few posts back, people may not like it, but ultimately they are at the mercy of what the majority decides and their only recourse is to accept the decision of the majority of fight against it.
Nomander I don't see why you continue to go on and on about this topic. You are even starting to throw ridiculous comparisons into your argument. Stealing and molesting children are crimes. Homosexuality is not and harms no one.
Bigot "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Nomander, homosexuality is not a "deviance", it is not a "perversion", and it is not immoral.
For something that doesn't affect you personally you certainly spend a lot of time discussing the subject...
Quote:
de·vi·ant
adj
n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
Quote:
per·ver·sion
–noun
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5. Pathology. a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.
Quote:
nor·mal
–adjective
1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
Quote:
ab·nor·mal
–adjective
1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.
2. extremely or excessively large: abnormal profit.
Quote:
im·mor·al
–adjective
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.
The only one you can contest is the last one, immoral. Which lends itself to social majority opinion of personal ethics.
I merely claimed I believe it to be immoral. I stated it as so and explained the reasoning.
First, read what I have written. Second, use standardized forms of definitions so you can properly communicate. If you attempt to redefine words as "what it means to me", then there is no point in conversing with you as your form of communication is anarchy.
Nomander I don't see why you continue to go on and on about this topic. You are even starting to throw ridiculous comparisons into your argument. Stealing and molesting children are crimes. Homosexuality is not and harms no one.
Bigot "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Why are they crimes? They are deviant forms of behavior are they not? What makes the imbalances of them (be it genetic, chemical, etc...) valid why another is not? Is it not merely social acceptance?
If you have been reading, I have made the case that with some of these abnormal behaviors, there is no victim. I am not speaking generally, just that there are cases in many of the deviant behaviors that can be shown as not having a harm on someone.
So, if "harm" is merely your condition, then can any of those be considered acceptable moral behavior if nobody is harmed?
As for bigot, are you not strongly partial to your own group, religion, race, or politics and are intolerant of those that differ? Are you saying you are tolerant to those who are against homosexuality? If you are not, then you are a bigot as well are you not? For what makes your subjective grounds of morality more valid than another? Again, see the issue here?
The only one you can contest is the last one, immoral. Which lends itself to social majority opinion of personal ethics.
I merely claimed I believe it to be immoral. I stated it as so and explained the reasoning.
First, read what I have written. Second, use standardized forms of definitions so you can properly communicate. If you attempt to redefine words as "what it means to me", then there is no point in conversing with you as your form of communication is anarchy.
First, I've read the nonsense that you have been posting, secondly I can properly communicate, and thirdly show me where I attempted to redefine anything?
I have no interest in debating the subject further with a close-minded, bigoted, arrogant individuals...
First, I've read the nonsense that you have been posting, secondly I can properly communicate, and thirdly show me where I attempted to redefine anything?
I have no interest in debating the subject further with a close-minded, bigoted, arrogant individuals...
I will comment on "show me where I attempted to redefine anything"
You said:
"Nomander, homosexuality is not a "deviance", it is not a "perversion", and it is not immoral. "
I gave you the definitions. Do you contest them? Homosexuality is not the norm. It accounts for a very small percentage of the population in terms of behavior. Again:
Quote:
de·vi·ant
adj
n. One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
By its very existence, it is defined as a "deviance". It is a deviance in the natural condition that is human design. If heterosexual relation is normal, the standard and homosexual relation is abnormal, it is therefore by definition "deviant" of the norm.
It is also a "perversion" by the definition as well:
Quote:
per·ver·sion
–noun
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
The practice is by definition abnormal, therefore the sexual gratification that is its practice is abnormal and further a perversion. A perversion of the norm.
I did mention that immorality could be contested, yet also explained why and placed it within the argument I was speaking of.
If you proclaim these definitions are not correct, then you attempt to assign definition based on your own judgment through "what it means to me" and communication can not be sane when people change the definitions as they see fit. As I said, it is anarchy.
So far, I have responded to each of your posts with a civil and honest attempt to explain my position and have respectfully disagreed or have shown where your position is in error. You on the other hand use logical fallacies and attack me personally. I think you need to look up the definition of a bigot, because you clearly do not understand its meaning.
The only thing, person or group that I'm intolerant of are bigots, and even they don't bother me if they keep quiet about it and don't try and impose their warped ideas on others.. That's it for me too. I do believe that you argue simply because you enjoy it and cannot bear to admit you may be wrong...Too many straw men for me to knock down.
The only thing, person or group that I'm intolerant of are bigots, and even they don't bother me if they keep quiet about it and don't try and impose their warped ideas on others.. That's it for me too. I do believe that you argue simply because you enjoy it and cannot bear to admit you may be wrong...Too many straw men for me to knock down.
You fit the definition of bigot to a tee.
Using a logical fallacy to proclaim one does not make a valid argument. With each response you only further define yourself as a bigot who is intolerant of views that do not match your own.
Name calling is not an intelligent position, especially when it is reliant on the ignorance of the words own meaning.
Here is the thing you do not recognize. I make no excuses for my position. That is, I know it is a superiority position on morality. I understand that, but I also understand that your position is also that. I do realize my position could be termed as that of a bigot, I recognize that my beliefs are ultimately intolerant of yours. I make no excuses.
You on the other hand attempt to proclaim you are not a bigot. You make the same claims as I do in the opposing realms, yet you arrogantly define yourself as an exception to the rule. That is, you think you are not intolerant of another persons views, and yet you are completely. At least I know myself, apparently you do not which only makes your bigotry further pronounced.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
