|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 27, 2007 19:21:38 GMT -4
That leaves us stuck with defining "immoral."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 19:29:17 GMT -4
Well that's the point of contention that this whole thread is built off of - whether homosexual behavior is immoral or not.
So pick something you think is immoral and answer the question for yourself. If you come up with "no, I would interefere in my son's life if it were to protect him" then you're following the same logic I would - we just disagree on what is and isn't moral or harmful.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 27, 2007 19:31:59 GMT -4
Whether or not homosexuals should have the right to marry should not be determined by subjective views of morality.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 19:37:00 GMT -4
Which goes back to the "objective vs. subjective morality" thread.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 27, 2007 19:45:33 GMT -4
Okay, substitute some activity you consider immoral that isn't illegal and ask the same question again.How about alcoholism?Stop making these absurd analogies. I have no problem with homosexuality, you do. So I don't need to comment. BUT - if my son had a drug problem I would try to get him help. But they aren't the SAME THING. Really! I guess to you, they are similar behaviors, and you would get him 'help' in either situation - being homosexual, or being addicted to drugs/alcohol. I think that it would be wrong to inflict on him your judgement and prescription, because he wouldn't have done anything "wrong". I almost feel like starting a thread called "Is Oral Sex an Immoral Act " just to see what happens. But I think I'll stay away from that one!
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 27, 2007 19:56:04 GMT -4
If I had a son or daughter who persisted in homosexual behavior and self-identified as "gay" I would believe exactly the same way I do today. I would continue to love the son or daughter and support them as far as I could, but I could not call their behavior acceptable or moral or support "same sex marriages". Massachusetts and New Jersey allow same sex marrages. Other states call it other things but it legally is the same thing. Canada allows it and Mexico is also more accepting. What you think, Jason, is just that. It is your opinion. The fact remains that the tide is against your belief and it is hard to imagine people reversing themselves and saying it was a bad idea. The problems with gay marrages don't mean anything in a country that has 50% divorce rate in straight couples. As time goes on it looks like more countries and more states are allowing for gay marrages. This, I did not even know until receintly
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 27, 2007 20:07:33 GMT -4
Where Jay did an excellent job of showing that any ideas of an "objective" morality still play out through a subjective lens. You believe your position represents an objective morality, but you can't begin to show that your objective morality is more than a figment of human imagination.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 22:08:19 GMT -4
The real fate of real people is decided in courts every day by someone else's idea of morality. So subjective or not, it does decide things.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 27, 2007 22:09:10 GMT -4
Okay, substitute some activity you consider immoral that isn't illegal and ask the same question again.How about alcoholism?Stop making these absurd analogies. I have no problem with homosexuality, you do. So I don't need to comment. BUT - if my son had a drug problem I would try to get him help. But they aren't the SAME THING. Really! I guess to you, they are similar behaviors, and you would get him 'help' in either situation - being homosexual, or being addicted to drugs/alcohol. I think that it would be wrong to inflict on him your judgement and prescription, because he wouldn't have done anything "wrong". So it may have been absurd, but you understood the point, so it did it's job.
|
|
|
Post by Tell Me No Lies on Nov 27, 2007 23:08:24 GMT -4
Where Jay did an excellent job of showing that any ideas of an "objective" morality still play out through a subjective lens. You believe your position represents an objective morality, but you can't begin to show that your objective morality is more than a figment of human imagination. Of course the view that gay marriage should be prohibited is based on subjective morality. So is the view that murder should be prohibited, and the view that child molestation should be prohibited. For that matter, the view that gay marriage should be allowed is based on subjective morality. This argument doesn't get you very far.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 28, 2007 0:00:51 GMT -4
So pick something you think is immoral and answer the question for yourself. OK...I consider pompous hypocritical religious bigots to be about as immoral as they come. Their pathological HATRED of anyone who doesn't follow the narrow minded teachings of their "god" is one of this world's biggest problems, yet they are too deluded to see that. If any child of mine started spouting ridiculous religious platitudes, I would most certainly interfere. What you say...not the example you were looking for??
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 28, 2007 1:24:38 GMT -4
It seems like a good time to lock this thread...
I don't mind controversial topics as long as they remain civil. When it reaches the point where people are called "dumbass" it has gone too far. I do not agree with Jason at all on this subject, and I think many of his opinions on this subject border on bigotry, but I do not think it is necessary to attack him personally.
Everyone has said all that they possibly can to make their case, and I don't think anyone has been swayed to the other side, so I think the topic has reached a dead end. Therefore this thread is now closed.
|
|