[NYU2012]

(Original post by Kiss)
To me the bigger hypocrisy comes from the rights given to minorities such as the LGBT society. Same for blacks and women. I´m refering to ´Black History Month´, Ínternational Women´s Day´ and ´Gay Pride´.

Now I know someone will come on to my post to say its all about remembering and overcoming hardships suffered by those groups and any attempted ´White History Month´or ´Straight Pride´would be unecessary and probably perceived as offensive, but if we are supposedley in an ´equal´ society then every group should have some special day or recognition, or nobody should at all.

At the end of the day we´re all humans, making such a fuss over the little differences is sad and arrogant.

If we are in a supposedly 'equal' society why are these groups still discriminated against?

'Gay/LGBTQ Pride', 'Black History Month', etc. is a recognition of these groups, as well as a reminder that these people DO exist and they are human, just like everyone else and do not deserve to be treated in such ways again; yet, even to this day, minority groups are discriminated against.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

look at the lives we're living man, nothing we do is "natural". the "it's not natural" argument is daft in both cases.

[heyhey922]

(Original post by tufc)
"It's natural so it's OK"

Funny I usually hear, its not natural so its not ok.

[Kiss]

(Original post by NYU2012)
If we are in a supposedly 'equal' society why are these groups still discriminated against?

'Gay/LGBTQ Pride', 'Black History Month', etc. is a recognition of these groups, as well as a reminder that these people DO exist and they are human, just like everyone else and do not deserve to be treated in such ways again; yet, even to this day, minority groups are discriminated against.

You can´t expect every single person to agree with you. I don´t like any special rights given to anyone, or any other recognitions which go beyond necessity. Whilst I don´t feel the need to shout and dance about my skin colour or sexuality or sex, I know others will. And if its only acceptable for the minority to receive special days then that is inherently discrimination. And I know you´ll make some excuse about how positive discrimination is a benefit to overcome biggoted viewpoints but its still discriminating against the remaining population (whites, straights and males). Again you´ll probably tell me its not necessary as they have all the rights they need, but if our society is supposed to be an equal one then we shouldn´t have any double standards for anyone.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Kiss)
You can´t expect every single person to agree with you. I don´t like any special rights given to anyone, or any other recognitions which go beyond necessity. Whilst I don´t feel the need to shout and dance about my skin colour or sexuality or sex, I know others will. And if its only acceptable for the minority to receive special days then that is inherently discrimination. And I know you´ll make some excuse about how positive discrimination is a benefit to overcome biggoted viewpoints but its still discriminating against the remaining population (whites, straights and males). Again you´ll probably tell me its not necessary as they have all the rights they need, but if our society is supposed to be an equal one then we shouldn´t have any double standards for anyone.

You presuppose that our society is equal and therefore minority groups should not have 'special days'.

Our society is not and has not ever been equal and therefore recognition of these minority groups is done in an effort to collectivize them and recognize them in order to prevent further discrimination against them by the State or Society, as well as stop current forms of discrimination against them.

When our society IS equal, then yes, such things would be unnecessary as they would serve no purpose. But fact of the matter is that society is NOT equal and, in order to help foster a sense of community among such individuals, as well as recognize the existence of such people, such 'special days' are both desired by such groups and needed.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Kiss)
To me the bigger hypocrisy comes from the rights given to minorities such as the LGBT society. Same for blacks and women. I´m refering to ´Black History Month´, Ínternational Women´s Day´ and ´Gay Pride´.

Now I know someone will come on to my post to say its all about remembering and overcoming hardships suffered by those groups and any attempted ´White History Month´or ´Straight Pride´would be unecessary and probably perceived as offensive, but if we are supposedley in an ´equal´ society then every group should have some special day or recognition, or nobody should at all.

At the end of the day we´re all humans, making such a fuss over the little differences is sad and arrogant.

How is that hypocrisy? Those things exist because in the past those groups have recieved segregation from society or abuse or less rights so those sort of unions, groups and events were created to create and encourage unity, to fight the prejudice. All those people honking on about "what about White history month?" need to get their heads checked. Every day is white history month if you want it to be.

[RowingGoose]

(Original post by tufc)
That's got nothing to do with the question, though. The issue I want to bring to the forefront in this thread is that gay rights campaigners are perfectly happy to use the "It's natural so it's OK" argument when it suits them, but then reject it as a fallacy when it doesn't.

We're all hypocritical in some ways, and an issue that is THAT heated causes lots of angry people and who change the rules according to them. The religion/God debate is a clear example!

Just look at all these fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
It seems you can't say anything without having commited a fallacy!

I was once having a debate with someone about tax rates, and I mentioned what my friend (who is a tax advisor) had said, and the other TSR person accused me of making it up and that my friend didn't even exist! So people can get pretty pathetic when they're passionate about something.

[minimarshmallow]

(Original post by tufc)
I keep going on about it because you're claiming that it's only ever used in that context. I often see people use it as an individual argument, to support their claim(s) that homosexuality is moral.

I think I've only ever seen this once on this forum, and I quickly added to that person's argument with the point about the naturalistic fallacy.

[Presenttime]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

I don't really understand your point, maybe it is beyond my limited mental capacities ?!

But the way I see it is as follows. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality because people can't help being gay- there is nothing right about it either, it is a physical condition, a state - one can't be judge something that is uncontrollable and therefore has no moral value.

Also there is nothing wrong with gay adoption because kids need a loving home, and some gay couples want to be loving parents.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by tufc)
That's got nothing to do with the question, though. The issue I want to bring to the forefront in this thread is that gay rights campaigners are perfectly happy to use the "It's natural so it's OK" argument when it suits them, but then reject it as a fallacy when it doesn't.

I think you are confusing the situation. You will find many people when asked about the morality of homosexuality (and other topics) say 'its not natural so its bad'. The problem is that isn't a proper argument against homosexuality. It implies that what is natural is 'good' and what isn't is 'bad'. This is obviously not the case. However many gay rights 'campaigners' come back to say that homosexuality is in fact natural rather than pointing out the naturalistic fallacy. That is not being used to say its ok, but to rather refute a point made by anti-gay proponents.

[Kiss]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
How is that hypocrisy? Those things exist because in the past those groups have recieved segregation from society or abuse or less rights so those sort of unions, groups and events were created to create and encourage unity, to fight the prejudice. All those people honking on about "what about White history month?" need to get their heads checked. Every day is white history month if you want it to be.

That is a poor attitude to take which only pressuposes that a minority individual will underachieve. Every day is black history month is you want it - you can´t just say ´Every day is so-and-so´s month´ because it only presumes that a certain group needs a month for recognition or that people don´t recognise them enough which is certainly not true in the 21st century for blacks - homosexuals it is but that´ll change fairly soon.

(Original post by NYU2012)
You presuppose that our society is equal and therefore minority groups should not have 'special days'.

Our society is not and has not ever been equal and therefore recognition of these minority groups is done in an effort to collectivize them and recognize them in order to prevent further discrimination against them by the State or Society, as well as stop current forms of discrimination against them.

When our society IS equal, then yes, such things would be unnecessary as they would serve no purpose. But fact of the matter is that society is NOT equal and, in order to help foster a sense of community among such individuals, as well as recognize the existence of such people, such 'special days' are both desired by such groups and needed.

Of course our society isn´t equal - it isn´t for anyone. Hence why gays don´t have marriage rights yet have special days, whilst straights have marriage rights and no special days.

But society will never become fully equal; you can get close, and when you are as close as possible which is largely happening in many parts of the US then you should just take it at that. Thus there will never be an end to special days for the minorities, and it will still be considered offensive to be proud of being white or straight. And you can´t erradicate biggoted view points from society entirely, whilst to forcibly do so is wrong.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Kiss)
That is a poor attitude to take which only pressuposes that a minority individual will underachieve. Every day is black history month is you want it - you can´t just say ´Every day is so-and-so´s month´ because it only presumes that a certain group needs a month for recognition or that people don´t recognise them enough which is certainly not true in the 21st century for blacks - homosexuals it is but that´ll change fairly soon.

I can't say for certain but I presume black history month was created perhaps for political correctness or perhaps to create more awareness of the history of black people to help them intergrate into society. I'm not about to get into the debate on whether that's still needed and whether there should be a white history month. That's a can of worms I won't open.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Kiss)
Of course our society isn´t equal - it isn´t for anyone. Hence why gays don´t have marriage rights yet have special days, whilst straights have marriage rights and no special days.

But society will never become fully equal; you can get close, and when you are as close as possible which is largely happening in many parts of the US then you should just take it at that. Thus there will never be an end to special days for the minorities, and it will still be considered offensive to be proud of being white or straight. And you can´t erradicate biggoted view points from society entirely, whilst to forcibly do so is wrong.

Largely happening in many parts of the US? No, in fact, it's not. Let's look at the LGBTQ community: No federal marriage rights whatsoever; high rates of violence committed by law enforcement officials (in fact they are the largest perpetrator of violence against LGBTQ individuals); hate crime laws which do nothing to actually protect LGBTQ individuals; placement in prisons not in accord with one's gender or sex identification in terms of transgender and transsexual people; limited access to HIV/AIDS medication in prison; discrimination against HIV positive people abounds. We can keep going on and on here.

LGBTQ and other minority rights have come a long way; but there is still a very long way to go.

Why can't society recognize its individuals as equal? You presuppose that's impossible and then research the conclusion we should be happy where we are. Why should minority groups who are discriminated against be "happy where they are" in a society that treats them as inferior?

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by tufc)
Firstly, I'd like to state that I don't see homosexuality as immoral - as someone who is fairly libertarian, love is love, and it's not for anyone else to judge someone for who they fall in love with.

However - especially on TSR - I also see a quite a large hypocrisy in the gay rights movement: If one suggests that homosexuality is wrong, then one is bombarded by replies stating how it's all fine and dandy, because it occurs in the natural world, so is therefore 'natural'. However, if one then suggests that they oppose gay adoption, because it is inherently unnatural, then one is equally bombarded with replies from the same people accusing them of using the naturalistic fallacy (for those of you who don't know, that means arguing that whatever is natural is inherently right/moral, and whatever isn't natural is immoral).

Can someone clear this up for me, because it seems like rank hypocrisy to me to use an argument dependent on the naturalistic fallacy to support gay rights, but then attack arguments against certain gay 'rights' on the basis they depend on the same fallacy?

Might this not be the product of lumping all gay rights advocates into a homogenous group with a single voice and unified mind? Hypocrisy can only be established on individual bases.

[Kiss]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Largely happening in many parts of the US? No, in fact, it's not. Let's look at the LGBTQ community: No federal marriage rights whatsoever; high rates of violence committed by law enforcement officials (in fact they are the largest perpetrator of violence against LGBTQ individuals); hate crime laws which do nothing to actually protect LGBTQ individuals; placement in prisons not in accord with one's gender or sex identification in terms of transgender and transsexual people; limited access to HIV/AIDS medication in prison; discrimination against HIV positive people abounds. We can keep going on and on here.

I was more focused on blacks than homosexuals in when I meant parts of the US.

Why can't society recognize its individuals as equal? You presuppose that's impossible and then research the conclusion we should be happy where we are. Why should minority groups who are discriminated against be "happy where they are" in a society that treats them as inferior?

Because the individuals form themselves into groups. I never said they should we should be satisfied with where we are - I would like to see a world where my friend can get married to who he wants to marry as well as more understanding place, and I´d like to have a world where the minorities wouldn´t sing and dance about being proud of what they are (in spite of being proud of what you are being a pointless postulate) or moan about being ´offended´at every opportunity but the reality is it isn´t going to happen soon. Even if we do succeed in becoming a moderately equal society there will still exist people who oppose that for certain groups, be they extremist religious nuts or people who those who simply disagree with something like gay adoption. And trying to forceably change/silence the opinions which differ from a PC government is totalitarian. You´ve probably gathered by now that I don´t stand for totalitarian in any form.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by tufc)
That's got nothing to do with the question, though. The issue I want to bring to the forefront in this thread is that gay rights campaigners are perfectly happy to use the "It's natural so it's OK" argument when it suits them, but then reject it as a fallacy when it doesn't.

...and your issue with this is what?

If this is what you see, then call them out on it as wrong when you see it.

[ScheduleII]

My stance on homosexuality is basically the orthodox Roman Catholic one: partnered sex acts outside of true marriage (i.e. God's definition in the NT, not the definition of man's laws) are sin and can never be approved, and no amount of time or social change can affect this as it is derived from our eternal natures. However they are to be treated with compassion, care and sensitivity at all times and must not be faced with irrelevant discrimination or cast out from the Church. Jesus did not cast out the harlots...

I will not attempt to convert any of you to my beliefs, as it will be counterproductive for any of us to get into a slanging match when we have utterly opposite principles. NYU thinks all Biblical morality is logically fallacious and thus wrong, because it requires presuppositions (Bible is word of God, God is personal and cares about the actions of humanity, etc.) which he finds insupportable. I believe however that NYU and RZ'Z, quoting the ideas of mainstream bodies of psychology and medicine at the present time, are committing their own ad verecundiam fallacy if they say this proves homosexuality is normal, acceptable or innate: these organisations have an agenda to follow politically and socially as numerous ex-members have spoken of. They are too willing to go along with the Zeitgeist of their particular culture, so I cannot have confidence in professional bodies who, in many countries, defended the wonderful Hippocratic Oath to state abortion is not health-care and is unethical for generations then suddenly said "go abortion go!" when it was made LEGAL. Some British medics are suggesting that "society" not doctors should decide on assisted suicide, and so the BMA ought to drop its opposition. These professional bodies cannot be trusted for these reasons and more by anyone with respect for absolute truth.By "normal" I referred to the moral norm, not the statistical norm, as I believe these intelligent men knew perfectly well- and here a further fallacy of non sequitur is committed if arguing that it's moral to have gay sex just because homosexuality is not recognised as mental illness. In the past homosexuality was not considered a mental illness, but the act of buggery was still seen as a crime against nature, reflecting moral depravity rather than psychopathology. I know that short of abandoning my interpretation of the Christian faith I will never agree with you, NYU-2012, Mmmpie and RZ'Z

However I do respect the profundity and subtlety of much of your thought, as all three of you are academic elite and I admire intelligence having been discriminated against (severe and damaging bullying from many pupils plus snide and inappropriate remarks from even some staff all because I was the "valedictorian" in your terms of a distinctly average comprehensive); it's easy to get caught up in "cool" culture of anti-education in many places and I am highly encouraged by the amount of philosophy you all seem to have read. I myself appreciate some of the perspectives of the pro-gay marriage side: Martha Nussbaum, John Rawls etc. who do not hate faithful religious adherents and are more than just screaming "evil homophobe" or laughing off criticism as "outdated"- anyone who employs the argument of "outdatedness" in a sexual ethics debate is ipso facto wrong IMO.

We don't need a reminder that races and sexualities exist outside of white straight cisgender. That is patronising. As for them being "human", I accept this as fact just as any other rational person would. Shame slaveowners and witch-hunters, who frequently accused witches of homosexuality, didn't think so. I suggest ending the identity politics on college campus, ban any speech codes that violate the First Amendment in the US, ensure non-hateful disapproval of alternative lifestyles and sexualities is not penalised in the UK or anywhere else, but then SEVERE clampdown on homophobic harassment, hatred, irrelevant discrimination, or violence. This would protect both sexual minorities and the religious along with the minority of secularists who oppose homosexual behaviour.

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ScheduleII)
My stance on homosexuality is basically the orthodox Roman Catholic one: partnered sex acts outside of true marriage (i.e. God's definition in the NT, not the definition of man's laws) are sin and can never be approved, and no amount of time or social change can affect this as it is derived from our eternal natures. However they are to be treated with compassion, care and sensitivity at all times and must not be faced with irrelevant discrimination or cast out from the Church. Jesus did not cast out the harlots...

I'm curious what God's definition of marriage is...I'm pretty sure there are plenty of interpretations. And religiously I can understand that you don't believe homosexual relations to be valid, however yours isn't the only religion. Why should your religion's views be given preference over another? You can say yours is the 'right' religion blah blah blah, but so can every other religion. Thats kinda the point of religion is that you can't know which one is true.

I do agree with some of your sentiments though. And I appreciate the compassion you display.

I will not attempt to convert any of you to my beliefs, as it will be counterproductive for any of us to get into a slanging match when we have utterly opposite principles. NYU thinks all Biblical morality is logically fallacious and thus wrong, because it requires presuppositions (Bible is word of God, God is personal and cares about the actions of humanity, etc.) which he finds insupportable. I believe however that NYU and RZ'Z, quoting the ideas of mainstream bodies of psychology and medicine at the present time, are committing their own ad verecundiam fallacy if they say this proves homosexuality is normal, acceptable or innate: these organisations have an agenda to follow politically and socially as numerous ex-members have spoken of.

I don't see where the fallacy is. The argument from authority is not always fallacious. In this case unless you can show that either the qualified experts in the field are not in consensus or that the argument is inductive, then there is no fallacy here.

I also wish to address the political and social agenda's that you seem to think all the major organizations have. What evidence do you have to support that they actually have these agenda's? Of what I know the only people who make these claims, or ex-members who have either been kicked out or start/join an organization with a blatant bias for something, ie. NARTH. It would seem then that these are the people with agenda's rather than the larger organizations which are peer reviewed and held in high esteem due to their diligence in avoiding and removing bias, etc from all research.

They are too willing to go along with the Zeitgeist of their particular culture, so I cannot have confidence in professional bodies who, in many countries, defended the wonderful Hippocratic Oath to state abortion is not health-care and is unethical for generations then suddenly said "go abortion go!" when it was made LEGAL.

This is a separate issue but I will address it briefly. The hippocratic oath, has been updated and revised many times. The modern one that is very common would allow for abortions. It was penned in 1964, when abortion was still very much considered immoral, and says

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty....I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

These seem to allow for abortion as there are many factors, and nowhere does it state that abortion or euthanasia are off limits.

Some British medics are suggesting that "society" not doctors should decide on assisted suicide, and so the BMA ought to drop its opposition. These professional bodies cannot be trusted for these reasons and more by anyone with respect for absolute truth.

That is an interesting suggestion. And looking at it isn't all that ridiculous. Doctors are not all knowing, nor are they a moral authority. Largely it seems society is. And the question of euthanasia is a moral one, in addition being a medical one. As for 'absolute truth' that is very hard and rare to come by, especially when dealing with morality. And even while you may feel as though euthanasia and abortion are immoral, you are allowed to follow your morals and not have them. However, for those who do not share your morals why should they not be allowed to do so?

By "normal" I referred to the moral norm, not the statistical norm, as I believe these intelligent men knew perfectly well- and here a further fallacy of non sequitur is committed if arguing that it's moral to have gay sex just because homosexuality is not recognised as mental illness. In the past homosexuality was not considered a mental illness, but the act of buggery was still seen as a crime against nature, reflecting moral depravity rather than psychopathology. I know that short of abandoning my interpretation of the Christian faith I will never agree with you, NYU-2012, Mmmpie and RZ'Z

You are claiming an argument that nobody has stated or implied. The 'moral norm' that you refer to is constantly changing as people's morals adjust as time goes on. Otherwise we'd still have very primitive morals. However, the classification or non-classification of homosexuality as a mental illness does not make it moral. It is moral due to the fact that it does not cause or do harm. It may not be 'moral' but it cannot be shown to be undeniably immoral. Simply put if it is not harming you or infringing on your right to practice religion or be heterosexual how is it any less moral than those things? Again you can use your bible and that's all well and good but again that isn't difinitive in any way as there are so many religions and religious interpretations, so what your religion says can't be taken as what you would call an 'absolute truth'. Therefore its not valid.

However I do respect the profundity and subtlety of much of your thought, as all three of you are academic elite and I admire intelligence having been discriminated against (severe and damaging bullying from many pupils plus snide and inappropriate remarks from even some staff all because I was the "valedictorian" in your terms of a distinctly average comprehensive); it's easy to get caught up in "cool" culture of anti-education in many places and I am highly encouraged by the amount of philosophy you all seem to have read. I myself appreciate some of the perspectives of the pro-gay marriage side: Martha Nussbaum, John Rawls etc. who do not hate faithful religious adherents and are more than just screaming "evil homophobe" or laughing off criticism as "outdated"- anyone who employs the argument of "outdatedness" in a sexual ethics debate is ipso facto wrong IMO.

Outdatedness is a valid criticism. If a study is outdated, especially on a social issue, then who's to say it is reliable and will produce the same results if retested? There are plenty of recent studies that show the opposite so what reason is there to believe the older study that has been discredited by a modern study or rather that hasn't had a reliable retest?

[ufo2012]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
Outdatedness is a valid criticism. If a study is outdated, especially on a social issue, then who's to say it is reliable and will produce the same results if retested? There are plenty of recent studies that show the opposite so what reason is there to believe the older study that has been discredited by a modern study or rather that hasn't had a reliable retest?

That depends if it is outdated based on social factors or outdated based on scientific factors and what the issue at hand would be as to whether or not it is a valid criticism.

Sorry if you were/are referring to something particularly specific here but after some looking I still can't see a precise issue.

And also, are we talking about medical science or psychiatric/psychological ?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by ufo2012)
That depends if it is outdated based on social factors or outdated based on scientific factors and what the issue at hand would be as to whether or not it is a valid criticism.

Sorry if you were/are referring to something particularly specific here but after some looking I still can't see a precise issue.

And also, are we talking about medical science or psychiatric/psychological ?

Outdated research is always invalid due to the fact that the results haven't been retested. Whether this is because of social factors or scientific ones, if it's results haven't been duplicated, in a recent time frame (especially when dealing with issues that change with social climate) then it is invalid. Even scientific research, unless already shown to be almost universally duplicable, is not considered valid if too old.