Why is homosexuality "bad" to some people?

[afleitch]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

[John Dibble]

Sure. But what authority ordains that it is "bad" to harm someone? That value judgment is just as arbitrary as condemnation of sexual deviancy.

Harm? The act of murder is to kill, to end the life of someone with no reversal of that fate. What is arbitrary about that?

It's arbitrary if morality itself is arbitrary. Someone can view killing as not being a bad thing just as one can view homosexuality as terrible - different individuals have different moral codes. At least that's what he's getting at.

Of course, his argument doesn't answer the question. Your argument answers the question of why most people find murder to be wrong, but his doesn't give the reason why many people find homosexuality bad but rather makes a statement on morality in general.

[John Dibble]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

And if you had a gun to yours I imagine you could be convinced to say that homosexuality is bad - people can say things they don't believe if coerced to.

[afleitch]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

And if you had a gun to yours I imagine you could be convinced to say that homosexuality is bad - people can say things they don't believe if coerced to.

Why would somone who truly did not believe in a right to life be convinced to believe in it with a gun to his head? Why would he even be in that position in the first place? If he felt he had no right to life would he not have strived to end it before then? Would the gun to his head not therefore be a release?

As for the gun to my head, I have given that much thought in the past. I'd let them shoot me. In the same way, for my self worth and sanity I would never admit to 2+2=5.

[John Dibble]

You're presupposing that there is a "right to life." That is an arbitrary value judgment, precisely as with condemnation of homosexuality.

If you had a gun to your head you wouldn't say that.

And if you had a gun to yours I imagine you could be convinced to say that homosexuality is bad - people can say things they don't believe if coerced to.

Why would somone who truly did not believe in a right to life be convinced to believe in it with a gun to his head? Why would he even be in that position in the first place? If he felt he had no right to life would he not have strived to end it before then? Would the gun to his head not therefore be a release?

Believing that there is an inherent right to life and valuing your own life are two entirely different things. Most of the greatest tyrants and murderers in history valued their own lives, but they obviously didn't take the notion that other people had a right to live seriously otherwise they wouldn't have killed so many of them. At the same time there are people who have commited suicide who believed strongly in the right to life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

[A18]

The point is that no normative value can be derived solely from fact. Some are derivative values and others are "root" values; but in either case, a person adopts a standard not supported by objective considerations.

Unless, then, you're willing to denounce all morality, it's inconsistent to complain that critics of homosexuality can't offer a "reason" for their condemnation.

[opebo]

I've always denounced all morality.

[afleitch]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

[John Dibble]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

Fair enough then, just so long as you know your case wouldn't apply to most people. Depending on the circumstances, I'd certainly lie if it would save my own skin.

[afleitch]

Unless, then, you're willing to denounce all morality, it's inconsistent to complain that critics of homosexuality can't offer a "reason" for their condemnation.

You'll notice I never said that.

[afleitch]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

Fair enough then, just so long as you know your case wouldn't apply to most people. Depending on the circumstances, I'd certainly lie if it would save my own skin.

Well you understand that means I would still reason with them before hand. But appeal to their reason and not subjugate my own with regards to the fact they had a gun to my head and were about to kill me and impede their own freedoms as a result of that act. Of course whether I would have time for all that....

If they got pissed off and pulled the trigger then fair enough. I would have 'reasoned' without subscribing to something I believe to be false.

[John Dibble]

That's easy to say when your life isn't actually being threatened, now isn't it?

Not really. I have high functioning aspergers. Such a position actually makes sense in my mind as I weigh my own position by rights, wrongs and 'worths.' I took physical beatings when I was teenager from people who tried to make me say something I didn't believe or deny an essential part of me and I didn't cave in. I would probably, whether it is considered rash or even stupid take the bullet rather than deny what I know, for me, to be a truth.

Fair enough then, just so long as you know your case wouldn't apply to most people. Depending on the circumstances, I'd certainly lie if it would save my own skin.

Well you understand that means I would still reason with them before hand. But appeal to their reason and not subjugate my own with regards to the fact they had a gun to my head and were about to kill me and impede their own freedoms as a result of that act. Of course whether I would have time for all that....

If they got pissed off and pulled the trigger then fair enough. I would have 'reasoned' without subscribing to something I believe to be false.

Well, understand that lying isn't subjagating your own reason - in this case it's simply placating the unreasonable in order to save your own life. If I lied and said something I knew was incorrect in this situation, it wouldn't mean my real belief had changed. If they've got a gun to my head, I doubt they're all that reasonable enough in the first place to be reasoned with, so I don't see much reason to bother. (have I used the world "reason" and it's variations enough in this paragraph?)

Of course if some other innocent person might get harmed by my lie, I would reconsider depending on the circumstances, but if it's just my skin and nobody else's on the line then I think saving myself is actually the most reasonable thing to do. After all, if you're dead you can't do anything to rid the world of the unreasonable people.

Now, there is such a thing as "lying to yourself", but that's a different matter.

(Oh, and as far as "impeding their own freedoms" I assume you mean jail - suppose these are authority figures or something. It's all hypothetical so they could hypothetically be in a position in which they can get away with killing you.)

[afleitch]

(Oh, and as far as "impeding their own freedoms" I assume you mean jail - suppose these are authority figures or something. It's all hypothetical so they could hypothetically be in a position in which they can get away with killing you.)

And hypothetically the bullet could enter the skull and not kill me (as has happened at a case I deal with in work) Yet I could choke to death on a piece of onion two days later

The problem with hypotheticals and indeed relativism and arbitrary prononouncements is that they often just circle above the head and indeed just outside of the argument. That is why moral relativism is often deployed by those who try to justify otherwise unsavoury or untenable positions. So when faced with white they deploy relativism rather than prepare to face off with black or even grey. Sometimes it is better simply to accept there is a fence and in relation to that fence you are somewhere.

[Associate Justice PiT]

(Oh, and as far as "impeding their own freedoms" I assume you mean jail - suppose these are authority figures or something. It's all hypothetical so they could hypothetically be in a position in which they can get away with killing you.)

And hypothetically the bullet could enter the skull and not kill me (as has happened at a case I deal with in work) Yet I could choke to death on a piece of onion two days later

The problem with hypotheticals and indeed relativism and arbitrary prononouncements is that they often just circle above the head and indeed just outside of the argument. That is why moral relativism is often deployed by those who try to justify otherwise unsavoury or untenable positions. So when faced with white they deploy relativism rather than prepare to face off with black or even grey. Sometimes it is better simply to accept there is a fence and in relation to that fence you are somewhere.

     That's more an issue with the use of the ideology. I strongly subscribe to subjectivistic ideas, but I still have deeply-held convictions. I'm just a subjectivist because I recognize that there is no reason to believe my convictions are objectively true or proper for everyone.

     True relativists are annoying. If you actually subscribe to subjectivism, being relativistic is just counter-productive, as it flies in the face of the subjectivistic perogative of securing individual rights to be able to self-edify.

     Sorry for my miniature rant. Relativists just bug me because they give people like me a bad name.

[Keystone Phil]

Why is homosexuality "bad" to some reason?

Religion.

The end.

You know I have a lot of respect for you but I can't respect such a wrong, simplistic conclusion.

Please name ANY other cause.

General fear of anything/anyone that is different.

[Franzl]

Why is homosexuality "bad" to some reason?

Religion.

The end.

You know I have a lot of respect for you but I can't respect such a wrong, simplistic conclusion.

Please name ANY other cause.

General fear of anything/anyone that is different.

hey that's one thing to be skeptical and somewhat "frightened", but that's no plausible reason to consider something "bad" or "immoral".

I suppose you're right, that some people are so ignorant, but let me ask this: How many people that consider homosexuality immoral would try to use religion to support their opinion?

I'm guessing it'd be an overwhelming majority.

[Keystone Phil]

but let me ask this: How many people that consider homosexuality immoral would try to use religion to support their opinion?

I'm guessing it'd be an overwhelming majority.

Plenty but that doesn't mean people change what "religion" actually says on the matter. It's like those that think Catholics believe that gays go straight to Hell. It's wrong and I'm offended that even after I correct this idea, people still insist that it's true.

[Franzl]

but let me ask this: How many people that consider homosexuality immoral would try to use religion to support their opinion?

I'm guessing it'd be an overwhelming majority.

Plenty but that doesn't mean people change what "religion" actually says on the matter. It's like those that think Catholics believe that gays go straight to Hell. It's wrong and I'm offended that even after I correct this idea, people still insist that it's true.

that's a reasonable response. Religion, I suppose, doesn't directly cause homophobia, rather....it is "misused" to support an ideology that otherwise wouldn't seem logical or supportable.

That's true.

[nclib]

Religion, I suppose, doesn't directly cause homophobia, rather....it is "misused" to support an ideology that otherwise wouldn't seem logical or supportable.

That's true.

Agreed.

Though there are certainly non-religious people who are anti-gay, and I would attribute that to lack of exposure to education/culture and to impulses to reject something that is different.

[A18]

Unless, then, you're willing to denounce all morality, it's inconsistent to complain that critics of homosexuality can't offer a "reason" for their condemnation.

You'll notice I never said that.

Cool. So we both agree that the paradigmatic argument against moral condemnation of homosexuality—the one, mind you, that this thread clearly presupposes to be correct—is in fact fallacious. That was my only point.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

but let me ask this: How many people that consider homosexuality immoral would try to use religion to support their opinion?

I'm guessing it'd be an overwhelming majority.

Plenty but that doesn't mean people change what "religion" actually says on the matter. It's like those that think Catholics believe that gays go straight to Hell. It's wrong and I'm offended that even after I correct this idea, people still insist that it's true.

No... only practicing gays who don't repent on their deathbeds. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
...oh via Purgatory?

I think religion is not helpful - given that it proscribes a "ideal" way to be, and when you're dealing with something like that, to be a different from that is... well pretty serious to some people.

However, general idocy and ignorance is the main view.

Some of my favourites
gay = paedophile and gay = potential raper of other men.

I've seen friends go through s**t from these morons and frankly people this stupid dont deserve help.

[Associate Justice PiT]

but let me ask this: How many people that consider homosexuality immoral would try to use religion to support their opinion?

I'm guessing it'd be an overwhelming majority.

Plenty but that doesn't mean people change what "religion" actually says on the matter. It's like those that think Catholics believe that gays go straight to Hell. It's wrong and I'm offended that even after I correct this idea, people still insist that it's true.

No... only practicing gays who don't repent on their deathbeds. "Love the sinner, hate the sin".
...oh via Purgatory?

I think religion is not helpful - given that it proscribes a "ideal" way to be, and when you're dealing with something like that, to be a different from that is... well pretty serious to some people.

However, general idocy and ignorance is the main view.

Some of my favourites
gay = paedophile and gay = potential raper of other men.

I've seen friends go through s**t from these morons and frankly people this stupid dont deserve help.

     People like that are the reason that people should be required to have a license to have children. Folks like them should not be allowed to breed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The arbitrary will of God (although that sounds weird).