»Is homosexuality immoral?«
|
|||
 Nico: Basically: there are cases in precedence for other "historically hated" classes which are now accepted; as bad a choice as this may be, in Europe and North America, darkskinned people were regarded as slaves. Hey, I like this "slavery is based on traditional morals, too" comparison! posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsIs homosexuality immoral? |
|
|||
 stinkz: Telling them the error of their ways, or even prohibiting their immoral behavior is not "hurting" them, but benefiting them. That could be used to repress any social, political, or racial group. Telling Christians the error of their ways, or even prohibiting them from going to church is not "hurting" them, but benefitting them. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 The Bible gives us a traditional morality. Why should we accept the traditional morality? Because it is written in the Bible. - How much more circular can you get? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
||||||
|
fatpie42: The Bible gives us a traditional morality.
Why should we accept the traditional morality? Because it is written in the Bible. - How much more circular can you get?
posted by knn |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|||
|
knn: I must protect stinkz here a bit. It _IS_ actually a valid argument that "homosexuals" have not been liked/accepted thruout long centuries. After all, stinkz articulates some typical attitude.
In other words: It might be irrational, but it's not purely subjective. I think what also might give "anti-homosexualists" some support is gay cancer = aids. I think a lot of extreme Christians have the feeling that AIDS is a divine punishment. Some of the typical cancers of AIDS patients are ano-rectal. Thus here you have a "real world credibility" for a subjective homophobia. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: I think what also might give "anti-homosexualists" some support is gay cancer = aids. I think a lot of extreme Christians have the feeling that AIDS is a divine punishment. Some of the typical cancers of AIDS patients are ano-rectal.
Thus here you have a "real world credibility" for a subjective homophobia. Nope, sorry. That's not any sort of credibility, for the simple reason that heterosexual sex is just as effective as spreading the disease as homosexual sex. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Tiefling: for the simple reason that heterosexual sex is just as effective as spreading the disease as homosexual sex I was trying to come across websites with statistics to disprove this, when I found something interesting: Of new infections among men in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 60 percent of men were infected through homosexual sex, 25 percent through injection drug use, and 15 percent through heterosexual sex. The above is what I wanted to quote, but I kept reading: Of new infections among women in the United States, CDC estimates that approximately 75 percent of women were infected through heterosexual sex and 25 percent through injection drug use. Why doesn't it mention homosexual statistics for women? 
posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: Nope, sorry. That's not any sort of credibility, for the simple reason that heterosexual sex is just as effective as spreading the disease as homosexual sex. This has been debunked at: IMO → Homosexuality spreads AIDS, heterosexuality not really Please post there nocturnal_anonymous: I was trying to come across websites with statistics to disprove this, when I found something interesting: The same applies here posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You said that Christians look at AIDS as divine punishment toward homosexuals. I disproved this by pointing out that AIDS affects heterosexuals too. You say my post is off-topic, but not yours. That certainly makes your side of the argument a lot easier to defend! You can state why Christians are justified, and I'm not allowed to say why you're wrong. Nice. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Besides, it was stinkz who brought disease into the subject, from his very first post: stinkz: I'm here to say that homosexuality is immoral, no matter how much or how little disease it causes, and no matter how "natural" it may be. If you're allowed to say disease is a valid point in favor of homophobia, then I'm allowed to say it's not. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, this thread is highly interesting, because it tempts me to create another poll: Are religious people undereducated, misled or plain stupid? After having read the posts by stinkz, I would now defend the "undereducated" and "misled" standpoint, for at least his way of reasoning shows some spark of intelligence. People who draw moral conclusions from obsolete information (religious memeplexes) are of course to be pitied. Now the hard part. Quote: Telling them the error of their ways, or even prohibiting their immoral behavior is not hurting them, but benefiting them. The same applies of course to mister stinkz. Telling him the error of his ways would be exceedingly difficult after hardwired brainwashing from religious dogma. (but it's fair - homosexuals cannot and should not be "cured" at all, for homosexuality is no disease). It would benefit him, a lot of homosexuals, and us civilized persons to show him the error of his ways. But I have grown too old to believe in miracles. To state a fact: I am heterosexual. But I am sick of people like stinkz who judge others because of stupid primitive belief systems. Since I do not believe in miracles, and there is absolutely zero tolerance in stinkz (who even advocates intolerance against homosexuals, because absolute tolerance is not a good quality in his opinion), I advocate that society turn his own reasoning against him. No tolerance against the intolerant. People like Stinkz should be killed. Discuss. posted by Exile |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with the content of your post completely except for the last sentence: stinkz: People like Stinkz should be killed. stinkz can be very vocally conservative, but he's a good guy, like all the frequent IMO posters. And he's entitled to his opinion inasmuch as anyone else here. PS --- Come register, Exile, sounds like you're fairly eloquent in your arguments! posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Of course, I wanted to be deliberately provocative. Nevertheless, I think society has a right, is even obliged, to defend itself against all enemies domestic or foreign. And intolerance, which is almost exclusively based on ignorance, is the one poison that has caused a hell of a lot of misery in the past. We should learn from the past, not repeat its mistakes. There should be no rule but one: do not harm others. A good system of morality comes down to that one rule. Other systems that have been invented by man, like that laid down in the Bible, are always bound to the time of their conception. The problem with people infected with a religious mind virus is that mind viruses take on lives of their own; successful mind viruses are successful because during the course of their evolution they have developed co-ideas discouraging deviation from their ideals. Hence the circular reasoning of stinkz. [okay, this is very simplified, but you get my point] Quote: And he's entitled to his opinion inasmuch as anyone else here. Indeed he is. But I think that people like him are dangerous. It is not a far step from false information to intolerant behaviour, and not a far step from intolerant behaviour to outright violence (prominent examples Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, George Bush, though in varying degrees). If I remember correctly, stinkz wrote somewhere above that if he hurt gay people, he would help them spiritually. He even quotes the Nazi empire, whose views he defends unknowingly. Society has to defend itself against people like him, however nice they may be overall. Since we cannot give everyone the education we all need to draw logical conclusions that turn out as benefits for society (impossible because of the power structures of rivalling systems), we must try to disinfect those people, or they will infect others. Plus, their illnesses might actually harm others around them (gays, in this singled out example). But what can we do if disinfection is impossible? Yes, watch over them until they actually hurt gays... pity them because they will never escape the clutches of the virus, and minimize environmental damage. Of course we cannot kill them, because they are not really responsible for their actions. But they can cause widespread diseases, mental and phenotypical, and they should be quarantined as good as possible. posted by Exile |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tiefling: my ass is off-topic too Tiefling: You said that Christians look at AIDS as divine punishment toward homosexuals. I disproved this by pointing out that AIDS affects heterosexuals too. You say my post is off-topic, but not yours. That certainly makes your side of the argument a lot easier to defend! You can state why Christians are justified, and I'm not allowed to say why you're wrong. Nice. OK, I used the term offtopic a bit too loosely. It's not offtopic per se (I didn't even mark it as such), but it's offtopic, because there is a whole other thread devoted to it. I changed now the title of my post to "Offthread" instead of "Offtopic". Sorry, I admit I put it wrong. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Nico: Moreover, where do you gain the authority to 'correct' homosexuals from? Spirituality? Oh sure, that's a great plan. I have never said that I have the authority to correct anyone. In fact, I don't think the federal government should have the right to "correct" gays either. However, that does not change the fact that IF the government prohibited homosexuality, it would be doing homosexuals good. Nico: Welcome to the 21st century, we like objectivism nowadays. You obviously don't, when it comes to morality, because you cut from underneath you any grounds for a belief in rational morality. You are in no way an objectivist. Nico: God knows, maybe two impotent people having sex is a perversion, because that's certainly not procreative. Keep setting up your straw man. You are arguing against no one. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 22 August 2008, 04:47 php B.B. |