This thread will discuss the implications of homosexual morality.
What do we realy need to descus?
Id say western culture has forever changed the meaning of sex.
Homosexual exceptance has sometimes turned into homosexual promotion also.
If God and family/natural ideals are out of the picture,
then what are the “implications”?
2 homosexuals would come togeather for their reasons,
and origionaly the “problem” was the individual.
Them sexualy interacting with eachother would not be the key factor of their origonal homosexual state or craveing.
I think he’s talking about how it’s not fair that when a man or women meets a man/women their size… he/she doubles their wardrobe instantly, whereas heterosexuals do not attain this ability.
This has been discussed by the post modern thinker L. Davis
indeed. We connected Sex to love, and love to marriage in the mid 18th century. The conservatives of the time were calling such a connection “the end of marriage”, “love is immoral!”.
Can you prove that? That’s like saying “Lefthanded acceptance has led to lefthanded promotion” Soon everyone will be using their left hands.
Is it possible that more people will partake in homosexual behaviour if it becomes accepted? of course. The people that partake in such behaviour were never pure hetero’s to begin with.
You didn’t answer the question. (I suppose i should’ve phrased it better)
[b]1) do you think homosexuality is Moral or Immoral?
- explain your answer either way.[/b]
Old_gobbo that’s promoting homosexuality!
and the heterosexual crossdressers do attain that ability. 
(what I was looking for is bolded above.)
-
its not immoral.
-
because it doesnt hurt anyone.
-
Immoral
-
Because I deem it thus
Ahh a loophole!
ok… as for your question.
1.) I think it’s moral
2.) Because the only reason preventing it from being immoral would be if we as a species had a lack of population… and we don’t.
-
I think homosexuality is as moral or immoral as prefering briefs over boxers, as having your favorite color be blue instead of orange, as not liking chocolate, or as having blond hair instead of red. In short: I think it is neither moral nor immoral, and using such words to describe it is to make a category mistake.
-
I think this because, whether it is “nature” or “preference,” homosexuality is personal. In and of itself, it affects only those involved with it: any consequences of being homosexual only pertain to those who are homosexual, and as such should not concern the rest of society. To make a moral judgment about it would be arbitrary; it would be akin to judging someone according to their diet, their musical preferences, or their skin color–it would be (and is) a form of fascism.
Note that moral judgments are either “for” or “against”: to call something “moral” is to endorse it universally, whereas to call it “immoral” is to condemn it universally–unless you subscribe to a “selective morality” which admits of double-standards.
I was thinking about this very development earlier today. The whole modern sense of Love and Marriage is a recent (recent within the written history of humanity) innovation. It is nothing ancient or somehow established outside of a context in history.
If modern homosexuality is likewise an innovation, then what makes it a universally harmful one? It might even be a further refinement of romantic love.
Romantic love has never been paired with agency. “I choose to love you,” isn’t romantic. Romatic love is impulsive, demanding, intense, and transforming. Most keen of all it is authentic and individual. It has nothing to do with duty or obligation. It is always revolutionary and dangerous to the status quo, as is any powerfully individual action.
To eat away at romantic love is to eat away at the development of individual freedom. Is the individual free to determine his or her own way of life?
Firstly, I tend to not believe in morals as being relevant because I consider them to have a “universal†religious basis that I don’t agree with. I tend to be more interested in ethics and how they relate to existentialism, but just for the sake of argument I will stick with the moral concept of activities that spread goodness and harmony as being moral.
So, if homosexuality is a learned behavior that is similar to a phobic response to the opposite sex or even an over-identification with the opposite sex, then it is immoral. The homosexual himself is not immoral in this case, but rather the state that he’s in is immoral.
The state is robbing him of life conditions that are generally thought to be fulfilling, such as family life and the challenge between the sexes. The homosexual may have unfounded fears or anxieties about the opposite gender that bar him from standard activities much like those experienced by someone that fears leaving their house. The homosexual that identifies with the opposite sex may be trapped in a continuously inauthentic life and never get to express or form their own identity, and so forth.
This means that homosexuality does a disservice to the person and creates negative outcomes for them. The condition of life itself is immoral if this human anomaly has anything to do with the result of relational interaction. If a child can be made this way it’s an odd and rather unfair fate to endure.
Could every psychological disorder be described as immoral?
TheAdlerian: I believe you are mistaken in assuming that the state of an individual is seperable from the individual him- or herself. You speak of homosexuality as a subject, something that “imposes” or “denies”–something that acts or limits action of an individual, against the individual’s will or desires.
This seems to me to presuppose a null-set of “non-learned” behaviors which are, perhaps, natural or inherent and can only be overridden through some sort of external conditioning, and that any sort of “learned behavior” is unnatural or in some other way categorically distinct from non-learned behavior.
You are, then, denying that homosexuality could be either a conscious choice or a natural condition. Perhaps you could provide me with your basis for making this denial? I am very curious as to how you would justify the assertion that humans possess an inherent, non-learned set of behaviors that is crucial for living an “authentic” life, and that homosexuality is not a viable choice for a human being capable of making a choice in how he or she ought to live.
If I have misrepresented any of your argument, please do me the favor of correcting me.
“Could every psychological disorder be described as immoral?â€
If you look at conditions of any variety that make people suffer, then I would say that under the definition of moral that we’re using, many situations could be considered immoral. It’s not just psychological stuff though, as starvation could easily be considered an immoral state.
Illation,
I dislike battles regarding relativism, because I tend to think of it as a vacuous stance, so please expect that.
Anyway, observation tends to prove that some people start out one way, then an event occurs such as a rape or a war, and then the person appears and reports being changed, and not for the better. So, it can be concluded that events and their meaning affect people.
That’s elementary.
Also:
Although it may be unpleasant to think about, all animals are on a similar program. That is to eat, drink, sleep, and mate. Humans bring a lot of nuance to the game, though.
agree completely. We have no reason to force people to propagate, and in fact we should be encouraging homosexual relations to ensure future resources.
iglashion, thanks for fleshing out your answer. It’s a good answer as well.
Not if the absolutist has anything to say about it.
The more things change, the more people try to resist change.
Don’t you think you’re making a seat of your pants assumption that homosexuals are phobic of the opposite sex? I’ve rarely seen that and most in fact become friends with the opposite sex and form bonds similiar to that if they were the same sex as the opposite sex.
#1) you have no solid ecunemical proof for your brazen statements. The Psychological foundations have shown that homosexuals are just as well adjusted as heterosexuals. And the source of the dysfunction (if there is any) is the surrounding society not internal conflict.
#2) come up with a better argument.
one cannot discuss the nature of morality and ethos without defining one’s beliefs on the subject.
I think that the ultimate defining line for what is right and wrong, is based upon empathy. How will your actions towards someone else effect their well being. How would you feel if they made or acted in the same way towards you? There are a few that lack this empathy. For them to do good laws are required.
Things I wouldn’t touch with this morality are personal freedoms that don’t affect other people:
Consentual homosexual relations.
Drug use
similiar things…
and what gives you the right to make such broad statements controlling someone else’s private behaviour that doesn’t effect you?
(I’m trying to get you to better explain why you think it’s immoral. your answer is a copout.)
Because I deem myself thus.
No, it is a carefully layered satire of this entire thread…
In SIATD’s vein,
1.) It is immoral,
2.) Because the Bible says so.
to clear things up:
-
it’s immoral (only when you have the power to make it immoral)
-
the mob deems it immoral and the mob rules…
-Imp
“Don’t you think you’re making a seat of your pants assumption that homosexuals are phobic of the opposite sex? I’ve rarely seen that and most in fact become friends with the opposite sex and form bonds similiar to that if they were the same sex as the opposite sex.â€
Their very behavior speaks volumes on that issue. Namely, they do not want to have sex with the opposite gender. Freud talked about a syndrome called Identification With The Enemy that explains the friendliness very well. Try reading up on subjects and thinking through them before you post.
“ #1) you have no solid ecumenical proof for your brazen statements. The Psychological foundations have shown that homosexuals are just as well adjusted as heterosexuals. And the source of the dysfunction (if there is any) is the surrounding society not internal conflict.â€
If “brazen†is the use of over a hundred years of literature and professional experience, then hell, I’ll be brazen. The “everything’s alright†approach to homosexuality started in the liberal 60s and culminated in the mid-90s and that is recent politically driven history. Shaky ground there. Of course, I have pointed this stuff out with sources in the past, but you do not display a capacity for learning.
Also, you asked a philosophical question and one does not need “ecumenical†proof to answer one of those.
Ecumenical:
- Of or relating to the worldwide Christian church.
- Concerned with establishing or promoting unity among churches or religions
Thanks, but I don’t have much proof in this realm. Perhaps you should look words up in the dictionary before you use them.
“come up with a better argument.â€
Is this an attempt to sound cool or tough? Well, it’s a house built on sand coming from the fallacious rat and automobile enthusiast baby monkey man.
My argument is as sound as a drum and there’s not much you can do to touch it. That’s because you have not and will not look at all sides of the issue.
“ Things I wouldn’t touch with this morality are personal freedoms that don’t affect other people:
Consentual homosexual relations.
Drug use “
Once again, you need to think things through. The is no such thing as the individual in a society. Everyone is part of a whole unit. If the individual becomes dysfunctional then the whole of society may suffer. The drug use of the son may demoralize the spirit of the parents, so they are affected, and so on. No man is an island, they say.
When, and if ever, the person is truly isolated we then have to consider how that person’s actions affect themselves and their own development. There are many closet eating disorders and drug addicts that report initial happiness that somehow develops into feelings of emptiness later on. One must have a long-term view.
Think don’t react.