reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 11, 2007 5:11:19 GMT -4
I love it when people argue for me. Thanks Waspie_Dwarf
Or should I say 'warf
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 15:09:40 GMT -4
I do not usually watch television and I when I do I do not usually watch Bill O'Rieley (sp?). But I was channel surfing last night while I was folding laundry.
They had on the program the issue that some same-sex couple was voted cutest couple for a high school year book.
A psychiatrist was on the program defending this as a good thing.
Here is her logic. She said that teens who are homosexual are more likely to abuse drugs and commit suicide than teens who are not homosexual because society condemns them and they feel unaccepted in the world. So showing acceptance for these two girls is a healthy thing.
Now, you can argue for or against this. Or you can say this has nothing to do with the subject matter here. But I think it does. Saying that gays cannot marry each other but they can clearly marry someone of the opposite sex and learn to adjust to it, creates a climate of nonacceptance. And for teens growing up in a world of nonacceptance where they will never feel that they fit in is a bad thing.
It is 6 percent of the population. I am just curious about the statistics of suicide rates. Are the teen suicide rates higher in Utah than other states?
I read something somewhere once. There is really no such thing as Unnatural. In a scientific stance, this is a fact. Nature is all-inclusive. If it exists, it is natural. There is unethical, of course. But it is Nature that made these people this way. I think it is unethical to say that they are wrong or they cannot act according to their nature.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 15:41:11 GMT -4
So I guess we should also publicly accept polygamists, pedophiles, and practicers of bestiality, since our condemnation of those practices "creates a climate of non-acceptance" and we're only preventing them from acting as nature made them. Heck, we have a climate of non-acceptance for rapists, thieves, and murderers too. Better change those laws and make sure these poor souls, who are only acting as nature made them, feel accepted. I mean, obviously, no one becomes a rapist or murderer by choice. No one would chose to be ostracized by society in such a way! Therefore it must be something inborn, and we can't blame them for their actions then.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 17:15:18 GMT -4
So I guess we should also publicly accept polygamists, pedophiles, and practicers of bestiality, since our condemnation of those practices "creates a climate of non-acceptance" and we're only preventing them from acting as nature made them. Heck, we have a climate of non-acceptance for rapists, thieves, and murderers too. Better change those laws and make sure these poor souls, who are only acting as nature made them, feel accepted. I mean, obviously, no one becomes a rapist or murderer by choice. No one would chose to be ostracized by society in such a way! Therefore it must be something inborn, and we can't blame them for their actions then. I would hope that people can tell the difference between a practice that harms others and one that does not.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 17:17:53 GMT -4
But your argument wasn't that the practice doesn't harm them - it was that we were creating a climate of nonacceptance, and that is why we should accept their behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 17:22:34 GMT -4
But your argument wasn't that the practice doesn't harm them - it was that we were creating a climate of nonacceptance, and that is why we should accept their behavior. Which is why I hope it should go with out saying. Clearly hurting kids should not be allowed. How anyone can lump that into this equation is strange to me. It is kind of like murder and robbing banks. In fact, I did mention this in my argument. I said that there was a difference between something being natural and being unethical. I anticipated you would bring up pedophilia which is why I made it clear that there was a difference with unethical behavior.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 17:34:43 GMT -4
The question then hinges on whether homosexual behavior is ethical or not, not on whether we are creating a "climate of nonacceptance". I maintain that homosexual behavior is not ethical.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 18:06:14 GMT -4
The question then hinges on whether homosexual behavior is ethical or not, not on whether we are creating a "climate of nonacceptance". I maintain that homosexual behavior is not ethical. If two people of the same sex are comitted to each other, it does noone harm. It prevents unwanted kids. And to say it is unethical you have to compare it to hurting kids. You have lost me. If it prevents one kid from commiting suicide to be more accepting of homosexuality, isn't it worth it to legalize them to be married?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 18:48:25 GMT -4
The question then hinges on whether homosexual behavior is ethical or not, not on whether we are creating a "climate of nonacceptance". I maintain that homosexual behavior is not ethical. If two people of the same sex are comitted to each other, it does noone harm. It prevents unwanted kids. Abortion and infanticide also prevent unwanted kids. That doesn't make either of them ethical. Not if the kid's acceptance of homosexual behavior does more damage to his ultimate happiness than nonacceptance would, and not if public acceptance of the behavior allows many other kids who wouldn't have been involved in homosexual behavior in the first place to see that behavior as acceptable and get involved in it, also to their sorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 20:00:14 GMT -4
If two people of the same sex are committed to each other, it does noone harm. It prevents unwanted kids. Abortion and infanticide also prevent unwanted kids. That doesn't make either of them ethical. What are you talking about? I don't understand. What connection is there here? Are you saying that if a woman chooses to live as a lesbian, it is just as bad as if she has an abortion? Bill O'Rieley (sp) said something along similar lines on his show and the psychiatrist retorted by asking if he thought it objectionable if a racially mixed race were in the yearbook as being voted the cutest couple. The bottom line is that if there is a problem with it, the problem lies in the people who object to it. Having it in the open does not make anyone "catch" gayness. Being a homosexual does "damage" to someone's happiness not because of simply being gay. It does "damage" because he is forced to live in an intolerant world. Just as being black would cause "damage" to a black person if he is forced to live in a racist world. Edit: Added: Are you saying that if a woman chooses to live as a lesbian, it is just as bad as if she has an abortion?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2007 13:31:22 GMT -4
Abortion and infanticide also prevent unwanted kids. That doesn't make either of them ethical. What are you talking about? I don't understand. What connection is there here? Are you saying that if a woman chooses to live as a lesbian, it is just as bad as if she has an abortion? You were arguing that the fact that a homosexual relationship prevents unwanted kids is a point in its favor. I countered that some very deplorable actions also prevent unwanted kids, but that this positive point isn't enough to make them moral acts. I disagree. The homosexual lifestyle has grown as acceptance of it in society has grown. I agree that they may suffer persecution because most of society finds their lifestyle choice repugnant, but I would also argue that even if society was completely tolerant of their lifestyle they would still be doing damage to their happiness by that choice. I've outlined reasons for thinking so earlier in this thread, but in short it's because the male/female relationship is what we're designed for, and messing with that formula invariably causes problems. No.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 9, 2007 13:40:48 GMT -4
I disagree. The homosexual lifestyle has grown as acceptance of it in society has grown. Don't you think it's possible that the number of gay people would be the same without the acceptance, it's just a matter of them being more willing to come out of hiding now? In other words, I think that what you interpret as being "turned gay" is really just more people who were already gay deciding it is safe to admit it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2007 13:46:40 GMT -4
It may be possible, but I don't think that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 9, 2007 13:50:57 GMT -4
So "the closet" doesn't really exist, then? All those gay people who claim to have been afraid to admit they are gay were lying?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 9, 2007 14:12:45 GMT -4
Well, technically I beleive that they're mistaken when they say that they're gay (with the implication that they had no choice in the matter) in the first place. There probably are some who already were engaged in homosexual behavior and then decided to "come out of the closet" when they saw society not being as critical as it used to be, but there are probably many more who drifted into homosexuality through its not being viewed as badly anymore.
Consider divorce. I think it would be very difficult to argue that the increase in the divorce rate has not in part been caused by society's general acceptance of divorce. In fact that may be the single greatest factor in its increase.
|
|