ForumsWEPR[necro] Is homosexuality right or wrong?

1146 384202
toemas
offline
toemas
339 posts
Farmer

I think homosexuality is totally wrong and unnatural, what do you think?

  • 1,146 Replies
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,087 posts
Nomad

Yeah but you're still saying that homophobia is okay which, while not directly 'ripping on them', is pretty much leaving the gate open to all kinds of discrimination.

Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,168 posts
Farmer

And that means that they don't still affect us why? Homosexuality is wrong. The end of it.


Uhm, of course they affect us - we realized laws about slavery were immoral, and thus don't legally recognize slavery.

Homosexuality is natural, one doesn't choose to be gay. [And before you say we do, you're not gay, so how would you know :]]

Give actual reasons about why you *think* it is wrong.

Homosexuality is wrong. The end of it.

Shouldn't it be "In my opinion, i believe homosexuality is wrong?"
Who the heck are you to make such bold statements?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

Give actual reasons about why you *think* it is wrong.


There -aren't- any reasons why it's wrong. That's the whole stupid thing to this entire subject.

It harms no one.

It involves no unwilling participants.

No one has to watch it if they don't want to.

It doesn't get in the way of daily living.

Basically, it comes down to if one is an intolerant 5 year old who thinks that everyone who likes pink is a girl because that's what he's heard. It's a personal preference that has absolutely NOTHING to do with those except whom decide to take part in it.

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. No matter who you are, you do not have the right to tell people that their preference on a harmless matter is moral or immoral.

You don't like it? Great. No one said you had to.
You think it's gross? Great. No one cares, you don't have to.
You think it's a sin? It's not harming you, so bugger off.
You think people will bandwagon? They won't, so be quiet and drop the ignorance.
Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,168 posts
Farmer

There -aren't- any reasons why it's wrong. That's the whole stupid thing to this entire subject.


Exactly - which is why i want to know why it's wrong to him.

People need to be careful when making "statements" on something so ludicrous rather than giving their opinion. The sad thing is, Homophobia will never be eradicated, people are too narrow minded, judgmental and ignorant.
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,488 posts
Blacksmith

People need to be careful when making "statements" on something so ludicrous rather than giving their opinion.


he's a gold serf, a heavily indoctrinated christian, and he clearly shows a lack of intelligence. his statements have no real credibility, except among those who already share his opinions. He may be offensive Shona, but his words will ring hollow to those who know better.

-Blade
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,557 posts
Jester

That's not always true...


If it does, then that's called ****. Which if you may recall, heterosexuals do too.
master565
offline
master565
4,107 posts
Nomad

Wanting people to tolerate other races is forcing morals on them. Wanting people to not **** torture and kill children? Also forcing morals on them.


I will agree with you, there are some morals that need to be forced on people, but those are the ones that are the backbones of society. There are certain rules that society couldn't exist without (or at least can rarely exist without), such as killing and stealing. If these were done freely, nobody would want to associate with anybody else, and society would not form.

For example, wanting people to respect homosexuals is enforcing morals on them.


Except I never said homosexuality being right or wrong is a moral. It's an opinion, and one to be argued.
Xzeno
offline
Xzeno
2,301 posts
Nomad

I will agree with you, there are some morals that need to be forced on people, but those are the ones that are the backbones of society. There are certain rules that society couldn't exist without (or at least can rarely exist without), such as killing and stealing. If these were done freely, nobody would want to associate with anybody else, and society would not form.
Except societies that engage in immoral behavior are also stable. Slavery is an easy example. For a more extreme example, the society portrayed in 1984 is (arguably) both extremely stable and extremely immoral. So the pragmatic goal of social stability are not what dictates our moral outlooks.

Some morals are ok to implement on other people. For example, laws to avoid killing people is a good thing to implement on the whole society. But, for example, I am not going to break your house in for drinking on your couch, even though I don't drink myself. Why should I?
This is the entire point. What morals one presses on others is up to the individual. You must decide what morals should be forced on others and what morals shouldn't. Saying it is wrong to force a particular moral standard is an ethical judgement. The desire to not force morality when it is avoidable is the basic principle of the great liberal ideal that founded our nation -- nay, all Western society as we know it. But deciding which morals should be pressed on others is an ethical call. There is no way to escape it, save abandoning all standards of morality, which all in this thread have proven themselves unwilling to do.

Of course, there are some people who honestly don't attempt to force any of their ethical values on others. I think that's stupid. I think everyone should actively attempt to enforce moral standards on everyone else in the entire universe.

No. Taking the neutral position (that it's not wrong, it just is) isn't forcing morals on him.
It's true, denying a positive is not advocating the converse. But yes, I AM attempting to assert my morals and convince others to conform to them. So are the rest of them, provided their goal is to change the minds of homophobes. In fact, a desire to enforce one's ethics on another is not evil, it is the only noble reason for engaging in this debate. The other passable goal, to sharpen one's wit, is good, but not on the level of the pure manifestation of goodness that is forcing one's opinion on another human being. Some argue also to showcase their dominance or intellectual superiority, which is weakness at best.

A savvy reader will note that I have used abrasive language in order to describe trying to change people's minds. This is because I wish it to be clear what I ask you to undertake, and also which thoughts I seek to eliminate. The action I ask is that you attempt to change others' minds based on your moral code, and do not claim it is for any other reason. The thought I seek to eliminate is that it is wrong to hold others to one's own ethical standards.

This brings me to the most central point. Pay attention, and think it over, because this is both complex and bold.

You can stop the hate crimes, but not the ideals. Wanting something is different than forcing them to. I would like a sandwich, I am not forcing anyone to make one. I am personally fine with homophobia and racism, assuming no one is harmed in a hate crime. And why shouldn't I be?
Personally, I am most concerned with the evil thought. That is, my goal is not to stamp out hate crimes, but to stamp out homophobia. Changing the hearts and minds of others to conform to one's values is not evil, as we so often mislabel it. It is, in fact, it is the only good you can ever do. Applying coercive means of behavioral control (laws stopping hate crimes) is nothing more than a prolonged form of suffering visited upon an individual for the thoughts in their heads. But to change a mind, to create good out of evil, should be the ultimate goal of any coercive moral enforcement system (such as law).

Persuasion is the only way to escape the vicious cycle of morality: to not enforce one's morals is to condone evil, but to do so is to repress others, and to use violence and coercion to maintain one's ethical standards.

As I drift both further into materialism and further from material reality, I lean more and more towards the position that evil acts are not the concern of ethics. Rather, true ethics is concerned only with the characters of individuals. An evil deed is meaningless, but an evil heart is intolerable. While I can't quite bring myself to show no concern for the act, I ascribe largely to this philosophy. That is, I do not wish to end torture, I wish to end the will to torture. Not to end sex discrimination, but sexism. Not prevent hate crimes against homosexuals, but destroy the hate that fuels them. At this point, you should all be eying the reference to 1984 suspiciously. We all should. Moderation is key, for I am describing dangerous forces. The type of thought alteration I am advocating as the highest good is also the surest road to an indescribably evil. But such evil is not unavoidable.

However, executing such a plan would be difficult. Who could carry it out? Who could make such a society? Not me alone: I'd rather see the world burn than betray my principles, and such staunch conservatism should not be the only controlling force. This post just sorta ends with no real conclusion.
master565
offline
master565
4,107 posts
Nomad

Except societies that engage in immoral behavior are also stable


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.

Slavery is an easy example.


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? I would imagine that it was thought of as moral, or something in between the two. What is the reason society has turned to seeing slavery as immoral? I don't know. It could be that when one country was freed from the rule of another country, they realized that they hated it and didn't want to force that kind of feeling on any individual.

For a more extreme example, the society portrayed in 1984 is (arguably) both extremely stable and extremely immoral.


I don't really know anything about this, sorry.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,774 posts
Peasant

Slavery is an easy example

the romans used slavery in a large scales, but were compeltely homophobic, and killing a gay man was an act of self defence.

remmember, "Immorality" is jsut waht you declear as imoral. in india its immoral to kill a cow. how many cows die in Usa in a day?

in some new-ginni, its immoral to let the corpe of your loved-one to get rotten, and its moral to eat it {in a ritual} and in Jewdisem in immoral to burn the corpe.

a "homo" dont choose to be one. he dont wake up on day and say "ha! i feel evil today! ill be homo!". ther are homo animals {girrafes have the most, there was a copule in Jerusalem zoo, made the religios groups feurios, lol}, so you cant say its anatural. ther are a gay penguine couple in central park in New-york, they rise togheter an egg that was abbandoned. is tha because the devil told them or made them? or because they just had teens' age rebelion against ther parents?

gay is not a desease, adn its not because someone choose to be one. why do you love or not love cheeze? you can explaine?

and last thing: there are two reasones why peoples hate gay peopels:
1) they are scared that they are one too, and try to overcome ther fear by beign homophobic
2) they are not gay. so they dont find there own gender attractive. just like you cant like poo, and Disgusted someone eating it, so you cant capble of look at gay couple {unless they are the ooposite genfer, because you do attracted for them}. understand?

i am not gay, but i hate when peoples "hate" other groups.
dont hate dude. just dont.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,346 posts
Farmer

a "homo" dont choose to be one. he dont wake up on day and say "ha! i feel evil today! ill be homo!". ther are homo animals {girrafes have the most, there was a copule in Jerusalem zoo, made the religios groups feurios, lol}, so you cant say its anatural. ther are a gay penguine couple in central park in New-york, they rise togheter an egg that was abbandoned. is tha because the devil told them or made them? or because they just had teens' age rebelion against ther parents?


lol i can imagine that. haredis screaming at the zoo to kill them XD

i am not gay, but i hate when peoples "hate" other groups.
dont hate dude. just dont.


exactly what im saying. it bothers me so much when someone is hating a group. really, if your homophobic and hate gays you have pretty much no right to complain about people hating you for being muslim, jewish, black, or short.

whenever i hear someone who hates a group (most people here are jewish) i say: "for every person like you there is a person who hates us jews" and all they can do is give me that uninterested grin that shows they have nothing to say and change a subject. its also pretty much why i just cant stand it. ive been hated, made fun off and almost unaccepted by my father for horibbly stupid reasons and that made me realize that what i felt isnt even close to what most people (in this case gays) feel.

(and if your that curious of the reason its because of my weight. stupid isnt it? a father would deny his child because of his weight while he himself is as underweight? well its as stupid as doing the same to someone who is gay, actually its even more stupid since i could actually have SOME control over it and build some muscles and eat more).
Moe
offline
Moe
1,715 posts
Blacksmith

the romans used slavery in a large scales, but were compeltely homophobic, and killing a gay man was an act of self defence.


The Romans were one of the cultures that allowed homosexuality and didn't fight against it.
danielo
offline
danielo
1,774 posts
Peasant

no. the greece said that love between man and man its the most divined one, because they worshiped the man budy {all those matchu dudes are gays in Denial?}.

the Romans, in some periodes, were very homophobic.lucios cornelios solla even prized one of his soliders for killing a fellow solider, for beign gay.

but thats not important right now. a gay can be the most moral man in earth, even more than the haters. its just what a man love. most peopeles love chocolate. right? most of them. but there are peoples who hate chocolate {now thats immoral}. you can force them to love chocolate? you can say its wrong? no! its like i will say: "how you can hate broccoli?!". its just the way you are. you can change it. and as long its not harming anyone {adn i dont meant the jerusalem religios who say about the pride march "seeing it hurting us", i mean actualy harm}, everyone can do whatever they want. if he love fat peopels, so be it. if if she love tall peopels, so be it. if he love blondes, so be it, and if she love girls, so be it. its not my problme, not your problme and not a problme of anyone here.

thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,346 posts
Farmer

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.

if he love fat peopels, so be it. if if she love tall peopels, so be it. if he love blondes, so be it, and if she love girls, so be it. its not my problme, not your problme and not a problme of anyone here.


hmmm... wow this reminds me of someone who claimed we all judge and treat people differently because we have preferences (like hair colour etc.) people really like to go far with those things
Elvea
offline
Elvea
23 posts
Farmer

Why should it be wrong?

Showing 241-255 of 1146