Homosexuality: Morals and Ethics Catch-All Thread

Actually you should be free - within reason - to say things that hurt other people; if not, we end up with censorship via offence. You hurt my feelings, you're not allowed to say that.

Discourse should be polite and accurate; but it only has to be accurate.

Question: why do those who, based on religious views, say "homosexuality is wrong" not speak out as vehemently that "Islam is wrong" or "atheism is wrong" or (for the Protestants, since they are the most vocal anti-gay group) "Catholicism is wrong"?

For example, Muslims are free to worship their heretical prophet, get married, raise children and teach those children that Islam is - *gasp* - perfectly fine, and their kids are quite likely to grow up and become Muslims themselves. Muslims are even allowed to pray in public, exposing innocent and impressionable Christian children to such heresy.

[edit]To clarify, why are equal rights for the LGBT community considered "intolerance" towards Christians, but equal rights for directly opposing religions are perfectly ok?

And also to clarify, this is not directed at Christians who, while they do think that homosexuality is a sin, have no desire or intention to codify their religious beliefs through legislation.

Farscry wrote:

Question: why do those who, based on religious views, say "homosexuality is wrong" not speak out as vehemently that "Islam is wrong" or "atheism is wrong" or (for the Protestants, since they are the most vocal anti-gay group) "Catholicism is wrong"?

For example, Muslims are free to worship their heretical prophet, get married, raise children and teach those children that Islam is - *gasp* - perfectly fine, and their kids are quite likely to grow up and become Muslims themselves. Muslims are even allowed to pray in public, exposing innocent and impressionable Christian children to such heresy.

I don't consider this a wholly accurate analogy, since homosexuality is genetic and religion is cultural.

Of course, that observation probably makes your point stronger, so.

Farscry wrote:

Question: why do those who, based on religious views, say "homosexuality is wrong" not speak out as vehemently that "Islam is wrong" or "atheism is wrong" or (for the Protestants, since they are the most vocal anti-gay group) "Catholicism is wrong"?

Um, they often do.

Funny, I was watching a TED talk from Dawkins, I am reminded of his oft used quote from Douglas Adams.

Douglas Adams wrote:

“ Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? – because you're not. If someone votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. ... But on the other hand, if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that.' ”

Seth wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Question:

I don't consider this a wholly accurate analogy, since homosexuality is genetic and religion is cultural.

Of course, that observation probably makes your point stronger, so.

You are fully correct. On both counts. I do not intend to make this a trick/entrapment question. I'm genuinely interested in an explanation behind why it's ok to deny equal rights to one sinful group and not another.

(Also, I am not using the term "sinful" to pick on anyone; I'm trying to remain accurate to the source of the American Christians' cited objection to equal rights.)

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

We'd all band together and talk about how disgusting those views are and how that sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. We, as a culture, do this with all sorts of ideas that the great majority of us find completely offensive. What we are saying in this thread is that the "Homosexuality is wrong" idea is just as offensive, and belongs in the same class of things that we as a society need to not accept.

I understand how you believe you have the moral high ground, but substitute the word "wrong" with "right" above and try re-reading, see how it sounds?

Demyx wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Question: why do those who, based on religious views, say "homosexuality is wrong" not speak out as vehemently that "Islam is wrong" or "atheism is wrong" or (for the Protestants, since they are the most vocal anti-gay group) "Catholicism is wrong"?

Um, they often do.

Not always. Certainly not within my cultural/family circles. They're very strongly (and vocally) against equal rights for the LGBT community, but not against those of other religions.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

We'd all band together and talk about how disgusting those views are and how that sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. We, as a culture, do this with all sorts of ideas that the great majority of us find completely offensive. What we are saying in this thread is that the "Homosexuality is wrong" idea is just as offensive, and belongs in the same class of things that we as a society need to not accept.

I understand how you believe you have the moral high ground, but substitute the word "wrong" with "right" above and try re-reading, see how it sounds?

Another straw man. No one is saying "Homosexuality is right." They're saying there is no right and wrong here. Simply people born the way they are.

You won't respond to this.

I said "often" to mean "not always." But I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of conservative Christians who are vocal in their dislike of Muslims and atheists, and who wish to deny those groups rights (look at the recent mosque controversies).

NormanTheIntern wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

We'd all band together and talk about how disgusting those views are and how that sort of thing shouldn't be tolerated in a modern society. We, as a culture, do this with all sorts of ideas that the great majority of us find completely offensive. What we are saying in this thread is that the "Homosexuality is wrong" idea is just as offensive, and belongs in the same class of things that we as a society need to not accept.

I understand how you believe you have the moral high ground, but substitute the word "wrong" with "right" above and try re-reading, see how it sounds?

Utterly silly. Nobody is saying "homosexuality is right". People are saying "homosexuality is normal, and should be tolerated". It's a completely different thing. I don't want to force anyone to live a homosexual lifestyle. I don't want to prevent heterosexual marriage. What I really, really, really want is for this whole issue to become so accepted that someone can stand up on a street and loudly proclaim "I AM HOMOSEXUAL" and for everybody to look at them, shrug, and say, "Why the hell would I care?"

So, your trick of flipping "wrong" and "right" really doesn't work here. And, to ask you yet again, please tell me why I should view people's religious-based opposition to same-sex marriage any differently than those who oppose interracial marriage.

Demyx wrote:

I said "often" to mean "not always." But I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of conservative Christians who are vocal in their dislike of Muslims and atheists, and who wish to deny those groups rights (look at the recent mosque controversies).

D'oh; I inferred more into your response than I should have. My mistake, you are correct! (good point)

Can I offer a cookie to make amends?

I think cookies would do this thread good.

Maybe not Oreos, though.

Demyx wrote:

I think cookies would do this thread good.

Maybe not Oreos, though.

My browser blocks cookies. Can I have cake instead?

How about an ice cream cake? It's been an awfully hot summer after all.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The words "bigot" and "slut" at pretty much interchangable here - he holds a different moral belief, you don't like it, so punish him, even though his actual actions have done nothing to harm you personally.

I'm not sure they are. The pushback against "slut-shaming" is based on the idea that there's no such thing as a 'slut' in the first place. I'm not sure people complaining about being labeled bigots are basing their criticism on the idea that there's no such thing as a bigot; in fact, I think they'd be cutting their own argument out from under themselves if they did: along the lines of what others have said, you can't complain about intolerance of your intolerance by saying you think intolerance is wrong without encountering a bootstrapping problem.

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

Seriously. You've been asked a number of direct questions, and have really only responded with rhetorical tricks and such. Could you just straight-up answer any of the questions directly asked to you in this thread?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

Seriously. You've been asked a number of direct questions, and have really only responded with rhetorical tricks and such. Could you just straight-up answer any of the questions directly asked to you in this thread?

It is really seeming like trolling at this point, honestly.

Valmorian wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

Seriously. You've been asked a number of direct questions, and have really only responded with rhetorical tricks and such. Could you just straight-up answer any of the questions directly asked to you in this thread?

It is really seeming like trolling at this point, honestly.

Agreed.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

I'm not sure you can, unless you're also claiming the government is being hypocritical when it locks people up for kidnapping.

The aforementioned false equivalency about tolerance of the other side can be summed up pretty nicely with one phrase used during the recent CFA debate.

"This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t."

On a side note:

The null hypothesis in this issue is that there is no real moral difference between two consenting adults who wish to mate, regardless of their sex. The belief that there actually is a difference is the one that needs proof. Breaking down the argument that there is a difference is not pro-gay... it's just anti-anti-gay. Tradition can give a lot of weight to our beliefs, but it is not inherently logical or just.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

Seriously. You've been asked a number of direct questions, and have really only responded with rhetorical tricks and such. Could you just straight-up answer any of the questions directly asked to you in this thread?

It is really seeming like trolling at this point, honestly.

Agreed.

Come on, seriously? There were like 6 responses to my post within 5 minutes, I responded to a few and the discussion moved along. Per the site name I do have a job and not unlimited time. In general, it's simply not realistic in a many-to-one situation for each one of your points to be addressed.

I'm not saying there isn't any self-selection going on, as a human being I'm probably more likely to grab low-hanging fruit. But frankly, the fact that you're so eager to hit the "troll" button says more about you in this situation than it does about me.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I'm not saying there isn't any self-selection going on, as a human being I'm probably more likely to grab low-hanging fruit. But frankly, the fact that you're so eager to hit the "troll" button says more about you in this situation than it does about me.

You haven't responded to a single one of the rebuttals of your claims, of which there are many, and instead simply put a single line of 'Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.". I think a troll label is perfectly fair.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
Valmorian wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Technically, you can claim hypocrisy on the other side.

Seriously. You've been asked a number of direct questions, and have really only responded with rhetorical tricks and such. Could you just straight-up answer any of the questions directly asked to you in this thread?

It is really seeming like trolling at this point, honestly.

Agreed.

Come on, seriously? There were like 6 responses to my post within 5 minutes, I responded to a few and the discussion moved along. Per the site name I do have a job and not unlimited time. In general, it's simply not realistic in a many-to-one situation for each one of your points to be addressed.

I'm not saying there isn't any self-selection going on, as a human being I'm probably more likely to grab low-hanging fruit. But frankly, the fact that you're so eager to hit the "troll" button says more about you in this situation than it does about me.

Fine, again, one simple question--how are people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds any different than those who historically opposed interracial marriage on fundamentally the same grounds? What is the distinction, when the given rationalizations are largely the same?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Fine, again, one simple question--how are people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds any different than those who historically opposed interracial marriage on fundamentally the same grounds?

I take issue with the premise here - racial equality has historically been championed by religious groups - for example, the abolitionist movement has it's roots and foundations in religious groups and clergy members. There certainly were cases where racist groups have attempted to use religion to defend their actions, but I think it's a fair statement to call the issue social rather than religious, and it's also fair to say that religion helped frog-march society to it's current position on the issue. The same can't be said for homosexuality - while there are religious groups that are pro-homosexual, as has been noted time and time again in this thread - the primary objection to homosexuality is moral and religious in nature. So, social apples and religious oranges.

Norman has been asked lots of questions in a short time. I don't agree with him, but I think that should be acknowledged.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The same can't be said for homosexuality - while there are religious groups that are pro-homosexual, as has been noted time and time again in this thread - the primary objection to homosexuality is moral and religious in nature. So, apples and oranges.

Not seeing how this is relevant. Are we to suppose that because the opposition in this case is more religiously focused it's somehow more valid?

Edit: Also, I see the RELIGIOUS opposition, but the Moral opposition? What is the moral opposition here? How can one define Homosexuality as immoral without an appeal to religious or pseudo-religious command?

Valmorian wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

The same can't be said for homosexuality - while there are religious groups that are pro-homosexual, as has been noted time and time again in this thread - the primary objection to homosexuality is moral and religious in nature. So, apples and oranges.

Not seeing how this is relevant. Are we to suppose that because the opposition in this case is more religiously focused it's somehow more valid?

Edit: Also, I see the RELIGIOUS opposition, but the Moral opposition? What is the moral opposition here? How can one define Homosexuality as immoral without an appeal to religious or pseudo-religious command?

It's very simple. You can't. ANY argument against homosexuality is going to be on religious grounds.

While I would claim that it was both religious groups in support of and against racial equality - which is identical to LGBT equality, btw - I think that's more a result of atheism being a pretty tiny segment of the (American) population.

The issue at hand is that some people dont see a connection. I realize the number of self-professed bigots is probably zero, but those of the Conformist's mindset are unable/unwilling to see that a term as "innocent" as "disagreeing with homosexuality" could be any more offensive than "disagreeing with curly hair."

I just saw a quote saying "so you can state your opinion and that's speech, but when I state mine, it's hate and intolerance." The US Marine Corps (or some related group) posted it on Facebook. The issue is how to convince someone their actions are harmful? I don't have an answer.

As a guy who prefers wavy or straight hair, I get that reference. But saying that people with curly hair are sinners, but that's ok because we're all sinners, and Tresemee makes great reparative therapy for those devilish locks? that's where I get lost.