Forums → WEPR → [necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?
| 1146 | 385336 |
I think homosexuality is totally wrong and unnatural, what do you think?
- 1,146 Replies
i guess homosexuality can be considered immoral and dissolute in a society, state or place where a specific religion is dominant(e.g catholicism). However, when most of the population is atheist, then hating gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders has no grounds. This is just my personal opinion based on what i see everyday though so i'm not sure about other places.
No I mean like there personality and stuff.
so you think being gay is part of your personality? wow your wrong. you will probably not know someone is gay until he tells you. and when you know someone is gay you only know he is gay and nothing else about him. its like hating someone because (as said above) he dislikes chocolate and then say its part of his personality.
Oh man, this made me lulz so much.
I love make-up and getting my hair done. I love shoe shopping and girl nights having a cocktail or a movie night in. I love going clubbing because i get to get all dressed up and spend hours getting ready. I'm a lesbian - See how different i am from every other girl? ;o. Must be my personality, sorry.
I love make-up and getting my hair done. I love shoe shopping and girl nights having a cocktail or a movie night in. I love going clubbing because i get to get all dressed up and spend hours getting ready. I'm a lesbian - See how different i am from every other girl? ;o. Must be my personality, sorry.
I don't like make-up, nor do I pay attention to my hair. And I don't like clubbing, shopping or sleepovers. Am I still a girl or some extraterrestrial? Nevertheless, good point.
So a society where everyone steals, people randomly kill each other, and commit arson for someone spilling water on there shirt?
irrelevant
I think not.
your lack of basis, and your lack of credibility, also makes this statement irrelevant because we already know your beliefs.
Yes, because the genetics in my taste buds respond positively to cheese, maybe from someone long, long ago in my family.
you seemed to have skipped the post. I suggest you read it.
@blk-overall, you are playing the "god don't like it" card repeatedly, but we want to know why YOU don't like it, or why it is wrong, but the stipulation is religious rhetoric and fallacy don't count because you haven't even been able to prove god exists. if god doesn't exist, then why would it still be immoral and wrong? answer that, and then we will listen to you.
-Blade
if god doesn't exist
You don't even need to rule out God. If anything, He should be fine with it because He made them that way.
So a society where everyone steals, people randomly kill each other, and commit arson for someone spilling water on there shirt?Fallacy of the false dichotomy. Engaging in immoral behavior doesn't mean you engage in all immoral behavior, but rather it means you engage in ANY immoral behavior. Societies have done this throughout history and maintained stability.
I think not.
Behaviors that are immoral by our standards. I said before, there are certain morals that society had to adopt in order to exist, and then there are others which are the result of chance.Ah, I see what you mean. I would agree that certain ethical standards are more universal than others because of their pragmatic benefits.
That is the logical implication, yes.
And so we can conclude that slavery is not an act that is detrimental to the stability of society.
Do you think that the whole world thought that slavery was immoral and just did it anyways?No. I believe that slavery was seen as ethically tolerable even though it is not.
Ah here we go. I haven't ranted about moral relativism enough yet. You seem to be asserting that the morality of an act is determined by the values of the culture in which the act is performed. This is not so: the perception of morality is based on the culture. The actual morality can be different from the cultural perception.
remmember, "Immorality" is jsut waht you declear as imoral. in india its immoral to kill a cow.
Of course, on can create an ethical dynamic that honestly asserts that morality is determined by culture, but again, few will seriously commit to the horrific and amoral consequences of such a stance. Nor should they.
For example, a past society may believe that it is right to, I don't know, torture people of different religions. However, this is not the case (according to most consistent moral outlooks): it is wrong to torture someone because of a religious difference, and it was always wrong to torture someone for religious difference. A society which advocated such a course of action was not one for which morality operated differently, but rather simple a society that was immoral.
Again, these are the logical consequences of typical ethical outlooks. Few really stand by relativism of any sort, even though many claim to.
In case you were curious, my personal view is that it is wrong to kill cows in India, but it is wrong to kill them in the United States as well. It is wrong to kill them anywhere, for any reason, and has always been so. Well, I don't know. My thoughts on the consumption of animals are not fully developed. My intuition tells me harming and exploiting animals for personal gain is wrong. But that's a story for another topic.
Speaking of topics, this thread is stupidly on-topic. In case you can't tell, arguments about gay rights no longer interest me.
Fallacy of the false dichotomy. Engaging in immoral behavior doesn't mean you engage in all immoral behavior, but rather it means you engage in ANY immoral behavior. Societies have done this throughout history and maintained stability.
Just clearing it up, it's "immoral" compared to today's standards, not necessarily to those of ancient times.
Chocolate-disliking is part of my personality.
if its part of your personality and most people like chocolate why not call it immoral though? hating you for that reason is as logical as hating someone because of his sexual orientation.
Chocolate-disliking is part of my personality.
It's part of what you are, but not part of your personality in the strict sense.
Did you actually read Jefferysinspirations post? You wouldn't have said this if you understood her point.
But I'm honestly a bit lost, what does dislike of chocolate has to do with homosexuality being wrong? Blacks didn't chose to be black, gays didn't chose to be gays, so what does it matter whether it's a physical or mental condition? You're still discriminating what they are, not what they do.
gays didn't chose to be gays
Yes they did, being gay is a choice. Some people find it okay some people find it akward and wrong. In my opinion that doesn't mean you should put down upon them and discriminate them.
But I'm honestly a bit lost, what does dislike of chocolate has to do with homosexuality being wrong?
It doesn't, It's just a little inapropriate because it is hard for someone just reading this page to tell if he is talking about the food or the skin color. Anyways, he was making a point along with the talk of personality.
I see it as you should let people do what they believe in. Be nice to them anyway even if you don't agree with it, even if is the stupidist thing in the world and makes no sense what so ever still you can be nice to them regardless of color, race, and beliefs. A person is a person, no matter what.
Along with the topic of the forum it all just depends on what you think is right. I think it is wrong and I am not going to be mean to anyone who thinks it is right. I would be nice to them just as I would my best friend.
Hope this helps anyone!
~Ben
Yes they did, being gay is a choice. Some people find it okay some people find it akward and wrong. In my opinion that doesn't mean you should put down upon them and discriminate them.
There's no established causality, scientists have isolated some genes purported to induce such behaviour, yet clearly social norms are equally important.
Sorry for the double post just clearing up I got a bit carried away with my deep thoughts and I signed at the end with my name my bad . It is supposed to say ~Soon
gays didn't chose to be gays
Yes they did, being gay is a choice
Of course it isn't a choice. Did you choose to be straight? I didn't. If I did have the choice to find men attractive i would take it, (they're easier to understand than women!).
Even if it were a choice, what would make it the wrong choice? You simply believe it is a choice and is wrong because you cannot identify with it at all, because like I said, you were born the way you are, straight.
I can understand Christians believing it is a sin, something that we would all love but is a temptation that is wrong, or that somehow gays are servants of the devil. But aside from religious beliefs, believing gays to be wrong is completely narrow minded, it shows an inability to understand that not everyone is like you, and that that is OK.
Yes they did, being gay is a choice. Some people find it okay some people find it akward and wrong. In my opinion that doesn't mean you should put down upon them and discriminate them.
wow the amount of people believeing its a choice is incredible. have you even thought about this deeply? you canot choose what you are, what you like and what you dislike. and becides, in a world like this who WOULD choose to be gay?
Of course it isn't a choice. Did you choose to be straight? I didn't. If I did have the choice to find men attractive i would take it, (they're easier to understand than women!).
lol honestly, i think that in a world where choosing it was posibble and it wouldnt be "wrong" to choose either most of us (males AND females) would choose to like the same gender XD
Yes they did, being gay is a choice.
Ugh. Why am I going to read the rest of this presumably ignorant post?
Some people find it okay some people find it akward and wrong.
Where are you going with this? Are you going to suggest everyone should be okay with it or are you just pointing out what is the case and that it likely won't change any time soon?
Or anything else, for that matter - make a point out of it instead of stating how something is, please.
Anyways, he was making a point along with the talk of personality.
I've only been reading from page 28. But disliking chocolate naturally (or, as part of his personality) was more or less the point of being abnormal compared to most others, just like being gay is. The person defending homosexuality was applying a person's logic of discrimination against gays to the disliking of chocolate.
Of course, this is pure speculation and I hope I don't need to elaborate further.
I see it as you should let people do what they believe in.
I hope you elaborate from here.
If you don't: Religious fanatics / terrorists I think will suffice as a counter-argument.
Be nice to them anyway even if you don't agree with it, even if is the stupidist thing in the world and makes no sense what so ever still you can be nice to them regardless of color, race, and beliefs. A person is a person, no matter what.
And an idiot is a stupid person. You shouldn't be so tolerant of people's beliefs when they are not valid and you shouldn't be so frivolent to those who can't change what they are naturally and cannot help it (this even includes sociopathic murderers, as a supporter of 'an eye for an eye' I don't think someone that mentally unstable should undergo the same fate as his / her victim).
If I believed in a purple unicorn floating above my head, that is invisible (but still purple, because it's written in the Unicode Book of Dreams) and shown me the lifespan of other people, would you belief me? Would you respect that ideology?
People who support their beliefs with sufficient sense and logical reasoning I don't mind, too much. People who believe in Religion (that is based on faith) and have their own philosophies based on absolutely nothing that can be properly presented to an outside person is what I don't trust, nor like.
A person is a person, no matter what.
The indication and the debunking of one's ideas, showing them the error is helping them if they choose to take it in. In fact, they're harming you if they allow you to waste your time presenting something perfectly viable (or at least 'better than' to them and they don't put any effort to understanding or coming to terms with it (in the case that it is fact).
Along with the topic of the forum it all just depends on what you think is right.
Again, this kind of freedom of belief and freedom of expression you put with it is very dangerous.
I think it is wrong
Back it up, please. "Just wrong" and the like serves under the "Can't be presented to an outside viewer" because it is not logically sound or scientifically supported.
Thus falls under "stupid idea". As do most ideas, but still, that's why many people don't adopt them (this is an exception in that it is widely adopted by many people).
I didn't. If I did have the choice to find men attractive i would take it, (they're easier to understand than women!).
I appreciate the humour but also on a more serious note. I remember MageGrayWolf saying that he would take the option of being bisexual, because it would be the biggest capacity of sexual preference you can have (and thus enjoyment / options available).
Which is actually quite sound logic. I admit I was baffled when he said "bisexual" and said that, I didn't see something like that coming.
I'll like to expand from this by saying that I'd prefer heterosexuality not because I already am but because I'd rather reproduce and don't really believe in a relationship that I know wouldn't work out (which if I couldn't have a child with the person, then that would be an issue) so. . . :/
Then again, what if my partner couldn't bare a child? I think I need time to think about this.
Actually, guess I'm open to bisexuality as my most favoured option (if it were one).
I'll explain why if you ask me to on my profile.
But aside from religious beliefs, believing gays to be wrong is completely narrow minded,
Why is it that you excluded religious beliefs? If it were indoctrination, then you can bring up that a lot of prejudice that does not just come down to sexuality is spread down to the people's descendants that is not based on religion.
Religion bares no exception with this, honestly. It is equally narrow minded at least (given its lack of evidence supporting it at least, then the point that people will accept the morality of the book at heart even if it was justified to a benevolent being).
to choose either most of us (males AND females) would choose to like the same gender XD
That sounds about right.
- H
Thread is locked!