How to explain gay rights to an idiot.

[exphys88]

The same arguement could also be said about those who impose thier "immorality" on others.

It's entirely subjective.

Morality should be based on the consequences of actions, not on religious doctrine. Do you disagree? There is no legitimate reason against homosexuality, only religious doctrine.

 

[exphys88]

I'm totally for gay rights, get married and pack as much fudge as you want!!!

I do have a problem with gay adoption though. In this case a 3rd party's rights should also be considered. Not saying that the gays can't do a good job of raising a normal child, but all else being equal, the child will be subject to prejudism which he/she may not otherwise have to face. We hear a lot about the success stories, but what about the failures?

In a perfect world gay adoption would be a non-issue. We don't live in a perfect world...

I'm surprised to hear you say this. You would rather kids grow up in foster care or orphanages than be raised by gays because they may face prejudism? The same logic can be applied to not allow blacks or fat people to raise kids.
Once our society progresses and realizes that gays are not immoral, then we won't have to worry about them being discriminated against.

 

[DOMS]

You would rather kids grow up in foster care or orphanages than be raised by gays because they may face prejudism? The same logic can be applied to not allow blacks or fat people to raise kids.

I think you're right. Blacks and fat people should be illegal.

 

[exphys88]

I think you're right. Blacks and fat people should be illegal.

Do you say these things around black people in real life, or only on Internet forums? Or, are you just pretending to be racist? I'm always surprised to find intelligent people to be racist.

 

[acemon]

Is that even possible? Explaining cerebral shit to an idiot...I hope it works

 

[DOMS]

Do you say these things around black people in real life, or only on Internet forums? Or, are you just pretending to be racist? I'm always surprised to find intelligent people to be racist.

I say that stuff in person too. Not that I go to random minorities and give them shit. But if someone says something that I find questionable, I lay it down as I see it. It's only even comes to blows once, though.

My racism is firmly founded in facts.

I should note that my post was said in jest.

 

[exphys88]

I say that stuff in person too. Not that I go to random minorities and give them shit. But if someone says something that I find questionable, I lay it down as I see it. It's only even comes to blows once, though.

My racism is firmly founded in facts.

I should note that my post was said in jest.

So, are you racist against all blacks, or just black Americans? And what are the facts that your referring to. Does skin color determine character, or does culture play more of a role?

 

[troubador]

Morality should be based on the consequences of actions, not on religious doctrine. Do you disagree?

You can never have a purely consequentialist form of morality. At some point you'll start classifying what consequences are good, who it's of consequence to, how you calculate consequence,etc. You will never know the actual outcomes of an action before it takes place. An action may have many continual consequences. A system of morality is useless unless it can guide behavior before it occurs. At some point you'll have to form principles (ie a doctrine).

 

[exphys88]

You can never have a purely consequentialist form of morality. At some point you'll start classifying what consequences are good, who it's of consequence to, how you calculate consequence,etc. You will never know the actual outcomes of an action before it takes place. An action may have many continual consequences. A system of morality is useless unless it can guide behavior before it occurs. At some point you'll have to form principles (ie a doctrine).

But if there are actions that some declare as immoral, the onus is on them to provide evidence that the action does cause harm. There is no such evidence that homosexuality does cause harm. Furthermore, our government cannot make laws that originate from one particular religion because those people have a religious reason to declare something immoral.

 

[DOMS]

So, are you racist against all blacks, or just black Americans? And what are the facts that your referring to. Does skin color determine character, or does culture play more of a role?

Skin color means nothing. It's either about the effect a group has on my country, or the way their culture is in general.

I hate Mexicans because they're invading and destroying my country. I dislike blacks because, per capita, they commit more crime and generally have a sub-par culture. I dislike Muslims/Arabs because of their shitty barbaric culture and propensity for exporting it to other countries. I also dislike most of Sub-Saharan Africa because they've never quite evolved. I'm also not fond of any country south of America, with Brazil being the exception.

I'm neutral towards most other cultures. Though I look favorably on Thais, Samoans, Tongans, Japanese, and Canadians.

 

[exphys88]

You can never have a purely consequentialist form of morality. At some point you'll start classifying what consequences are good, who it's of consequence to, how you calculate consequence,etc. You will never know the actual outcomes of an action before it takes place. An action may have many continual consequences. A system of morality is useless unless it can guide behavior before it occurs. At some point you'll have to form principles (ie a doctrine).

And, if we do form a "doctrine" it surely shouldn't originate from any religion, maybe in Saudis Arabia, but not in the US.

 

[exphys88]

Skin color means nothing. It's either about the effect a group has on my country, or the way their culture is in general.

I hate Mexicans because they're invading and destroying my country. I dislike blacks because, per capita, they commit more crime and generally have a sub-par culture. I dislike Muslims/Arabs because of their shitty barbaric culture and propensity for exporting it to other countries. I also dislike most of Sub-Saharan Africa because they've never quite evolved. I'm also not fond of any country south of America, with Brazil being the exception.

I'm neutral towards most other cultures. Though I look favorably on Thais, Samoans, Tongans, Japanese, and Canadians.

Ok, I share these same beliefs, I think racism isn't the correct term though. Although, some may call it racism. Or, we just have a different definition of racism. Racism, to me is the belief that a persons race determines character, not their culture.

 

[BillHicksFan]

Even a little more simple. How about being and acting like a human and don't try to find fault with others, just work on yourself and try to amend your own faults.

^^^ Apparently this common sense isn't that common after all.

 

[DOMS]

Ok, I share these same beliefs, I think racism isn't the correct term though. Although, some may call it racism. Or, we just have a different definition of racism. Racism, to me is the belief that a persons race determines character, not their culture.

It's really prejudice, but when I call it that I get accused of try to soften my obvious racist beliefs. So I just refer to it as racism. And when they find out that I don't hate all non-whites, they either accuse me of lying or ignore it.

 

[troubador]

correct! But, it's always good to point out that it is the religious folks that are imposing their morality on us.

Not always. This is probably more than I want to explain on this board but basically collectivist atheists can certainly be more oppressive than the christian right. Briefly - The collectivist atheist has inherited a similar type morality to that of Christians(equality, the meek shall inherit the earth, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, etc). It's probably hard to see this from a modern American standpoint though.
A difference occurs where Christians seek justice in heaven and atheist collectivists need that to happen on earth and in this life time. That's why you see leftists associated with having uptopians ideals. Christians for instance will preach capitalism and more reliance on charity, where as collectivists want forced redistribution of wealth. Christians can rely on God's punishment if you don't give to the poor, atheist collectivists cannot and must impose their morality now. So in this case, giving to the poor is a tenet a Christian and an atheist may hold but the atheist will be more likely to impose it on others.

Of course atheists don't have to be lefties, in which case the above example wouldn't apply.

 

[troubador]

But if there are actions that some declare as immoral, the onus is on them to provide evidence that the action does cause harm.

You simply restated consequentialism. The original issues of consequentialism still apply. Even still, you have to qualify what is harmful and who is harmed.

 

[exphys88]

You simply restated consequentialism. The original issues of consequentialism still apply. Even still, you have to qualify what is harmful and who is harmed.

The ones making the claim that something is harmful have to declare what is harmful and who is harmed. In this conversation, we're discussing christians that declare that homosexuality is harmful.

 

[troubador]

The ones making the claim that something is harmful have to declare what is harmful and who is harmed. In this conversation, we're discussing christians that declare that homosexuality is harmful.

No, the quote that sparked this current discussion is your post stating "Morality should be based on the consequences of actions, not on religious doctrine."
Immoral is not necessarily the same thing as harmful, especially concerning religions.

 

[exphys88]

No, the quote that sparked this current discussion is your post stating "Morality should be based on the consequences of actions, not on religious doctrine."
Immoral is not necessarily the same thing as harmful, especially concerning religions.

right, I was referring to religious people making the claim that homosexuality is immoral and/or harmful. My opinion is that if someone is calling something immoral or harmful, they have to provide evidence to support that claim.

 

[troubador]

My opinion is that if someone is calling something immoral or harmful, they have to provide evidence to support that claim.

I agree.

 

[vancouver]

I'm surprised to hear you say this. You would rather kids grow up in foster care or orphanages than be raised by gays because they may face prejudism? The same logic can be applied to not allow blacks or fat people to raise kids.
Once our society progresses and realizes that gays are not immoral, then we won't have to worry about them being discriminated against.

It is definitely a tough question. I don't dissagree with you, I would rather see a child raised by gays than a shitty orphanage.

I'm just really protective of kids in general as I have 4. It's not that I think a gay family would be unsafe or immoral, but rather society would be the harmful factor. I could be convinced that it would work in a large city like NY, but in small town Texas, that kid is going to be crusified.

I've even heard gay people say they are opposed for the same reason...it's a divided issue...

There are gay parents at my kids school. I would open my doors to them and their kids anyday and even offer them a beer (or a strawberry daiquiri ). They're not in my kids grade so I haven't had the upportunity...

 

[PappyMason]

I believe gays can marry or do whatever they want. but i'm tired of seeing super flamboyant gays being the "cool thing" on tv and on the streets. can't you be gay and just act normal instead of looking like a parrot with a lisp? And its those flamboyant gays that are too touchy when it obviously isn't wanted.

 

[exphys88]

I believe gays can marry or do whatever they want. but i'm tired of seeing super flamboyant gays being the "cool thing" on tv and on the streets. can't you be gay and just act normal instead of looking like a parrot with a lisp? And its those flamboyant gays that are too touchy when it obviously isn't wanted.

I'm bothered by straight guys wearing skinny jeans and pink shirts! If you're a straight male, then be a man. If you're gay, then its fine to be feminine.

I understand these views are hypocritical, but it just bugs me.

 

[PappyMason]

I'm bothered by straight guys wearing skinny jeans and pink shirts! If you're a straight male, then be a man. If you're gay, then its fine to be feminine.

I understand these views are hypocritical, but it just bugs me.

I'm not sure I understand the hypocritical aspect of those but my main point is, is it really my business if someone is gay or not? Gay often want to be left alone based on the idea that them being gay should not be anyone else's business but their own decision. I live in NYC where in many areas gays will actively try to make it everyone else business that they are gay with a combination of dress, speech, and touching. I've met some cool gay/lesbian people, but I've met some flamboyant gays that take it out of bounds. Your gay keep it to yourself, don't try to approach me with homosexual intent in speech or touching. In other words don't try to make the fact that your gay my business.

 

[vancouver]

I'm bothered by straight guys wearing skinny jeans and pink shirts! If you're a straight male, then be a man. If you're gay, then its fine to be feminine.

I understand these views are hypocritical, but it just bugs me.

Pink is gay?

 

[GearsMcGilf]

As it stands now, the state simply issues a legal document whereby it recognizes a civil union between a husband and wife. Basically all that faggots are asking for is to be allowed to apply for that same legal recognition. The true sanctity of a marriage is not delegated by the govt in any way. That part comes from the recognition and acceptance of the marriage by the couple's family, friends, church, community, and strength of the relationship. Legal recognition by the state in no way makes a marriage any more or less valid.

That being said, I do resent them using a brown-haired white guy named Adam in their example. That hits a lil too close to home for me.


I believe that faggot marriage is an issue that will prolly end up in the Supreme Court within the next 10 years or so and all 50 states will have to allow it. To argue that it isn't discrimination against a certain group of people is a nonstarter.

Or:

10% off on vaseline! Now gtf back in the closet!

- Andrew Dice Clay

 

[exphys88]

I'm not sure I understand the hypocritical aspect of those but my main point is, is it really my business if someone is gay or not? Gay often want to be left alone based on the idea that them being gay should not be anyone else's business but their own decision. I live in NYC where in many areas gays will actively try to make it everyone else business that they are gay with a combination of dress, speech, and touching. I've met some cool gay/lesbian people, but I've met some flamboyant gays that take it out of bounds. Your gay keep it to yourself, don't try to approach me with homosexual intent in speech or touching. In other words don't try to make the fact that your gay my business.

I used the term hypocritical because I'm criticizing people for dressing a certain way and making claims that skinny jeans and pink shirts are gay.

 

[exphys88]

As it stands now, the state simply issues a legal document whereby it recognizes a civil union between a husband and wife. Basically all that faggots are asking for is to be allowed to apply for that same legal recognition. The true sanctity of a marriage is not delegated by the govt in any way. That part comes from the recognition and acceptance of the marriage by the couple's family, friends, church, community, and strength of the relationship. Legal recognition by the state in no way makes a marriage any more or less valid.

That being said, I do resent them using a brown-haired white guy named Adam in their example. That hits a lil too close to home for me.


I believe that faggot marriage is an issue that will prolly end up in the Supreme Court within the next 10 years or so and all 50 states will have to allow it. To argue that it isn't discrimination against a certain group of people is a nonstarter.

Or:

Once again, I'm impressed w your objectivity, but it sounds like you're a Christian, which i find hard to believe considering your intelligent posts.

 

[LAM]

IIt's not that I think a gay family would be unsafe or immoral, but rather society would be the harmful factor. I could be convinced that it would work in a large city like NY, but in small town Texas, that kid is going to be crusified.

gay people are smarter than that. mostly they do not live in the interior of the country. this is why they stick to the coasts and other more liberal cities and states.

 

[secdrl]

correct! But, it's always good to point out that it is the religious folks that are imposing their morality on us.

Maybe the 'religous folks' feel that you're imposing 'gay rights' on us??