ForumsWEPRGay Marriage-Should it be Legal or not?

560 111880
turret
offline
turret
1,628 posts
Shepherd

I personally think that it should be legal cause it doesnt hurt anybody and everyone has the right to marry who they love.

  • 560 Replies
grimml
offline
grimml
879 posts
Nomad

An interesting proposition. I'd suggest you work on your own proof that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively bad. My challenge is about as rhetorically useful as yours.

Let's take the definition by Sam Harris:
"morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures"

(Source)
So by discriminating against homosexual people you decrease there well-being (for obvious reasons). Not discriminating them won't harm anybody, it only increases their well-being because they can marry the person they love. Ergo, discriminating against homosexual people is not moral.
Anyhtinbutthat
offline
Anyhtinbutthat
13 posts
Nomad

Let's just say that being gay is better than watching kitty porn.

Anyhtinbutthat
offline
Anyhtinbutthat
13 posts
Nomad

Oh and being gay is not a choice. Is being straight a choice? Or just that you are attracted to a girl or guy by natural instinct?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Let's just say that being gay is better than watching kitty porn.


Kitty porn?

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/lolcat/caught_kitty_pornjpg_1286409710.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/lolcat/kitty.jpg
Nurvana
offline
Nurvana
2,520 posts
Farmer

Oh god Mage you need help.

Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

Until it's proven to me that Homosexuality is harmful or bad in some way then we can operate under the assumption that homosexuality doesn't harm people, under said assumption this makes homophobia and intolerance of gay people discriminating against a group of people that are causing no harm and may even be beneficial to society, discriminating or harming something that is harmless or beneficial is to the detriment of society as a whole.
That doesn't even begin to approach objective. Nor does Grimml's version. The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that you can't prove anything objectively in the realm of moral philosophy, and it was pointless to demand he do so.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,340 posts
Farmer

An interesting proposition. I'd suggest you work on your own proof that discriminating against homosexuals is objectively bad. My challenge is about as rhetorically useful as yours.


because being gay doesnt harm anyone. being against gays is bad because it hurts them. not that complicated.
grimml
offline
grimml
879 posts
Nomad

That doesn't even begin to approach objective. Nor does Grimml's version. The purpose of my comment was to illustrate that you can't prove anything objectively in the realm of moral philosophy, and it was pointless to demand he do so.


I'd say that Sam Harris's definition of moral is pretty good. And by that definition it's bad to discriminate homosexual people. What's your definition of moral?
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,340 posts
Farmer

its not that complicated really. things that hurt people=bad. things that help people=good. things that dont do anything (like this subject)=neutral. this is MY opinion but im sure many people if not most can agree with that?

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

things that hurt people=bad.


Surgery?
Filling a Cavity?
Pulling a splinter?

I'm not saying discriminating against people is good, but there are things that you have to hurt people to help people.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,340 posts
Farmer

those things happen in order to help people. things that are meant to hurt people are bad.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

those things happen in order to help people. things that are meant to hurt people are bad.


People protesting gay marriage are protesting it because they think it's bad. They think that by not allowing this they are helping people. They think that by changing people from gay to straight is good for them, it's intended to help. You can't simply say, "I had good intentions."

Now, this would be different if their "helping" didn't cause pain, hatred, discrimination, you name it. There is nothing to be helped. It's like saying, "Oh you've got 2 left feet, let's cut one of those off for you so you have 1, like a normal person" *chop* "There! Now you have only 1 left foot!"
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

I'd say that Sam Harris's definition of moral is pretty good.


"Pretty good", huh. Like I said, it doesn't even begin to approach objective. Nor will it. It is utterly useless to demand objective proof.

People protesting gay marriage are protesting it because they think it's bad. They think that by not allowing this they are helping people. They think that by changing people from gay to straight is good for them, it's intended to help.
They think they're helping. If that's not good, I don't know what is. Their actions may be vile and they may be misguided, but they are going out of their way to do what they think is right.

What's your definition of moral?
I think it's wrong to hurt people without a good reason. Revenge is never a good reason, though. I also think that doing what you feel is right is the best anyone can do.
Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,139 posts
Farmer

@Meatballs. Well no one ever knew God, so we don't actually know if he was.
However the bible writers argue that God considers homosexuality a sin arguably because of creationism yes.

Unfair judgement though.
Incest is considered a bigger sin.
So when Adam died, how did they procreate? ;]

delossantosj
offline
delossantosj
6,672 posts
Nomad

Yay, uninformed, ignorant Bigot let's us in to his almighty resevoir of knowledge! AIDs is spread by any sexual activity, not just homosexual activity. Three cheers for the ignorant Bigot! Hip-hip, Hooray!


use a credible source and maybe you shall now be castrated by the gays
Showing 346-360 of 560