»Is homosexuality immoral?«

Is homosexuality immoral?

•

No, it is moral

38%

[ 24 ]

•

Yes, it is immoral

30%

[ 19 ]

•

No, it is amoral

22%

[ 14 ]

•

I don't know / I have no opinion / it depends

[ 6 ]

Number of users, who voted: 63
Number of counted votes: 63

Danilo:

What do you think makes some homosexuals feel guilty about their sexuality?

THEY said so.

Your assumptions that 'society' makes moral determinations is spurious. If that were the case, then you would have accepted the 'morality' of the holocaust, you would have accepted the 'moral' eradication of the pogroms and the 'moral' lynching of blacks in the old south. After all, these were societal determinations, sometimes even disguised as their religions. Even if they felt they were doing nothing wrong, or were just taking orders, most people would consider these as immoral acts. But, your reasoning would make them moral or certainly no worse than 'amoral'.

Your arguments are those of secular humanists who claim a right and wrong without a deity or religion. In fact, religion has been transcendent to societies and has always provided the moral compass to mankind. At times, immoral and unscrupulous people have controlled religions and manipulated them for their own benefit, no one questions that. And, the abuse of one's position in a religion does not make their actions moral (e.g., pedophile priests). But, religion is the determinant of morality.

If you could murder someone and never have to worry about legal punishment, and you would become the richest man in the world for the rest of your life, would you? Why or why not? If there is nothing but this life, you would have everything that you want. Think of all the good that you could do with the riches of the world. How many things you could effect. If there is no religious consequence, what harm would be done? Would that be moral? Wouldn't the 'good' that you would do far out weight simply killing one person? What if that person had cancer and would die within the month?

How about selling someone into slavery, working them without feeding them until until they were emaciated and then cooking them in an oven and using the remains for fertilizer? Your country is at war and needs their labor and their flesh makes good fertilizer to grow crops. Your government says it's the right thing to do and your leader, Adolph, is all for it. Is it 'moral'? Or do you just say that it's 'amoral' since your society approves?

How do you claim to know right from wrong? What is your basis for making such statement. You have given no authority other than your own feelings. That does not make you the arbiter of right and wrong, especially when it conflicts with the opinions of the Billions of people who agree with their religions, over your proclamations. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion but the weight of your thought does not outweigh what Billions of people have said for thousands of years. Unless, of course, you feel that you can dictate what others believe. That is called megalomania, not "high morals".

posted by ipsism

just an old coot

in-my-opinion.org -> Religion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolves -> Religious & Philosophical Topics -> Is homosexuality immoral?

Let's see if I can put it simply and not run it into the ground.

Belief by consensus does not make billions of people correct. Hitler doing what he did and people going along with it, thinking it was the moral thing to do proves that. Same with slavery. Same with religion. In these instances, society thought they were doing the moral and correct thing. It still happens today. Bush would think he is doing the right and moral thing if the country became more Christian. We have "evolved", for lack of a better word, and now realize that it was not the moral and correct thing to let happen. We should head in that direction with homosexuality also. Why did Hitler have so many people that helped in his hatred? He convinced them it was the moral and correct, or at best amoral, thing to do. How far do you take your statement "religion has been trancendent to society and has always provided a moral compass for mankind"? Does it make a difference whether that compass was way off base and has been proven time after time to have been the wrong and immoral thing? Is it still moral to kill your wife because she was raped? Is it still moral to kill your child because it was born with a handicap? You are proving my point more and more.

I claim to know right from wrong because I was taught right from wrong. I never said I was the authority when it came to knowing right from wrong. At least I am willing to think things out and not let a group of people, no matter how many there are, tell me their way is the only way to be moral. There will always be doubts. It's a long trip and I learn a lot everyday. My feelings come into play when I do something I know is wrong and I feel guilt. Or when I do something I know is right and feel rightousness. Putting it into practice and experiencing what I reap, I prove to myself that I know right from wrong. I guess it goes along with age and experience. Are you saying people would not know right from wrong were it not for religion? I hope that is not the case.

Your assumption that because billions of people agree with religion over my proclamations should prove I do not know right from wrong is like saying Hitler and slavery were the right thing to do since so many people believed it was the right thing to do. I am sure that is not what you believe.

I was throwing in what I thought was humor when I said I have high morals. I could never have such a superior view of myself. Sorry I did not make that more evident.

Ironicaly enough, megalomania is the perfect description of religion itself. Dictating to others what they should believe. By the way, belief is the key word. Not proving anything. Just hammering in that you should believe and do (until enough people start dropping out of the religion because they want to use condoms or get divorced or not eat fish on Fridays). No proof, "just have faith that we are dictating the right thing". What could be more megalomaniacal than that?

My arguments about pedeophile preists was not directed at the abusive and sanctioned by the church preists. It was directed at the religion that did nothing when they found out what the preists were doing and still claim they did nothing immoral. Religion is the determinant of morality if you believe the moral principals of your religion. Otherwise I hear you saying that Atheists have no way of ever being moral and they could kill, rape, steal, abuse the weak without knowing they did something wrong.

You say the weight of my thought does not outweigh what billions of people have said for thousands of years. For thousands of years morals dictated that women were only breeding machines put here to serve men. For thousands of years people said homosexuals should be killed. For thousands of years floods and draughts were thought to be the wrath of some God. For thousands of years people have been seeing the Virgin Mary in their hotcakes. How can what can not be proved outweigh what can be proved?

posted by Danilo

Sorry about the double post. Can't seem to get this page to act properly. I don't know what to do

posted by Danilo

There's a line from the old Barney Miller TV show: Barney asks one of the detectives if he knows why the whale only has a throat the size of a grapefruit. The detective answers no. And, Barney explains, Because that's the way it is"

You say that you were taught right from wrong. Who taught you? Where did they learn their values? Trace far enough back and you will find that your teaching was based in religion.

It does not matter how many negative examples you cite, nor does it matter how many different ways you explain that religion should not determine morality. The fact of the matter is, religion does determine morality; that's the way it is.

One does not have to be religious to follow moral imperatives, just as being religious does not ensure that one will act morally. However, the moral imperatives have been developed by religion, even if an atheist adopts and follows them. Remote cultures who were never introduced to any form of religion do not live what is generally considered to be moral lives. They hunt their neighbors and cannibalize them, they have no compunction against theft, slavery and adultery. You could, of course say all of this is 'amoral'. In reality, it militates the arguments of secular humanists that there are "natural" moral values. Morality was developed by religious groups, not atheists.

When you become ruler of the universe, you can change everything. Until you do, throughout the history of mankind, religion has determined morality. That's just the way it is.

posted by ipsism

Funniest thing about that Barney Miller quote is that it can be used to describe how religion answers any question we may have. Why is homosexuality immoral? "That's just the way it is" (or you might get a couple of quotes from the bible to go along with it). As a matter of fact, you even end the post by making sure you were heard. You insist we as a human race required religion in order to obtain morals instead of killing our neighbor and cannibalize them. Those cannibals would argue with you if you told them their hunting and eating their neighbors is not moral. Who would be right? Your religious morals or theirs? Or, who is right in their religious morals, the extremist Muslims or the extremist Christians? Or do they count since they don't adhere to your version of religious morals? Maybe when YOU become a God, you can change everything to benefit your stance.

You are correct, religions took what most people knew was the correct way of behaving in society and used it to their own advantage. Control of the masses. Atheists did not. Thank you for making my point again.

Ending your post with "That's just the way it is" exemplifies my thoughts on how religions want the followers to think. Don't ask questions. It's been this way for years and you can't do anything about it until you "become the ruler of the universe" you have no right to any proof of anything we say. That is quite funny. I would hope you were meaning to be. I have never been able to debate religion without having my opponent make my point over and over until my point is so well stated, there is no reason for further debate.

Maybe my whole reason to even be in this thread is that a sexual act with whomever, should not be considered by morals. Morals have nothing to do with whom to love or with whom to have sex anymore that they do with how to love and how to have sex. For reasons already stated, I understand why people would believe homosexuality is immoral. Religion is a huge influence in peoples lives and I am not going to change that. It is my opinion that when looking at facts, it is not immoral. It is amoral.

posted by Danilo

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how contrarian to the rest of the world. It still doesn't make you correct, only a voice of one.

You may not like the world the way that it is and you can try to change it all that you want. But, when you evade the simple answers, your position becomes sophistry, not discourse.

Believe what you will, I have presented a factual basis, you have screamed with emotion. You refuse to even answer who taught you how to decide right and wrong. If you are unwilling to face simple facts, you are welcome to rant into the wind. It signifies nothing.

posted by ipsism

You have over and over claimed "it is so because it is so". Is that your way of presenting "factual basis" without any "screaming with emotion"? You have laid out nothing but belief and have done a tremendous job of convincing yourself that your opinion is fact. You seem to be the emotional one.
You can accuse me of anything you want but the great thing about this is that anyone can read the posts and see if you are correct in your dispersing of fact or not.
Please point out where I have "evaded the simple answers".
Please point out or quote where you got the impression that I "want to change the world" I would love to change the world (don't we all?).
Please quote where I have "screamed with emotion".
You seriously ask where I learned right from wrong. My parents and they were Catholics. Now what? I never said religious people have no morals. I am saying you don't need religion to have morals. My opinion is that my parents and their parents and so forth, could have taught right from wrong without being religious.

You have not addressed any of the many questions or scenerios I have put down. You have brought up examples and quoted T.V. shows that only strengthen my opinion. What do you want me to do with that? Pretend you did not strengthen my point of view? You certainly have not made it clear as to why you think homosexuality is immoral. You have only managed to sound insulted that someone does not agree about the birth of morals with you. Entertaining but not to the point.

posted by Danilo

You have proven my point. Your 'right and wrong' - the basis of your stance in arguing - came from a religious background.

Your arguments are drivel, especially when you ask if cannibals aren't correct in eating people and on the same moral plane as western civilization. You have hidden in the absurd by denying that we are in a western civilization; and posing nonsense arguments, especially when you say that sex and with whom one has sex has no moral implications. Such statements reduce interpersonal relationships to physical acts without emotion, love or morality. And, while you may believe that, most of the world doesn't.

Your pronouncement that sexual acts are "amoral" shows either severe immaturity or contrariness for the sake of controversy. In either case, I tire of your evasions and insults. Your brilliance undoubtedly illuminates your ego. Have at it.

posted by ipsism

As any good cop knows, you can't argue with a drunk and that is what it is like arguing with you. You have avoided the topic from post one.

Denying that we are in westen civilization? On the same moral plane as other civilizations? Respond to the question asked not the question you wish I would have asked. Read what I said and read how you responded. Are we on the same post? (I know, you are done NOT answering my questions).
You seem to think that thinking like the rest of the world is something to be admired.

Most of all, I thank you for thinking that my brilliance illuminates my ego. I never thought of that. I like getting my ego stroked (and illumunated) whenever I can. I forgive you for being so emotional, not being able to debate like an adult and not understanding simple statements and sentences.

posted by Danilo

i most certainly agree with Danilo and as i'm gay i can say with confidence that i, and nor do many others, do not feel the slightest guilt for there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of us. the ones who do feel what is seen to be guilt are the ones who are forced by society and even more so by religion/religious believers into thinking they should feel guilty for something none of us control/ask for but i must say how proud i am to be different and how glad i am gay!

posted by abandon hope

When asked if homosexuality is immoral, I come up with the fact that it would be immoral to deny who you are. It would be immoral to deny that you are homosexual and try to live a heterosexual life. How many homosexuals have married the opposite sex only to break their hearts when they realized they could no longer live a lie? This hetro daughter or son that the homosexual marries could be the son or daughter of the greatest opponents of homosexuals coming out. That sounds immoral to me.

posted by Danilo

You can make up your own definitions to make yourself feel good. That is denial.

The question in the poll is "Is homosexuality immoral"

I started by obtaining the definition of morality, demonstrated that it is a belief system of right and wrong, and is not a social construct such as law or ethics. That belief system is based in religion and has transcended societies over the past four thousand years and that BELIEF system has been adopted by BILLIONS of people over thousands of years.

Despite that, Danilo says, oh no, morality is determined by people and societies and not religion. I gave the illustration of Nazi Germany where a society adopted, legalized and promoted slavery, starvation, mass murder and genocide yet it was still immoral, by most peoples' standards. And that supposedly proved Danilo's point? He stood his argument on its head and totally refuted what he had, himself said.

Assuming that Danilo was going to use the secular humanist argument of a natural morality, without a religious basis, I asked about his willingness to kill someone. He refused to answer, and would not give a basis for his decision. I pointed out that remote tribes, without religious contact do not develop a moral system and Danilo tries to argue that their amorality is just as valid as the moral system under which our society exists. An absurdity because our civilization does not accept such savage lifestyles. I didn't even try to confuse him with the pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon society and the concept of weregild where people were treated as chattel and murder lacked a moral implication.

Danilo constantly whines about the way things should be and the way that he would like things to be. THAT was NOT the question posed. Yes, he needs to consider the question in the context of the way that things are, not to argue from the vantage point of the way that he would like for things to be.

I have not made a derogatory statements concerning homosexuality. What I have said is that the majority of people consider homosexuality to be immoral. That is a statement of fact, whether you like it or not.

While Danilo tried to state that he knew right and wrong, not based on religion but because he had been taught, he ultimately admitted that he had been taught by Christians, who taught him right and wrong from a Christian perspective. Yet, he still argues that he COULD have been taught by non-religious individuals. Arguments based in conjecture and the way that he might have liked for things to be, not from the facts of his own situation. This is a disjuncture from the reality of his own life. Perhaps he wants to rebel from his parents, that does not change the facts of who his parents were and the perspective from which they taught him right from wrong. Again, an argument based on the way things might have been, not reality.

And, ABANDON HOPE, even though trying to bolster Danilo, validates my position when he says, "the ones who do feel what is seen to be guilt are the ones who are forced by society and even more so by religion/religious believers into thinking they should feel guilty" This is exactly what I posited, morality arises out of religious beliefs. FEELINGS of guilt (not a legal adjudication) arises from a sense of right and wrong, based upon a belief system. That is the answer to the poll. Thank you for supporting my point, Abandon Hope, even though it was not your intention.

Danilo's emotional bias comes through when he says that it would be 'immoral to deny who you are'. That's nothing but a BS defensive posture attempting to redefine morality to be what he wants it to be. Again, falling back into the hysterical mode of arguing from the basis of the way that he wants things to be, rather than the way that things are.

If you cannot understand that, it is because of your own denial. Your emotional overlay prevents you from dealing with reality. Think what you will about that. Knowledge can only be attained through recognition of reality. You do not have to accept that reality as your belief system but you must recognize reality in order to discuss it. It does not matter if you believe that all grass is blue and the sky is green. That belief system is nonsense. The longer that you argue your point that the sky is green, and deny what the rest of the world accepts, the more irrelevant your opinion becomes. When you reduce the arguments to the absurd, it is you who becomes absurd and effectively terminate further discussion.

I have given an opinion based upon reality, definitions and the operational constructs of the majority of people. I have acknowledged the failings of those who act under the cover of religion. But, that does not mean that moral constructs, in use today, do not originate from religion. And, that is the answer to the poll question. Homosexuality is immoral. It does not mean that homosexuals should be punished on the basis of immorality because that morality does not extend to situational ethics or the law. It does not matter whether or not all homosexuals have guilt about their behavior. Homosexuals do not define morality. Antisocial and asocial personalities do not have guilt over their actions, either. That does not mean that society accepts their actions as moral, either. And, no, that is not to equate homosexuals with antisocial or asocial personalities. However, the conceptual arguments are similar.

Now, go back to your emotional arguments about how you want things to be, deny the truth of statements and argue that everything is 'amoral' because you don't like the morality adopted by the majority of the world. It's your right to have your own opinion, no matter how absurd and out of touch with reality.

posted by ipsism

Boy can you go on and on, or what? Not again

Your last post reads like a tech manual on how to split an atom.

If you think being a homosexual and lying to your partner, marrying them, making plans for a future, then saying, "Sorry, but I have lied and I am homosexual" is BS and an emotional view of morals, it becomes difficult to take anything you say seriously. Am I wrong or misquoting you?

Take it easy. We are just throwing around opinions here. This is not a court hearing to determine if you are right and I am wrong. It's just opinions. You start talking about how my "emotional overlay prevents me from seeing reality". What are you a shrink, or something? How emotional is it to tell a stranger about their "emotional overlay blinding reality"? How much 'into me' do you have to be to speculate that? Any more psychotherapy you care to deliver my way?

You sound offended by my posts. I know it's tough trying to figure out the intent or emotions of a post when on a subject like homosexuality and more so, morals but I think you and I could probably have a great time face to face. Don't take this too personal. I apologize if I offened you or your religious beliefs. I should have watched my words a little closer.

You believe morals are derived from religion, I don't. We both think we have proof, I think you don't, you think I don't. We have proven our point time and again but obviously not to each other. Only to ourself. No harm done. I don't want to turn this into a crazy "I'm right, you are wrong" thread, so you are correct. Morals come from religion. My parents could not have taught me right from wrong were it not for the sake of the Catholic church. By the way, screaming about "most people think homosexuality is immoral" is not going to change the poll on this page.

posted by Danilo

The problem is not with stating your opinion, or even challenging mine. The problem is that you have given no facts, and when your opinion is shown to be fallacious, you abandon it and try to turn your words upside down. That is the insult. When someone disproves your statement, it is juvenile to change it on the fly.

Take your 'moral' stand that it's "immoral to deny who you are". What if you were a pedophile? A rapist? A murderer?
Do you not see how absurd it is to take such a stance? Morality has to do with conduct, not just doing what makes you happy or gives you pleasure. Again, the old right and wrong problem.

And a statement such as, "By the way, screaming about "most people think homosexuality is immoral" is not going to change the poll on this page." is the height of ridiculousness. First, it was a statement, not a scream, it was not presented in caps and it is a statement of fact. This poll is insignificant to the thoughts of the majority of the world. It shows your delusions and again demonstrates your flight from reality. It does not matter if 15 or 20 people take a stance contrary to the majority of the world. The importance of an opinion board, such as this one, is to expand one's understanding and consciousness. To do that, one needs to understand the words being used. That was the reason that I belabored that most people were NOT responding to the question of "morality" but were giving their opinions about situational ethics and compassion.

People have wrapped their emotions into defensive responses. That, ultimately, accomplishes very little. As to the question 'is homosexuality immoral', the answer is yes, because that is the belief system of the majority of people.
That should be followed by other questions, such as, 'should that morality be changed?' the answer should be yes, because it is not just and proper to condemn or castigate people solely because of their sexual orientation. Then, can morals be changed? again yes, just as you pointed out the change in morals about women - at least for Christians and Jews; but not so much for Muslims. Other questions might include, 'should homosexuality be criminalized?' Is it right to be prejudiced against someone because of their sexual orientation? Thus, there are many questions to expand the consciousness of attitudes regarding homosexuality. But, they must begin with a realization of thoughts, beliefs and words.

It does not do any good to deny the reality of current thought and beliefs. They must be recognized before they can be acted upon. I have not advocated maintaining the current morality. What I have advocated is taking a cold hard look at what is considered moral and immoral. I rejected your assertion that homosexuality is 'amoral' because it is counterproductive to a rational discussion. While that may be something that you would like, it's not reality. That's what I have been trying to explain to you. To assert homosexuality is amoral is to hide from the question and perpetrate the current mindset of beliefs. No one is going to accept your posit that sexuality does not have moral implications, except for maybe yourself and I doubt that even you truly have that belief.

And, I have not stated my religious beliefs in this. I have stated what is the belief of a majority of the world. The starting point for rational discourse.

posted by ipsism

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

The time now is 6 October 2008, 20:08
php B.B.