I believe that what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home is usually ethical. Barring cases involving lasting harm to either party.
I believe homosexuality is innate, or developed at a young age and not a matter of choice. To penalize someone for something out of their control is unethical. To me.
I’m sure I wont sway your opinion, and you definitely wont sway mine.
But you already knew what my argument was so whats the point. Its the same shit over and over.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
But you already knew what my argument was so whats the point. Its the same shit over and over.[/quote]
You do not understand the joy that is PWI.
I would think a Christian view is the classic definition of moral relativism , what if you are not Christian ? What if the Christ (YOU) believe in thinks it is OK to be Homosexual ? Being anti Homosexual is non sustainable.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
I believe that what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home is usually ethical. Barring cases involving lasting harm to either party.[/quote]
Well, I can agree with that. Now tell me how do you feel about the 64% of all new HIV positive cases coming from homosexual men? Does reach your level of “lasting harm” or are you looking for something worse?
Which is it? nurture, or nature? I thik we have to answer that question before we can make a determination about what is ethical. For example, if one can develop a same sex attraction after a certain age by various means then what do we do? Is this lifestyle in general conducive to a long happy life, or (if you read the actual facts) full of pain both physical and emotional.
I might sway yours because you do not have all the facts on the topic as they have been very well hidden by the mainstream liberal media. IT’s not politically correct for example to talk about the 64% of all new HIV coming from homosexual men. In the media world it’s all about “Will & Grace” and other glorified homosexual men who are healthy, happy and live perfectly normal lives. But the real world where truth actually matters it’s not at all like that. Check out the CDC statistics on “men who have sex with men.” You might decide that while it is their right (and I very much agree with you on that) it is a lifestyle that is more dangerous than an alcoholics.
Good point, but that’s what we do here. We beat a point to death and then when it looks like we might be about finished a new guy enters the scene (like yourself) and we do it all again. Strange huh? Anyway, you’d be surprised at the PM’s that I’ve had through the years from people who had not idea about how dreadful the statistics were regarding homosexuality. They have been surprised by all of this because they’ve grown up in a politically correct environment where none of this has seen the light.
Thanks for your response and welcome to PWI.
Interestingly, the republican party seems to be reconsidering its stance toward gays. I guess they’re realizing that homophobia doesn’t win votes like it used to. With the religious right flocking to the tea party, I don’t doubt they will continue to demonize gays as part of their political agenda.
Zeb talks about moral relativism, but fails to see it in his own ideology. He thinks gay men are morally reprobate because of hiv statistics, but he has no moral qualms with heterosexuality in Africa, where hiv is far more deadly, and the vast majority of victims are black women. He blanketly condemns homosexuality based on stats of men having sex with men, while completely ignoring women who have sex with women. Not to mention ignoring male couples like myself who are completely monogamous and are living happy, healthy lives.
Yeah, that’s moral relativism at its finest.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Interestingly, the republican party seems to be reconsidering its stance toward gays. I guess they’re realizing that homophobia doesn’t win votes like it used to. With the religious right flocking to the tea party, I don’t doubt they will continue to demonize gays as part of their political agenda.
Zeb talks about moral relativism, but fails to see it in his own ideology. He thinks gay men are morally reprobate because of hiv statistics, but he has no moral qualms with heterosexuality in Africa, where hiv is far more deadly, and the vast majority of victims are black women. He blanketly condemns homosexuality based on stats of men having sex with men, while completely ignoring women who have sex with women. Not to mention ignoring male couples like myself who are completely monogamous and are living happy, healthy lives.
Yeah, that’s moral relativism at its finest.[/quote]
This is one of the big issues I have with the republican party. I don’t think the fed should really have anything to do with marriage.
But, it doesn’t sound like you guys even know what moral relativism is.
Last, The government doesn’t need to be making personal decisions for people based on “what is damaging”. If there are 2 consenting adults, they should be able to take all the risks they want to.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
I believe that what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home is usually ethical. Barring cases involving lasting harm to either party.[/quote]
Well, I can agree with that. Now tell me how do you feel about the 64% of all new HIV positive cases coming from homosexual men? Does reach your level of “lasting harm” or are you looking for something worse?
Which is it? nurture, or nature? I thik we have to answer that question before we can make a determination about what is ethical. For example, if one can develop a same sex attraction after a certain age by various means then what do we do? Is this lifestyle in general conducive to a long happy life, or (if you read the actual facts) full of pain both physical and emotional.
I might sway yours because you do not have all the facts on the topic as they have been very well hidden by the mainstream liberal media. IT’s not politically correct for example to talk about the 64% of all new HIV coming from homosexual men. In the media world it’s all about “Will & Grace” and other glorified homosexual men who are healthy, happy and live perfectly normal lives. But the real world where truth actually matters it’s not at all like that. Check out the CDC statistics on “men who have sex with men.” You might decide that while it is their right (and I very much agree with you on that) it is a lifestyle that is more dangerous than an alcoholics.
Good point, but that’s what we do here. We beat a point to death and then when it looks like we might be about finished a new guy enters the scene (like yourself) and we do it all again. Strange huh? Anyway, you’d be surprised at the PM’s that I’ve had through the years from people who had not idea about how dreadful the statistics were regarding homosexuality. They have been surprised by all of this because they’ve grown up in a politically correct environment where none of this has seen the light.
Thanks for your response and welcome to PWI.
[/quote]
homosexuality practiced immorally is immoral. Homosexuality is not inherently immoral. Like say I was a gay. I would practice safe-sex by blow job or greased up hand-job. That’s what I like to think anyway and and I’m sure many do this already.
I’m also pretty sure that homosexuality, like deafness can result from multiple causes both genetic and environmental.
If you have an older brother you are 10 % more likely to be gay. Even in cases when the brothers never met each other due to adoption. The going hypothesis on this is that a womans womb environment is changed after the birth of the first male child perhaps due to some immune response to the foreign body.
And Im not all that new to PWI.
And where in the hell did you get that AIDS statistic? How good are the records of infection in brothels in the phillipines or in the sudan?
Perhaps you meant in the united states??
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
I believe that what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home is usually ethical. Barring cases involving lasting harm to either party.[/quote]
Well, I can agree with that. Now tell me how do you feel about the 64% of all new HIV positive cases coming from homosexual men? Does reach your level of “lasting harm” or are you looking for something worse?
Which is it? nurture, or nature? I thik we have to answer that question before we can make a determination about what is ethical. For example, if one can develop a same sex attraction after a certain age by various means then what do we do? Is this lifestyle in general conducive to a long happy life, or (if you read the actual facts) full of pain both physical and emotional.
I might sway yours because you do not have all the facts on the topic as they have been very well hidden by the mainstream liberal media. IT’s not politically correct for example to talk about the 64% of all new HIV coming from homosexual men. In the media world it’s all about “Will & Grace” and other glorified homosexual men who are healthy, happy and live perfectly normal lives. But the real world where truth actually matters it’s not at all like that. Check out the CDC statistics on “men who have sex with men.” You might decide that while it is their right (and I very much agree with you on that) it is a lifestyle that is more dangerous than an alcoholics.
Good point, but that’s what we do here. We beat a point to death and then when it looks like we might be about finished a new guy enters the scene (like yourself) and we do it all again. Strange huh? Anyway, you’d be surprised at the PM’s that I’ve had through the years from people who had not idea about how dreadful the statistics were regarding homosexuality. They have been surprised by all of this because they’ve grown up in a politically correct environment where none of this has seen the light.
Thanks for your response and welcome to PWI.
[/quote]
homosexuality practiced immorally is immoral. [/quote]
Then you better have a long talk with about 70% of homosexual men.
[quote]
I’m also pretty sure that homosexuality, like deafness can result from multiple causes both genetic and environmental.[/quote]
There has never been any proof that homosexuality is genetic. How about that?
Pure nonsense. I’ve read the “younger brother” studies and they have little to do with the environment of the womb. It has far more to do with pecking order.
Then stop saying you are.
[quote]And where in the hell did you get that AIDS statistic? How good are the records of infection in brothels in the phillipines or in the sudan?
Perhaps you meant in the united states??[/quote]
I absolutely meant the USA. The stat is on the CDC website under “men who have sex with men.”
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If there are 2 consenting adults, they should be able to take all the risks they want to.[/quote]
Yeah, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else right? Oh wait, 64% of all new HIV cases are in homosexual men. Hmm, well as long as they don’t kill too many people then it’s okay. Hmm, no that’s not good either is it. It seems that our actions do indeed effect other people, now who’d a thought? Oh well, that’s a nice sentiment you have there anyway.
Not 70 % of homosexuals – 70% of around 50,000 new cases a year.
Male population of United states is 150,000,000. Say 5 % of that is gay. That makes 7,500,000. There are around 50,000 new cases of aids each year, of which you say 64% are in homosexuals.
So 70% of 50,000 is 35,000 new cases of AIDS.
That means that 35,000 irresponsible gays / 7,500,000 total gays means that .46% of gays practice irresponsibly in a year. Or in other words the vast majority have nothing to do with it.
someone have a look at my math please.
As it stands the vast majority of gays in america do not have or pass on AIDS.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Male population of United states is 150,000,000. Say 5 % of that is gay. [/quote]
There is no credible evidence that 5% of the male population is gay. According to the CDC 2% of the male population is gay or bisexual. You must have been reading homosexual propaganda material, or watching MSNBC.
Also, there are not 150 million adult males in the US. According to the US Census there are 85 million males 18 to 65. You have to stop making things up it doesn’t help your cause. That means there’s about 1.7 million active homosexual/bisexual men running (or perhaps walking) around the US.
Wrong again, the CDC says that over half of all HIV infections are from men who have sex with men. Figure that one out. They are about 1.7 million out of a total population of 315 million (men, women and children) and they represent over half of HIV. That is one statistic that you will never see on any of the mainstream liberal media sources.
It’s not your math that’s bad it’s your source of information. If you are making stuff up then stop it. If you are listening to pro homosexual sources then stop that too.
As it stands over half of all cases of HIV in the USA are from homosexual men, in one form or another! Horrible, just horrible. There would be no epidemic if it were not for men having sex with men. Men who not only don’t care about their own health, but don’t care about their sexual partners health either. I’d say that’s immoral.
Now come back with something of substance this is too easy.
Firstly, I honestly cannot understand how you can term the current incumbent in the USA ‘far left’. But it is your opinion.
Secondly, I know you may believe homosexuality to be innately wrong, but I cannot fathom why what people do with their own private life behind closed doors is such a big issue. I know many many homosexual people, both men and women, all ages, and they are like everyone else. There aren’t any drag queens, no ‘flaming’ fruits, just normal people who happen to love someone of the same gender. But it is your opinion.
I agree the HIV infection rate is an issue. That is why in the UK homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. It is an issue, but there is just as much an issue with heterosexual people having unprotected sex. STD rates here are soaring in all parts of the population so singlehandedly blaming homosexuals for that is a bad idea.
A new study was published in the UK suggesting 1.5% of men are gay. in a population of 150 million, that’s 2 and a quarter million gay men. 35,000 into 2.25 mill is still a very small percentage.
I’m interested, if gay people are seen as legitimate in the US, what moral disorder and panic do you think will take place? This isn’t sarcasm, I’m genuinely curious
[quote]Bambi wrote:
Firstly, I honestly cannot understand how you can term the current incumbent in the USA ‘far left’. But it is your opinion.
Secondly, I know you may believe homosexuality to be innately wrong, but I cannot fathom why what people do with their own private life behind closed doors is such a big issue. I know many many homosexual people, both men and women, all ages, and they are like everyone else. There aren’t any drag queens, no ‘flaming’ fruits, just normal people who happen to love someone of the same gender. But it is your opinion.
I agree the HIV infection rate is an issue. That is why in the UK homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood. It is an issue, but there is just as much an issue with heterosexual people having unprotected sex. STD rates here are soaring in all parts of the population so singlehandedly blaming homosexuals for that is a bad idea.[/quote]
When 1.7 million people are responsible for over half the HIV in the US, that is a BIG DEAL. But don’t get me wrong, whatever two consenting adults want to do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. I’m just after more responsibility to the people who are killing innocent victims with their reckless behavior.
[quote]
I’m interested, if gay people are seen as legitimate in the US, what moral disorder and panic do you think will take place? This isn’t sarcasm, I’m genuinely curious[/quote]
It’s just one more plank ripped from the foundation of traditional family values. I don’t expect you to agree with this, or even understand it. But about 65% of America agrees with this principal and if we find a good candidate in 2012 we won’t be talking about homosexual marriage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb talks about moral relativism, but fails to see it in his own ideology. He thinks gay men are morally reprobate because of hiv statistics, but he has no moral qualms with heterosexuality in Africa, where hiv is far more deadly, and the vast majority of victims are black women. He blanketly condemns homosexuality based on stats of men having sex with men, while completely ignoring women who have sex with women. Not to mention ignoring male couples like myself who are completely monogamous and are living happy, healthy lives.
Yeah, that’s moral relativism at its finest.[/quote]
1.7 million men who have sex with men. And out of that group they represent over half of all HIV positive cases in the US. I’d change the subject too if I were you.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If there are 2 consenting adults, they should be able to take all the risks they want to.[/quote]
Yeah, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else right? Oh wait, 64% of all new HIV cases are in homosexual men. Hmm, well as long as they don’t kill too many people then it’s okay. Hmm, no that’s not good either is it. It seems that our actions do indeed effect other people, now who’d a thought? Oh well, that’s a nice sentiment you have there anyway.
[/quote]
They can only hurt someone else if they consent to also participate in risky behavior. No one is going around infecting unwilling participants. You don’t have a right to dictate someone’s choices because it indirectly effects you.
People taking risks with there own lives are in no way shape or for being killed.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They can only hurt someone else if they consent to also participate in risky behavior. No one is going around infecting unwilling participants. You don’t have a right to dictate someone’s choices because it indirectly effects you.
[/quote]
I am a little confused. It sounds as if you are saying that society doesn’t have the right to round up homosexuals and execute them. But of course nobody is suggesting we do that.
Instead we have three debatable issues:
Is it acceptable to rally against homosexuality given that it causes many social problems?
Should we endorse behavior that causes harm? i.e. should we legalize gay marriage and thus provide a level of social support for a dangerous activity (man to man sex)?
Could gay marriage in fact limit the harm and social problems caused by homosexuality? For instance if it caused more gay men to be monogamous then it would likely halt the spreading of aids.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They can only hurt someone else if they consent to also participate in risky behavior. No one is going around infecting unwilling participants. You don’t have a right to dictate someone’s choices because it indirectly effects you.
[/quote]
I am a little confused. It sounds as if you are saying that society doesn’t have the right to round up homosexuals and execute them. But of course nobody is suggesting we do that.
Instead we have three debatable issues:
Is it acceptable to rally against homosexuality given that it causes many social problems?
Should we endorse behavior that causes harm? i.e. should we legalize gay marriage and thus provide a level of social support for a dangerous activity (man to man sex)?
Could gay marriage in fact limit the harm and social problems caused by homosexuality? For instance if it caused more gay men to be monogamous then it would likely halt the spreading of aids.
[/quote]
rally, yes. Legislatively coerce your brand of morals on consenting adults? No.
Having something legal is not endorsing it. Sky diving is probably riskier and yet we “endorse” that behavior by having it legal. Shouldn’t we ban it to send the message that it’s “bad”?
Who cares. Social identities don’t have rights. Individuals do. I could show you that coca-cola causes problems in society, doesn’t mean that we have a right to ban it. Individuals (even fat ones) have the right to chose to drink it though.
This point is one of the dumbest things ever thought of. The idea of “social justice”. The 2 terms are contradictory. The only justice or right and wrong that exist are concerning individuals. Period. Social groups, be it nationality, or race, or gender, have no rights. They are imaginary associations. You cannot make moral judgments based on imaginary associations.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
2) Having something legal is not endorsing it. Sky diving is probably riskier and yet we “endorse” that behavior by having it legal. Shouldn’t we ban it to send the message that it’s “bad”?
[/quote]
Yet skydiving is nothing like marriage. Marriage is a social construct. Skydiving is not. Banning is a misleading term. When we speak of allowing gay marriage we are actually speaking of state approval. Likewise when we speak of “banning” gay marriage we are simply stating the state should not explicitly recognize it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
This point is one of the dumbest things ever thought of. The idea of “social justice”. The 2 terms are contradictory. The only justice or right and wrong that exist are concerning individuals. Period. Social groups, be it nationality, or race, or gender, have no rights. They are imaginary associations. You cannot make moral judgments based on imaginary associations.[/quote]
You are not making much sense. I don’t think you really understand the concept of social justice. The idea is it is too hard/ineffective to deal with problems at the individual level and so we generalize and deal with it on more abstract levels.
See women tend to have different problems than men do. And gays have different problems than builders who have different problems than nerds. However, nerds tend to have many problems in common. Just like builders all seem to have similar problems. The same is true for many other groups. And because of this we can deal with a problem more effectively at a group level.
So we are concerned with the rights and well-being of individuals. But often the best way to attack these problems is at the group level.
Finally, do corporations have rights? Are they not really just a form of social group?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
2) Having something legal is not endorsing it. Sky diving is probably riskier and yet we “endorse” that behavior by having it legal. Shouldn’t we ban it to send the message that it’s “bad”?
[/quote]
Yet skydiving is nothing like marriage. Marriage is a social construct. Skydiving is not. Banning is a misleading term. When we speak of allowing gay marriage we are actually speaking of state approval. Likewise when we speak of “banning” gay marriage we are simply stating the state should not explicitly recognize it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
This point is one of the dumbest things ever thought of. The idea of “social justice”. The 2 terms are contradictory. The only justice or right and wrong that exist are concerning individuals. Period. Social groups, be it nationality, or race, or gender, have no rights. They are imaginary associations. You cannot make moral judgments based on imaginary associations.[/quote]
You are not making much sense. I don’t think you really understand the concept of social justice. The idea is it is too hard/ineffective to deal with problems at the individual level and so we generalize and deal with it on more abstract levels.
[/quote]
Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Using imaginary social constructs to assign reward and/or punishment rather than individual merit. It is always UNjust.
First, your groupings are retard because they are in no sense mutually exclusive. Second, they are nothing but stereotypes. Third, you are advocating overriding individual rights for collective stereotyped interests.
No. It is never the best way because it is nothing more than bigotry and discrimination. I’ll use one of your examples.
Give me the qualifications for belonging to the social group “nerds”. Then list out their special problems and how we can legally pursue group recourse.
[quote]
Finally, do corporations have rights? Are they not really just a form of social group?[/quote]
They do currently, but I disagree with that. And, no they are not entirely a social construct. The issue is separate because it is connected to INDIVIDUAL property rights. Corporate connections aren’t imaginary ones.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
They can only hurt someone else if they consent to also participate in risky behavior. No one is going around infecting unwilling participants. You don’t have a right to dictate someone’s choices because it indirectly effects you.
[/quote]
I am a little confused. It sounds as if you are saying that society doesn’t have the right to round up homosexuals and execute them. But of course nobody is suggesting we do that.
Instead we have three debatable issues:
Is it acceptable to rally against homosexuality given that it causes many social problems?
Should we endorse behavior that causes harm? i.e. should we legalize gay marriage and thus provide a level of social support for a dangerous activity (man to man sex)?
Could gay marriage in fact limit the harm and social problems caused by homosexuality? For instance if it caused more gay men to be monogamous then it would likely halt the spreading of aids.
[/quote]
name these social problems, and define how they are more serious than, say, family breakdowns and the rise of single parent families
How is anal sex dangerous? It’s lionised in the SAMA forum, there’s even a meme based on it in these forums
We just legalised civil partnerships (marriages without the religious baggage) in the UK five years ago. It’s too early to see the results but it hasn’t turned the world upside down yet. The long-term effects on the homsexual population is yet to be seen