Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How can people think homosexuality is a choice?

Announcements Posted on
The News & Current Affairs and Society forums need more moderators! 20-04-2014
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    They're not willing in that case, since rape kinda by definition requires the person being raped to not have given permission.
    well thank you for stating the obvious? i was asking for your general view on it, unrelated to my last point
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ive watched documentries about guys like this. Usually they suffer from a type of schizophrenia. Totaly irrational and deluded. There are camps run in the US by guys like DKWIA which parents send their gay children too. Can you imagine it? The horror stories.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ah more debates of sane rational people versus insane 'they choose to be gay' people...

    I should have bet money on this...

    Obviously it is a choice. Look at African areas for example, in some places being gay is regarded as the lowest of the low. You would be beaten up and theatened. I'm not talking about the past, I mean now. You would actually be named and Shamed by the damn newspapers over there. Yet a gay population still exists... With such a stigma, what idiot believes a person would still choose or be conditioned to become gay?

    Therapy does not exist its brainwashing in a nutshell run by more idiots

    On top of that, what's wrong with being gay? Whether it is a choice or not, it's their business not yours... Get your heads out of your arses
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    In the US HIV rates of homosexuals are a serious issue. As for why it is important, it is the health of the gays that I'm worried about as well as the expensive costs of treating their illness. HIV is an expensive disease.
    So are the loans you're likely using to go to college - money which is clearly being wasted.

    And you're not worried about the health of homosexuals. If that were the case, then you would want homosexual marriages, as the rate of monogamy would likely increase - which would see the rate of HIV infection go down.

    Again, though, marriage has nothing to do with HIV status - nor do equal rights. One's health status doesn't make them less deserving of rights. That's a horrible opinion to have. That's like saying "because you have cancer, and because cancer has genetic factors you can't have children".

    Health status is irrelevant in the case of rights. So please, just stop.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I don't like you saying that. I don't think I'm morally 'indecent'. I feel I am doing the right thing.
    Denying people rights isn't morally right. I don't know what planet you're on, but you're morally wrong. And what can entitle me to say that? Well, myself, as well as the greatest ethicists alive today, all agree - you're morally wrong. And I don't think you're in any position to disagree; considering you don't even know ethics since you haven't ever studied it. Let alone studied under the people I have.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Yeah, okay, but in most cases the two are interchangeable.
    Not really, no.

    Sex refers to my reproductive parts.

    Gender refers to what clothes I wear, if I feel feminine or masculine, etc.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Or... I believe that I'm in the moral right and that you are in the wrong, but that I accept you have a different opinion.

    So, no - not check mate pal.
    Yes, check mate. You're missing the problem here.

    Let's go over this in very basic terms:

    (1) You believe not everyone is entitled to same rights based on their health status or sexual orientation
    Therefore,
    (2) You're obligated to accept that rights are relative
    Therefore,
    (3) You're obligated to accept that other people have different opinions on what rights are relative
    Therefore,
    (4) You're obligated to accepted that your opinion on morality is worthless.

    Let's focus on (4). Why is this the case? (3) Tells us that other people have differing opinions on what rights people ought to have and they are allowed to do so.

    Well, what does that tell us? It tells us that other people are allowed to accept different moral opinions AND because you've accepted the relativity of rights, you cannot, by intrinsic properties of your belief system, disagree with them. I.e. you HAVE to accept Hitler was not morally wrong, because he didn't think everyone deserved the same rights. Welcome the moral relativity. It's a very lovely view to have, isn't it? You get to say horrible mass murdering dictators were morally rights. And no, you cannot disagree with any of this because it all logically follows. Moral relativism simply just forces you to accept these things; the only way around it is to accept some things are objective moral truths - which you don't.

    Since things aren't objective moral truths, it means that people are allowed to disagree with whatever you say. Since there are no moral objective truths, neither of you is right. Another consequence of accepting moral relativism is that you cannot judge the actions of any other person - i.e. I can murder people and you cannot say I'm morally wrong, so long as I think murdering is morally right.

    At the end of the day, since you're in no position to judge the morality of other people, your opinions on the topic are utterly useless (like I said). Since, according to your own moral belief system, rights are relative depending on who's assigning them. Which in turn means that your input on this thread is, by your own views, useless - since no one is more right than anyone else. That's the fun of moral relativism.

    Like I said, check mate. Your own moral belief system makes your opinion worthless and useless to everyone else - since we can all arbitrarily assign our own rights and you're in no position to judge

    In case I didn't make myself clear, moral relativists aren't allowed to say something is "wrong" or "bad" - they're allowed to say "X is morally wrong in my opinion ". Since your morals are opinion-based, everyone else can and will disagree with you AND you're not right and neither are they.

    Which, in turn, means your thoughts, opinions, etc. are (1) utterly useless and (2) self-contradictory.

    Please go actually read/study ethics, as your ethical views are all messed up and contradictory
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I mean left wing and they certainly don't agree with freedom. Do liberals want economic freedom? No, they want socialism and economic shackles - well, look how that works for north korea or eastern europe.



    No, people just try and present biased 'facts' about such topics as homosexuality when the reality is we know very little.
    i am not talking about homosexuality in the second paragraph, i am talking in general in most of the debates you get involved with that i have seen.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordJenkins)
    Ive watched documentries about guys like this. Usually they suffer from a type of schizophrenia. Totaly irrational and deluded. There are camps run in the US by guys like DKWIA which parents send their gay children too. Can you imagine it? The horror stories.
    I had a friend who went to a christian vacation home one over a summer to help with his sexuality problems and he said it worked for him. I think it largely depends on the person as to whether a person can change their sexual feelings. I mean think about those people who decided later on in life to be gay. Why are you so against letting people change their sexuality? It seems to me you want to forcefully make sure gay people stay gay, even if they don't wanna be.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think its pointless arguing really... I mean people are bullied for all kind of things they cant help, tall people, short people, black people, asian people, buck teeth, 'nerdy' voice, too skinny, too fat, ageism etc.... I could go on but its too depressing.

    Its a disgrace.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordJenkins)
    Ive watched documentries about guys like this. Usually they suffer from a type of schizophrenia. Totaly irrational and deluded. There are camps run in the US by guys like DKWIA which parents send their gay children too. Can you imagine it? The horror stories.
    these camps are disgusting... people commit suicide because of conditioning coming from people such as DICKWA or whatever his name is because they feel as if something is wrong with them, because they can't change who they are, their attraction. they have people around them telling them it's wrong and disgusting, family that would abandon them, people saying that it's a choice and that they can be straight if they really want to be... that therapy or a "simple" choice not to be attracted to who they are attracted to will work.....and when they CAN'T make themselves straight (because newsflash, being gay in no more a choice than being straight) they think they are wrong and that they will never be happy and they are inferior and no one will love them. no one should feel like that, but it's even worse when other people cause someone to feel that way.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I had a friend who went to a christian vacation home one over a summer to help with his sexuality problems and he said it worked for him. I think it largely depends on the person as to whether a person can change their sexual feelings. I mean think about those people who decided later on in life to be gay. Why are you so against letting people change their sexuality? It seems to me you want to forcefully make sure gay people stay gay, even if they don't wanna be.
    Now in the video below, heres a guy who knows what he's talking about. Oh and people dont just choose to be gay in the future. I think the word you were looking for what closeted homosexuals. It isnt uncommon for closeted homosexuals to get married have children, and come out to their wife ten years down the line because they're so unhappy... Did you choose to be straight?

    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think that the issues of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, whether or not one is born homosexual, and whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable are all too often confused with each other, and mistaken for one another.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    So are the loans you're likely using to go to college - money which is clearly being wasted.
    I'd like to think I'm actually a pretty good programmer actually. Besides, I have to pay that money back.

    And you're not worried about the health of homosexuals. If that were the case, then you would want homosexual marriages, as the rate of monogamy would likely increase - which would see the rate of HIV infection go down.
    I care about gay diseases as much as I care about the health of our general population.

    Denying people rights isn't morally right. I don't know what planet you're on, but you're morally wrong. And what can entitle me to say that? Well, myself, as well as the greatest ethicists alive today, all agree - you're morally wrong. And I don't think you're in any position to disagree; considering you don't even know ethics since you haven't ever studied it. Let alone studied under the people I have.
    You're arrogant. You can't just say that you are right because certain people agree with you. There are plenty of people, including politicians (heck, even Bush agrees with me), scientists etc who agree with my views. You're suggesting that because I haven't studied ethics I somehow aren't entitled to hold an opinion. Do you think i shoudn't be allowed to vote because i never studied politics? Well, I've decided since you have never taken an introductory programming class you aren't allowed to use a computer. Stupid comments you are making here.

    Not really, no.

    Sex refers to my reproductive parts.

    Gender refers to what clothes I wear, if I feel feminine or masculine, etc.
    And? Most girls wear girls clothes and most guys wear guys clothes. In the majority of cases gender and sex align.

    Well, what does that tell us? It tells us that other people are allowed to accept different moral opinions AND because you've accepted the relativity of rights, you cannot, by intrinsic properties of your belief system, disagree with them. I.e. you HAVE to accept Hitler was not morally wrong, because he didn't think everyone deserved the same rights. Welcome the moral relativity. It's a very lovely view to have, isn't it? You get to say horrible mass murdering dictators were morally rights. And no, you cannot disagree with any of this because it all logically follows. Moral relativism simply just forces you to accept these things; the only way around it is to accept some things are objective moral truths - which you don't.
    Maybe we can't easily define what is morally right, although i'd think that the point where you are harming others qualifies as 'wrong' although I don't believe my views do that.

    At the end of the day, since you're in no position to judge the morality of other people, your opinions on the topic are utterly useless (like I said). Since, according to your own moral belief system, rights are relative depending on who's assigning them. Which in turn means that your input on this thread is, by your own views, useless - since no one is more right than anyone else. That's the fun of moral relativism.

    Like I said, check mate. Your own moral belief system makes your opinion worthless and useless to everyone else - since we can all arbitrarily assign our own rights and you're in no position to judge

    In case I didn't make myself clear, moral relativists aren't allowed to say something is "wrong" or "bad" - they're allowed to say "X is morally wrong in my opinion ". Since your morals are opinion-based, everyone else can and will disagree with you AND you're not right and neither are they.

    Which, in turn, means your thoughts, opinions, etc. are (1) utterly useless and (2) self-contradictory.

    Please go actually read ethics, as you're ethical views are all messed up and contradictory
    So how are you defining your own views to be 'right'?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I had a friend who went to a christian vacation home one over a summer to help with his sexuality problems and he said it worked for him. I think it largely depends on the person as to whether a person can change their sexual feelings. I mean think about those people who decided later on in life to be gay. Why are you so against letting people change their sexuality? It seems to me you want to forcefully make sure gay people stay gay, even if they don't wanna be.
    yes, because he's going to come back to his gay hating friend (and most likely family) saying "i'm still as gay as a sunflower and you might as well have flushed the money my family/i spent on sending me to this crappy camp full of people spouting garbage down the toilet" :rolleyes:

    the only reason they don't want to be gay is because of conditioning and pressure from people like you. do you think straight people cry themselves to sleep and contemplate killing themselves because they are straight? do you think they spend sleepless nights wishing they were gay because then their family and friends would love them and wouldn't abandon them and chuck them out? the only reason people fear coming out is because of other peoples views. if this negative and damaging pressure from homophobes wasn't around, then they probably wouldn't even think about wishing they were straight... i mean why would YOU personally look at a naked woman and think "oh she's really hot and i'd love to have sex with her... but i wish i felt this way about men because it would make my life SO much easier" when naked women give you pleasure?

    there is nothing inherantly wrong about being gay, there is no inherant guilt and hatred of yourself and your sexuality UNLESS the people around you or society in general puts a stigma on it.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ptolemy001)
    I honestly do believe that it's nurture. The whole 'gays in the middle east' argument isn't valid, imo, because nobody can account for what tv shows they watch, how they think etc. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with homosexual/transsexual people but I can't see what else it could be. I don't think it's a 'choice' though-if that makes any sense at all
    I really don't see how such a level of conviction can be justified. A basic understanding of biology will reveal that the principle tenet of all biology is variation. Literally any property of an organism could potentially vary in its progeny, and I don't see why sexuality (which quite plainly has a physical, biological basis and function) should be exempt. Perhaps sexuality is determined by a module of the brain which is in early stages of development very susceptible to a structural change which would manifest itself as a non-heterosexual orientation. Just an idea, but it's an example of a possible explanation for a nature-based model.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    yes, because he's going to come back to his gay hating friend (and most likely family) saying "i'm still as gay as a sunflower and you might as well have flushed the money my family/i spent on sending me to this crappy camp full of people spouting garbage down the toilet" :rolleyes:
    It wasn't a 'straight camp'. It was a religious place where he could reflect quietly and talk to people like him and with people who could help him transition. If someone doesn't want to be gay and wants to become straight, what right do you have to stop them. Heck, this kid now agrees with me that gay marriage isn't necessarily a good thing. He became straight and if people want to do that there is nothing wrong with it.

    the only reason they don't want to be gay is because of conditioning and pressure from people like you. do you think straight people cry themselves to sleep and contemplate killing themselves because they are straight? do you think they spend sleepless nights wishing they were gay because then their family and friends would love them and wouldn't abandon them and chuck them out? the only reason people fear coming out is because of other peoples views. if this negative and damaging pressure from homophobes wasn't around, then they probably wouldn't even think about wishing they were straight... i mean why would YOU personally look at a naked woman and think "oh she's really hot and i'd love to have sex with her... but i wish i felt this way about men because it would make my life SO much easier" when naked women give you pleasure?
    I agree, we shouldn't force people to be straight, but equally we shouldn't force gay marriage on those who don't want it.

    there is nothing inherantly wrong about being gay, there is no inherant guilt and hatred of yourself and your sexuality UNLESS the people around you or society in general puts a stigma on it.
    But you're hypocritical when you think it's okay to do the same to pedophiles or to polygamous marriage supporters. Fundamentalist Mormons believe in polygamy, but I guess they should be treated differently from gays, in your eyes.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I'd like to think I'm actually a pretty good programmer actually. Besides, I have to pay that money back.
    Be that as it may, you don't seem to make a good overall citizen, and you're certainly not having a liberal arts education.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I care about gay diseases as much as I care about the health of our general population.
    HIV isn't a gay disease. It's just a disease. But again, HIV has nothing to do with ethics or rights.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    You're arrogant. You can't just say that you are right because certain people agree with you.
    It's just just 'certain people', it's some of the greatest ethicist to ever live - and you haven't seen their arguments, but, for the record, I'll tell you that - no one has tried to disagree with them on any substantial level.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    There are plenty of people, including politicians (heck, even Bush agrees with me), scientists etc who agree with my views.
    Actually, psychologists disagree with you - they study a relevant subject and are experts in that subject.

    Ethicists disagree with you - they study ethics, which is a relevant subject and are experts in the subject.

    Bush? Really? Politicians? Really? These people aren't experts in ethics. I don't care what politicians says. They've never actually studied anything relevant, written any relevant papers, etc.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    You're suggesting that because I haven't studied ethics I somehow aren't entitled to hold an opinion.
    You can hold an opinion. However, the problem right now is that because you aren't educated in ethics you try to assert ethical truths that just simply aren't true. Your own ethical views are all messed up and contradictory. You accept moral relativism and then try to use ethical arguments to support yourself - you can't do that; it's not logically consistent or possible.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Do you think i shoudn't be allowed to vote because i never studied politics?
    I never said that, but, yes, I think you should have to have political knowledge in order to vote.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Well, I've decided since you have never taken an introductory programming class you aren't allowed to use a computer. Stupid comments you are making here.
    That's not logically congruous. My using a computer has nothing to do with knowing how to program it.

    Certainly, I won't make any statements about computer programming.

    In the same manner, you shouldn't try to make ethical claims that you aren't educated on. I don't make computer programming statements, why do you make ethical ones?

    You may use ethics on daily basis to try to decide what seems to be right or wrong - but you shouldn't make claims on that which you don't actually possess any knowledge in - in the same fashion I'm not going to try to claim I know anything about computer programming.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    And? Most girls wear girls clothes and most guys wear guys clothes. In the majority of cases gender and sex align.
    "girl clothes" refers to a set or type of clothes typical for the female gender, not any particular sex.
    "guy clothes" refers to a set of type of clothes typical for the male gender, not any particular sex.

    In fact, they don't align - ever. They mean completely different things.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Maybe we can't easily define what is morally right, although i'd think that the point where you are harming others qualifies as 'wrong' although I don't believe my views do that.
    No. Ethics isn't that easy. To harm someone isn't always "wrong", even if in most cases it is.

    Not only that, psychologists have come out and said that calling gays inferior or undeserving of equal rights harms them. And, this isn't one of the cases wherein you can take harm to be at least not wrong.

    Not only that, how is not allowing someone to enjoy the same happinesses, rights, privileges as you not morally wrong? You just conceded (albeit it's not entirely true) that harm is 'wrong'. Is not then wrong of you to harm my ability to do the same thing which you do - i.e. have the same categorical types of freedoms which you enjoy?

    Is it not them harming gays to say that they ought not have the same rights that you do? On what grounds is it morally right for you to deprive someone else of the same rights that you have? And this has always been my main question to you.

    Your standard rebuttal, of course, has been about HIV. But, again, HIV has nothing to do with what right I ought or ought not have. That's like saying "because you have cancer, you cannot get married because you may 'harm' others"; that's essentially what your argument boils down to; which is why I find is so frustrating. One ought have the same rights as someone else regardless of their health status - that's unfairly discriminatory - which, in turn, is morally wrong.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    So how are you defining your own views to be 'right'?
    How are my views right? Well... I don't ascribe to any particular metaethical viewpoints, although I will tell you Peter Unger, Derek Parfit, Peter Singer, Jeff McMahan (all world renown ethicists and among the most intellectual people alive today, some of whom I've had the great pleasure and honor of spending many hours/weeks with) all ascribe to objective moral truths (moral realism).

    We can, of course, skip metaethics in this case and simply rely on a singular point, as metaethics aren't useful and can often be left out: Equal rights, by definition, applies to all, universally. Which brings you back to my original question as to why is it morally right for you to deprive people of rights? You don't seem to think black people should have different rights than white people; nor do you seem to believe women ought have less rights than men; nor do you seem to think one should discriminate rights on any number of features - and you often believe that people shouldn't be oppressed, or deprived of rights in every case except homosexuals. Why is that a sexual orientation is less deserving of rights than any other group? This is where you reach a downfall and wherein I claim you're morally wrong (as would all of the aforementioned ethicists). Your view doesn't make logical sense; equal rights ought apply to everyone and not be discriminatory - in being discriminatory on illogical and thus unsound grounds, you're being morally wrong in that you're wrongly depriving people of rights which they ought to have based on your personal opinions and preconceived notions.

    See, in ethics, we don't care what your personal opinions or preconceived notions are - we're only concerned with what logic would tell us is morally right or wrong; granted we have to start somewhere, so we generally start with very basic moral intuitions.

    All of this combined is why I take such issue with your views, because they aren't logically sound and are, in fact, quite arbitrary. If you actually took the time to consider your views from an ethical standpoint you would be quite surprised! After years of studying ethics, I'm a very different person than when I entered college. In fact, believe it or not, I used to be a republican, much like yourself (except of course I was gay). But, simply spending time actually studying logic and ethics made me arrive at very different conclusions - as I realized my preconceived notions and opinions were actually illogical.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It wasn't a 'straight camp'. It was a religious place where he could reflect quietly and talk to people like him and with people who could help him transition. If someone doesn't want to be gay and wants to become straight, what right do you have to stop them. Heck, this kid now agrees with me that gay marriage isn't necessarily a good thing. He became straight and if people want to do that there is nothing wrong with it.



    I agree, we shouldn't force people to be straight, but equally we shouldn't force gay marriage on those who don't want it.



    But you're hypocritical when you think it's okay to do the same to pedophiles or to polygamous marriage supporters. Fundamentalist Mormons believe in polygamy, but I guess they should be treated differently from gays, in your eyes.
    1) again you completely ignored what you didn't want to read. the only reason a gay person wouldn't want to be gay is because of society around them telling them how "bad" it is. i am not going to repeat myself so i suggest you start reading things properly.

    2) how is allowing those who want to marry forcing it on those who don't want it? if you mean straight people who believe it's wrong, it affects them in absolutely no way and is NONE of their business. it has 0 to do with them... if they don't like it then tough sh*t.... i mean if you met the girl of your dreams and wanted to marry her, but some person across the street who you didn't know opposed the marriage because she had black skin... would you let that affect you? should that stop you getting married? no.

    3) wtf? firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
    secondly... comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homosexuality does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
    if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NYU2012)
    Be that as it may, you don't seem to make a good overall citizen, and you're certainly not having a liberal arts education.
    At some point I do have to take these sorts of classes! As for you not seeing me as a 'good citizen', right back at you. I find your economic views gross.

    HIV isn't a gay disease. It's just a disease. But again, HIV has nothing to do with ethics or rights.
    It's a disease that affects gay people a lot more than straight people.

    It's just just 'certain people', it's some of the greatest ethicist to ever live - and you haven't seen their arguments, but, for the record, I'll tell you that - no one has tried to disagree with them on any substantial level.
    If they are pro-gay marriage then I disagree with them right there, before we even get that deep.

    Bush? Really? Politicians? Really? These people aren't experts in ethics. I don't care what politicians says. They've never actually studied anything relevant, written any relevant papers, etc.
    They are normally well educated and have had good liberal arts educations.

    You can hold an opinion. However, the problem right now is that because you aren't educated in ethics you try to assert ethical truths that just simply aren't true. Your own ethical views are all messed up and contradictory. You accept moral relativism and then try to use ethical arguments to support yourself - you can't do that; it's not logically consistent or possible.
    Yeah, they're messed up because I don't agree with you. You've decided that you are right and I am wrong. I'm no longer surprised by your arrogance.

    I never said that, but, yes, I think you should have to have political knowledge in order to vote.
    I think that is horrible and it takes away our stability as a democracy. Why should people be forced to take a test to vote? To make sure you don't get 'disgusting' people like me voting? You'd ask questions like 'gay marriage should be legal. True or False?' Or are you suggesting we should take a test along the lines of 'what do republicans stand for?' or 'who was the 23rd president?' etc?

    That's not logically congruous. My using a computer has nothing to do with knowing how to program it.
    Exactly, so why is my holding an opinion on homosexuality any different? It's not directly related to ethics.

    In the same manner, you shouldn't try to make ethical claims that you aren't educated on. I don't make computer programming statements, why do you make ethical ones?
    I have my common sense and my intuition. That should be sufficient.

    You may use ethics on daily basis to try to decide what seems to be right or wrong - but you shouldn't make claims on that which you don't actually possess any knowledge in - in the same fashion I'm not going to try to claim I know anything about computer programming.
    But I do know basic stuff about ethics.

    "girl clothes" refers to a set or type of clothes typical for the female gender, not any particular sex.
    "guy clothes" refers to a set of type of clothes typical for the male gender, not any particular sex.

    In fact, they don't align - ever. They mean completely different things.
    Whatever, the point is that you try and use this to avoid countering my points. You cover up the difficult points I make.

    No. Ethics isn't that easy. To harm someone isn't always "wrong", even if in most cases it is.

    Not only that, psychologists have come out and said that calling gays inferior or undeserving of equal rights harms them. And, this isn't one of the cases wherein you can take harm to be at least not wrong.
    I don't think that's true. I don't think my views harm gays.

    Your standard rebuttal, of course, has been about HIV. But, again, HIV has nothing to do with what right I ought or ought not have. That's like saying "because you have cancer, you cannot get married because you may 'harm' others"; that's essentially what your argument boils down to; which is why I find is so frustrating. One ought have the same rights as someone else regardless of their health status - that's unfairly discriminatory - which, in turn, is morally wrong.
    Yeah, people 'catch' cancer all the time. Careful of that guy sneezing next to you.

    How are my views right? Well... I don't ascribe to any particular metaethical viewpoints, although I will tell you Peter Unger, Derek Parfit, Peter Singer, Jeff McMahan (all world renown ethicists and among the most intellectual people alive today, some of whom I've had the great pleasure and honor of spending many hours/weeks with) all ascribe to objective moral truths (moral realism).
    It my opinion it is a moral truth that gay marriage should be kept banned.

    We can, of course, skip metaethics in this case and simply rely on a singular point, as metaethics aren't useful and can often be left out: Equal rights, by definition, applies to all, universally. Which brings you back to my original question as to why is it morally right for you to deprive people of rights? You don't seem to think black people should have different rights than white people; nor do you seem to believe women ought have less rights than men; nor do you seem to think one should discriminate rights on any number of features - and you often believe that people shouldn't be oppressed, or deprived of rights in every case except homosexuals. Why is that a sexual orientation is less deserving of rights than any other group? This is where you reach a downfall and wherein I claim you're morally wrong (as would all of the aforementioned ethicists). Your view doesn't make logical sense; equal rights ought apply to everyone and not be discriminatory - in being discriminatory on illogical and thus unsound grounds, you're being morally wrong in that you're wrongly depriving people of rights which they ought to have based on your personal opinions and preconceived notions.
    Hmm, so it's wrong of me to compare homosexuality to anything else, but you are totally free to compare me to a racist. They are completely different things.

    See, in ethics, we don't care what your personal opinions or preconceived notions are - we're only concerned with what logic would tell us is morally right or wrong; granted we have to start somewhere, so we generally start with very basic moral intuitions.
    Maybe our 'intuition' tells us different things?

    All of this combined is why I take such issue with your views, because they aren't logically sound and are, in fact, quite arbitrary. If you actually took the time to consider your views from an ethical standpoint you would be quite surprised! After years of studying ethics, I'm a very different person than when I entered college. In fact, believe it or not, I used to be a republican, much like yourself (except of course I was gay). But, simply spending time actually studying logic and ethics made me arrive at very different conclusions - as I realized my preconceived notions and opinions were actually illogical.
    And maybe you will one day grow up and realize that liberal policies are stupid, naive and oppressive. You want to restrict financial freedom as well as the rights of the majority.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellissima)
    1) again you completely ignored what you didn't want to read. the only reason a gay person wouldn't want to be gay is because of society around them telling them how "bad" it is. i am not going to repeat myself so i suggest you start reading things properly.
    Have you ever thought that someone might not want to be gay because they feel that it would be better for themselves, their families and everyone if they were straight? Gay people who become straight often become good allies in fighting the lies of the gay lobby and opposing gay marriage.

    2) how is allowing those who want to marry forcing it on those who don't want it? if you mean straight people who believe it's wrong, it affects them in absolutely no way and is NONE of their business. it has 0 to do with them... if they don't like it then tough sh*t.... i mean if you met the girl of your dreams and wanted to marry her, but some person across the street who you didn't know opposed the marriage because she had black skin... would you let that affect you? should that stop you getting married? no.
    No, it's not 'tough ****'. I will fight it. You are trying to force acceptance of gay marriage on a society that doesn't want it (or at least a large minority don't want).

    3) wtf? firstly i have never said i oppose polygamous marriage... i do not know enough about the legal implications of having more than one spouse to form an opinion on it...
    secondly... comparing homophobia to paedophilia is completely ridiculous. homophobia does not harm anyone, it is two mutually consenting adults entering into a relationship, just like a straight couple. paedophilia - when their urges are carried out - involves the manipulation and rape of children who are often scarred and haunted for life. people cannot help being a paedophile and being a paedophile in itself is not a crime... however looking at child porn and grooming/raping children etc. ARE crimes and very harmful to others, not just the victims. yes i think it is 100% acceptable to put a stigma on paedophilia since child abuse is 100% wrong.
    if you are going to compare homosexuality to paedophilia then you also have to equally compare heterosexuality to paedophilia.
    Did you mean to say that? I think that homophobia is harmful (by homophobia I mean people who want gays dead or homosexuality to be illegal).
    • 49 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's not a choice; nobody chooses what they find attractive - it's a subconscious part of our psychology.
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    At some point I do have to take these sorts of classes! As for you not seeing me as a 'good citizen', right back at you. I find your economic views gross.
    You don't even know my economic views. But that wasn't my point. Good citizen refers to political participation, knowledge, etc.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It's a disease that affects gay people a lot more than straight people.
    Not really, no. Worldwide it affects a lot more straight people.

    But that doesn't make it a "straight people disease". In same sense, it isn't a "gay person disease"


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    If they are pro-gay marriage then I disagree with them right there, before we even get that deep.
    Doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. They know what they're talking about, and they can prove it's logically sound. I.e. there's no logical reason to not accept it.

    Which simply means you're against it on non-logical reasons. I.e. homophobia or bigotry.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    They are normally well educated and have had good liberal arts educations.
    And? They aren't specialists in ethics - which means their opinion on this matter isn't really relevant.

    That's like saying because I have a good liberal arts education I should... tell physicists what to do.

    Ethics is significantly more complicated than "liberal arts education"; in fact, most liberal arts educations don't even touch on ethics, let alone complex ethics.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Yeah, they're messed up because I don't agree with you. You've decided that you are right and I am wrong. I'm no longer surprised by your arrogance.
    No, I haven't decided. I've logically concluded. Your opinions are merely illogical and homophobic. You have no logical reason for believing what you do.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I think that is horrible and it takes away our stability as a democracy. Why should people be forced to take a test to vote? To make sure you don't get 'disgusting' people like me voting? You'd ask questions like 'gay marriage should be legal. True or False?' Or are you suggesting we should take a test along the lines of 'what do republicans stand for?' or 'who was the 23rd president?' etc?
    Why is this relevant?

    And no, political knowledge isn't "who was the 23rd President". It's more like... What is XYZ political theory? What are XYZ candidates platforms? What are the enumerated powers of the President/Congress/Supreme Court (i.e. what can these branches of government do and what can't they do), etc.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Exactly, so why is my holding an opinion on homosexuality any different? It's not directly related to ethics.
    In this, your opinion is related to ethics, since your opinion directly leads to depriving homosexuals of rights - depriving someone of rights is an ethical matter.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I have my common sense and my intuition. That should be sufficient.
    It's very clearly not. Your 'ethical views' are self-contradictory.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    But I do know basic stuff about ethics.
    No, you don't. You assume you do. There's a huge difference.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Whatever, the point is that you try and use this to avoid countering my points. You cover up the difficult points I make.
    You don't make any ethically difficult points. Your argument that pertain to homosexuality and its ethicalness are very easily defeated. They wouldn't even stand up to even a basic philosophy student.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I don't think that's true. I don't think my views harm gays.
    Again, psychologists have shown you're wrong.

    Using a simple epistemic standard - who's right? The people who actually study this subject? Or you, who doesn't study psychology at all? Clearly they are.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Yeah, people 'catch' cancer all the time. Careful of that guy sneezing next to you.
    You're so ignorant. Smoking leads to getting cancer, so do genetics, tanning, etc. etc. etc.

    Your argument is that all gays are the same and will get HIV. In the same sense, everyone who smokes is more likely to get cancer.

    Do you see the problem here? Your argument is based on a behavior pattern supposedly leading to some consequence. You haven't even thought through you own arguments here, which is just sad.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It my opinion it is a moral truth that gay marriage should be kept banned.
    And that's simply just false. We've been over why you can't claim that.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Hmm, so it's wrong of me to compare homosexuality to anything else, but you are totally free to compare me to a racist. They are completely different things
    They are logically congruous. And I never compared you to a racist. I simply said that you might as well be - since you deprive one group of equal rights, you might as well deprive them all and eventually wind up at white supremacy.


    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Maybe our 'intuition' tells us different things?
    Most of your moral intuitions are wrong. Most everyone's are - which is why you have to look at things with a figurative microscope and look for logical comparisons to find out what's actually morally the case. See: Liberationism

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    And maybe you will one day grow up and realize that liberal policies are stupid, naive and oppressive. You want to restrict financial freedom as well as the rights of the majority.
    Where did I say anything about finances? I didn't? And in fact, it will always be the case that the views I have argued for aren't naive and oppressive; but I won't waste anymore time on that topic.

    You're wasting my time. You're ignorant in most topics, especially ethics. And you refuse to accept logically sound arguments and instead counter and say "I simply don't agree" - which isn't grounds for disagreement. You need logically sound reasons to disagree. And, I'll tell you right now, you can't find them; they don't exist. The foremost thinkers on ethics in the world can't even find them, so I doubt you could come anywhere close. And, in fact, the foremost thinkers on ethics in the world have already made sound arguments that, so long as moral nihilism is true, are sound.

    Let's put it this way: The arguments I've presented to you follow the same form, pattern, etc. as the arguments presented by, namely, Peter Unger and Peter Singer. They're valid and sound arguments. The premises entail the conclusion - it's morally wrong not to give gays equal rights. This is will always be the case because the argument is sound (a sound argument means that the premises are valid and true, and the conclusion follows from the premises). A sound argument means that the conclusion will always be valid, no matter what. In turn, you can't disagree with a conclusion simply because you don't like it - if the argument is sound you HAVE to accept the conclusion.

    You've never presented a good argument. At all. You simply say "I disagree". Well, I'm sorry, but in ethics, that's not how that works. Further, I'm sorry, but you will always be morally wrong in this case. In fact, I'm sure you're actually a very morally indecent person in real life - as the requirements for being a morally decent human being are very, very, very high. Of course, I won't go into such arguments because the genius of Peter Unger, Peter Singer and Jeff McMahan is completely wasted on you.

    Essentially, it comes down to this: Nothing you say can counter the argument for equal rights I've presented - if you'd like to test this, try to come up with something. (You can't.) Because equal rights is a logical truth - which means it's impossible to counter in that, if you apply it to one group, you're bound to apply it to all others - the content of the statement, or rather, the inherent meaning of equal rights, obligates you to this. For as long as you counter homosexual rights, you will be morally wrong. And no, I don't care if you don't agree, this just is the case.

    So long as your exclude homosexuals from equal rights, you're morally wrong, and you might as well take everyone's rights away and become a white supremacist. Why? Because you've arbitrarily drawn the line at homosexuals, so you might as well just keep going and take everyone's rights away - welcome to the problem of the slippery slope, which you've induced by agreeing to the relativity of rights.

    So long as you think rights are relative and you ought not give them to homosexuals because of their sexual orientation, you're morally wrong and a morally indecent person. Well, you're a morally indecent person for numerous reasons (as are the majority of people); but you'll be more morally indecent by denying them equal rights. You could be a less morally indecent person by finally accepting that you're wrong (as ethics and logic has very clearly shown, but you refuse to acknowledge) but, of course, I know that will never happen because you cannot, for some unknown reason, accept logic as being true.

    You disagreeing with myself, Peter Unger, Peter Singer, Derek Parfit and Jeff McMahan (all of which are world leading ethicists at NYU, Princeton and Rutgers - which just happen to be the the best, 3rd best and 4th best schools in the world for philosophy, respectively) would be like me disagreeing with (I hope you're familiar with the computer science rankings of US universities, as it's supposedly the field you study?) four world-leading professors on the computer science faculty at Carnegie Mellon, Stanford, MIT or Berkeley. These aren't just 'some guys who are ethicists'. These are the brightest ethicists to ever live, beyond Kant, etc.

    Wouldn't you consider me irrational if I disagreed with one of the professors at CMU, Stanford, MIT or UCB about some computer science theory? In the same way, your disagreement with these four world-renown ethicists is just silly.

    Out of curiosity, are you at CMU, UPitt, Chatham, Duquesne, Carlow, etc.?
Updated: February 26, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.