Reply
Thu 9 Dec, 2004 02:41 pm
I've seen people try all too much to prove homosexuality was "wrong" or "immoral" even without relgion. What're your two bits?
Personally, I figure so long as religion is discluded (set principles and morals) then morality and right/wrong is opinion, and does not resemble a fact. People will bring up things about how it stops reproduction, so it's bad for mankind. First off, there are homosexual animals in other animal kingdoms (such as elephants) and if something is determined by it's end result, then that doesn't matter since eventually mankind must end anyway. In the universe there is no "ultimate" thing. Because of that, there is no definite set of morals or ideas, since we have no withstanding frame of reference.
And please don't start with "But then you must think child molesters and criminals are good? Since there are no morals." Technically, in a logical sense, they are no less good or bad than you. However, I will say, that we have instinctive values, perhaps those intertwined with our survival and being. Among them protectiveness, care, and empathy are included. That's why I imagine the general consensus is against such things as criminals. However, as I mentioned, looking at it purely through logic and intellect, it really doesn't matter what anyone does.
Theo
Re: Homosexuality
Snoe wrote:However, as I mentioned, looking at it purely through logic and intellect, it really doesn't matter what anyone does.
Then the "instinctive values" that you mention are entirely irrelevant. Indeed, there's no point in talking about "morality" at all.
If you insist on relating opinions to nothing, then why have a discussion at all? But, if you insist: It doesn't matter where, precisely, we draw the line. What's important is that the line is drawn and we fight like hell to keep it there to avoid anarchy.
I made this post because I don't expect everyone to agree with me. My view of "opinions ultimately relating to nothing," is based off a somewhat cynical materialist view that values end result over everything else. Saying that contemporary society is what should be prioritized is just as valid as saying that end result should be prioritized. Since a large majority of the world seems to be against homosexuality, I figured people would at least have something to say on the topic.
As far as the "drawn line" what exact line is that? Law? Religion? Where do we draw the line and who draws it?
Homosexuality is clearly not "the norm" in Western society as it was perhaps in Ancient Greece. Biological forces play a part in the formation of behavioural norms, occasionally to be overridden by "cognition" which (for humans at least) is capable of rationalizing all sorts of contrabiological processes including fasting, celebacy, masochism and suicide. (Note here that in Ancient Greece, suicide was also "honorable")
The problem for me as an atheistic heterosexual is not with homosexuality per se, but with homosexuals who actively claim that their minority tendencies should be viewed as "normal" and hence somehow "socially equal". This claim seems to be part of their rationalization process which seeks to reposition their normative "status"for their own psychological security.
My argument is about mathematics and consensus, not "morality" or "rights" which I believe are secondary to these.
Well, first of all, you seem to be doing a lot of talking for a lot of people. Let's start with your opinions on homosexuality and why you feel the way you do and leave the rest of the world out of it.
I believe that if those who say homosexuality is "normal" were to say it is "natural", you would see almost as many people denying it. My personal belief is that it is perfectly natural.
Quote:As far as the "drawn line" what exact line is that? Law? Religion? Where do we draw the line and who draws it?
Law. And, like I said, it doesn't really matter where it is drawn, as long as, once drawn, it is defended to avoid chaos. Society draws the line by whatever means that society chooses to make laws. By ensuring that laws are changed only slowly and with great struggle, we keep chaos at bay.
fresco wrote:The problem for me as an atheistic heterosexual is not with homosexuality per se, but with homosexuals who actively claim that their minority tendencies should be viewed as "normal" and hence somehow "socially equal". This claim seems to be part of their rationalization process which seeks to reposition their normative "status"for their own psychological security.
Well, I think your last sentence is probably accurate, but how does that fit in with your previous statements? Even if homosexuals are seeking to reposition their normative status for their own psychological security, why should that have any impact on their claims to social equality?
fresco wrote:My argument is about mathematics and consensus, not "morality" or "rights" which I believe are secondary to these.
I don't know how you can talk about "equality" in any kind of socio-political sense (as opposed to a purely mathematical sense) and not talk about morality or rights. Please elaborate.
Quote:there is no definite set of morals or ideas, since we have no withstanding frame of reference.
Only true if you live in a bubble with no outside contact. If you truly believe that there is no higher power than yourself then your only measure is to compare yourself to those around you. Merely by living, you gain a point of reference for your behaviour. Then, you either choose to live accordingly or ignore it at your peril, and likely the peril of those around you. No sense in saying you will live by your own moral compass because you haven't got one without a point of reference and there would be no point to any attempt at self-improvement because you wouldn't know which direction would lead to improvement. Society then becomes your "God" for lack of a better term.
Joe,
I take "rights" and "morality" to be based on social expediency as decided by a consensus.
The problem posed by homosexuals as a group is that they claim "rights" such as "child rearing" which the majority see as conditional upon on heterosexual pairing and subsequent natural biological processes. Concessions are made b way of adoption to those heterosexuals whose biological functions have been impaired, but not to homosexuals who have chosen to refrain from the reproductive process. This seems correct to me whilst heterosexuals constitute the majority.
The counterargument by homosexuals, that their activities are themselves based on biological causes does not seem to be sufficient grounds to constitute "involuntary impairment" and in any case such "biological factors" it could be argued could affect their transmission to their potential charges of "normal" parenting skills for onward transmission, or "normal" bonding skills. i.e expediency fails in the eyes of the consensus.
Now it may be that "child rearing rights" is a special case in as much that involves "power over the lives of others". Perhaps you Joe would give us your views on say "gay marriage" with repect to any property "rights" implied by this ?
Child-rearing isn't an unconditional right. Anyone who wants to adopt a child has to prove that they are capable of taking care of it, regardless. Sexuality, or whether or not someone chose to reproduce if you want to see it that way, just has nothing to do with that.
Rufio,
It all depends what the majority decides "taking care of" means, not your or my personal views which have been differentially influenced by our respective upbringings.
Quote:Sexuality, or whether or not someone chose to reproduce if you want to see it that way, just has nothing to do with that.
Well, now, that's not true. Sexuality is part of character. For instance, if prospective adoptive parents, as part of their sexuality, have sex parties in their home, or are members of NAMBLA, or like bestiality, etc. those things should be taken into consideration since society views them as aberant behaviors. Individual's modes of expressing their sexuallity cannot be eliminated from the equation when considering adoption. It follows then, that if society views homosexuallity as aberant (and I'm not making an argument for or against here), that those who practice it might not be allows state-sanctioned adoption.
fresco wrote:I take "rights" and "morality" to be based on social expediency as decided by a consensus.
The problem posed by homosexuals as a group is that they claim "rights" such as "child rearing" which the majority see as conditional upon on heterosexual pairing and subsequent natural biological processes. Concessions are made b way of adoption to those heterosexuals whose biological functions have been impaired, but not to homosexuals who have chosen to refrain from the reproductive process. This seems correct to me whilst heterosexuals constitute the majority.
Why should you pay any deference to the majority in this instance? Is it because you contend that rights are based on social consensus?
fresco wrote:The counterargument by homosexuals, that their activities are themselves based on biological causes does not seem to be sufficient grounds to constitute "involuntary impairment" and in any case such "biological factors" it could be argued could affect their transmission to their potential charges of "normal" parenting skills for onward transmission, or "normal" bonding skills. i.e expediency fails in the eyes of the consensus.
If rights are based on social consensus, then why is any of this relevant? Why does it matter that the consensus views these arguments as unpersuasive or "inexpedient?" Wouldn't it be just as valid if the majority thought that homosexuals are all perverts and don't deserve any rights whatsoever?
fresco wrote:Now it may be that "child rearing rights" is a special case in as much that involves "power over the lives of others". Perhaps you Joe would give us your views on say "gay marriage" with repect to any property "rights" implied by this ?
I have no clue what you mean by "property rights implied by this." I don't see any property rights implied anywhere.
If, on the other hand, you are asking me about my views on gay marriage, I'm in favor of it. As long as the state grants rights and privileges based upon marital status, it is discriminatory to deny that status to a class of people based solely upon their sexual orientation. The moment that the state stops granting those rights and privileges to married couples, I will stop supporting gay marriage.
rufio wrote:Child-rearing isn't an unconditional right. Anyone who wants to adopt a child has to prove that they are capable of taking care of it, regardless.
Yet anyone can
bear a child without proving any fitness for raising or means of supporting a child.
True, Joe, but that child can also be taken away from you in you prove to be unfit for taking care of it.
It's true that it's relative whether or not one is fit for child-rearing, but unless that definition involved sexual interaction, sexuality is still not an issue.
Joe,
I have always assumed that tax concessions (etc) to married couples was based on the logic of promoting "the traditional family" as the seedcorn of society but perhaps I am wrong. If I am correct then your "discrimination" argument doesn't seem to hold.
As for "consensus" it is obviously best "informed" by references to "scientific argument". Nebulous concepts of "perversion" are less likely to hold sway than those of the biological or behavioural sciences. For the religious of course "perversion" is not nebulous and here we have the ludicrous situation of gay aspirants arguing that black is white.
You haven't said why it is you think gay people make bad parents.
Also, if the tax benefits are there to encourage a "traditional" family, they are also there to discourage "nontraditional" families. Hence, descrimination. If you have another definition for descrimination, let's hear it.
Rufio,
I take the view that "society" is an organism like the body with self maintenance mechanisms. The biological substrate is taken as a priori. Within this view I do not assign the activity of "cells" to "good" or "bad" but to whether they are likely to sustain or hinder the continuance of "viable structure". Such a view is necessarily "conservative".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace