|
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
|
On May 11 2011 15:20 Ftz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
1) Yes, obviously I can't even prove moral knowledge even exists or I'd have a Ph.D.
I just think that this is an important acknowledgment to make, especially if you're insisting that your opponents produce airtight logical explanations for their moral convictions.
2) Yes, I'm not speaking on TL's part, and I'll refrain from doing that in the future. But as part of the community I felt that someone needed to speak up against such blatant bigotry present in this thread.
Fair enough! Like I said, that was probably quibbling of me. I just felt like the peasant in The Holy Grail, "Well, I didn't vote for him!"
Yeh, my bad. I've been lurking for awhile, took seeing some insane posts in threads like these for me to actually get around to registering and posting
I couldn't sympathize more. Not a day goes by that I don't feel like this guy:
![[image loading]](http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu216/squizzot/duty_calls.png)
|
On May 11 2011 15:23 Ftz wrote:Show nested quote +This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe. Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way.
I don't understand "categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way". Homosexuals clearly know that homosexual sex is not intended for procreation
|
There have been many studies trying to link homosexuality to genetics, but it hasn't been actually proven to the point to where people can make a consensus on it.
Just using this as an example... What happens when one brother of an identical twin is homosexual and the other is heterosexual? I know that one example isn't enough to disprove those studies, but it would make it interesting.
Hey, IMHO, I'm not comfortable with homosexuals, but I don't think that their relationships is any more wrong as my relationship to my girlfriend. People love different things that seem completely weird to others.
I've got no hard feelings for people saying homosexuality is morally wrong, but criminalizing them because of their personal preference to love someone else is even worse in my eyes.
|
Just made a post discussing subjective and objective morals if anyone is interested.
I would be very interested to read a study where one brother of an identical twin is homosexual and the other is heterosexual. I'm not exactly sure if it is possible but it doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.
We need to remember that there are people who think they are homosexual when they are genetically heterosexual. We all have heard of the father of 3 with a house in the suburbs who after 20 years of marriage realized he was gay.
|
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:11 wwer wrote:On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is. edit: I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic? If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position. Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care) Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect? On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:
but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true? This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
No he isn't, his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals.
On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
This is false fyi.
|
On May 10 2011 15:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents. Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands.
Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it? What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business.
All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
Sorry I am drunk when I wrote this
|
They're spraying protestors in Uganda with pink dye.
|
This decision is up to the people of Uganda. It encompasses their culture and their ideals.
|
On May 11 2011 15:40 wwer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 11 2011 15:11 wwer wrote:On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is. edit: I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic? If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position. Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care) Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect? On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:
but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true? This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]" No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals. Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function. This is false fyi.
Can you give a reason as to why it is false?
It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
|
ahh yes i saw this the other day. i signed it straight away!
|
On May 10 2011 12:44 Red Dust wrote:
Never understood homophobia, especially in these most despicable forms. If a man wants to love another man it does no damage to you or anybody else. Let the boys play.
Petition signed.
*also women loving women <3
|
On May 11 2011 15:40 Citadel.i wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 15:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 10 2011 15:47 Citadel.i wrote:
Stay out of other countries politics I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents. Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands. Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it? What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business. All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them. Sorry I am drunk when I wrote this
My culture has a policy of getting in other cultures' businesses. You can't judge us for that because it is our culture's business. If you're from another country (and drunk) you should stfu because it is our country, and it is our culture to act like this.
Q.E.D.
|
I don't understand "categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way". Homosexuals clearly know that homosexual sex is not intended for procreation
Homosexuals could engage in Heterosexual sex for the purposes of procreation.
Homosexuals could also engage in creative methods for purposes of procreation (turkey baster mode engage!) via teaming up with an opposite gendered pair.
So while it may be awkward, yes homosexuality can be successfully universalized.
|
On May 11 2011 15:51 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:40 wwer wrote:On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function. This is false fyi. Can you give a reason as to why it is false? It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
If you have a society where marriage and procreation is decided by negotiations between family clans and not by the marriage partners themselves, it does not matter if sexual attraction for a couple is possible, so there is no difference in procreation for heterosexuals and homosexuals in that society.
|
oh wow, the recent signers tab on the avaaz website is awesome, every second there is someone signing the petition
|
Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it? What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business.
All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
You are asking us to take a position of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism has some very serious implications with its acceptance.
1) you can't judge other cultures as morally inferior. Remember Hitler? If you accept Cultural relativism you can't critique that.
2 ) What makes an action right now depends entirely on the standards of the society. Want to punt a baby? Check the societal standards to see if its moral (morality intuitively seems much more complex).
3) Moral progress is called into doubt. If we can't critique other cultures (i.e. Hitler's germany) than we can't critique our own culture. Slavery? Women's Rights? etc.
Moreover you can't argue from is to ought. i.e. You say the morality of an action IS different in different countries doesn't equal that the morality of an action OUGHT to be different in different countries.
|
|
|
On May 11 2011 15:40 Citadel.i wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 15:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 10 2011 15:47 Citadel.i wrote:
Stay out of other countries politics I would say yes to this policy in general. I would say no to this policy when the country's politics could potentially involve the mass murder of innocents. Personally, I don't believe that there are such things as universal human rights, and I also don't believe that homosexuality in the abstract is a positive thing. But I'll be damned if I can talk myself out of signing a petition that protects people from being executed for their sexual orientation. I can't conceive of that as anything but an evil to be resisted by any means. I am all for using Western political clout to crush this bill where it stands. Really? Only one person had a response to this? this whole thread is as simple as different cultures different policies. If a middle eastern man with a different religion came to your country saying you couldn't do something simply because he thought it was Immoral, would you continue to do it?
I would listen to what he had to say, attempt to understand his moral reasoning. Then I would use my own experience and reason to form my own moral opinion.
On May 11 2011 15:40 Citadel.i wrote:
What goes on in in Uganda is nothing more then people in Uganda and their cultures business. All these Americans and people from other countries should stfu because it is their country and their culture. If you wish for Immigrants to respect your culture you need to do the same for them.
Sorry I am drunk when I wrote this
US aid money helped encourage evangelism, bring this legislation about, and will likely help pay for enforcement if this bill pases.
I don't expect everyone to respect my culture and I consider criticisms of my culture a valuable resource for examining my culture and other cultures critically. Major policy decisions make a statement publicly and with the authority of countries that make them. It is perfectly appropriate and often constructive for critical opinions on such decisions to be a part of international discourse.
|
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
