Is being gay morally wrong?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Yes.

Personally, I define morality as as a set of ethics that guide the interaction between a group of people (2+). Ethics will have to be defined as what is right and wrong.

That is why I can't see how homosexuality can be seen as immoral or even a morality issue in a sociological sense. Unless you get really picky, whether a person is a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, it really doesn't affect anyone else. The only way I can see it being a morality issue is if it is one forced upon us by a higher power or a person in power. But that should not happen in the United States being a secular democracy (republic).

I know your argument and do not really disagree with you but understand that your position is one of your age and time of birth. There are many people a few generations back who believe that homosexuality is a morality issue. I think it has more to do with one's religious beliefs more than anything else. There are a certain set of behaviors which society at large generally will not tolerate in public and those things are enforced by law, but if you dig a little deeper, from a historical position, you find that many of them were based on prevailing religious views. So I see how one group of people may define homosexuality from a morality position and another group does not see it that way.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I know your argument and do not really disagree with you but understand that your position is one of your age and time of birth. There are many people a few generations back who believe that homosexuality is a morality issue. I think it has more to do with one's religious beliefs more than anything else. There are a certain set of behaviors which society at large generally will not tolerate in public and those things are enforced by law, but if you dig a little deeper, from a historical position, you find that many of them were based on prevailing religious views. So I see how one group of people may define homosexuality from a morality position and another group does not see it that way.

Yeah, views on homosexuality have changed a lot in the past few generations and that is why I don't really get worked up when a vote gets passed to ban gay marriages because I know in thirty years, that will change.

But yeah, you are right, my views will probably never be even tried to be understood by people that were raised in past generations where homosexuality was seen more a moral issue than a sexual preference.

[Chocolatl]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That is why I don't really get worked up when a vote gets passed to ban gay marriages because I know in thirty years, that will change.

So it's okay for those seeking gay marriages to be completely out of luck in the meantime?

[classicman]

excellent - well written - better than how I tried to say it.

[Happy Monkey]

Kant's argument also works against being a priest.

[LJ]

well.

to construct "rights"

this has been a recent topic of debate. and that may just be a coincedental choice of words there. I don't believe that rights are constructed. I believe they simply are. which leads you down the road toward a tree falling in the woods......are rights there without someone to excercise or defend them?

BUT....you may have meant construct in the 'define' sense?

[smoothmoniker]

Yes, by construct I mean define and defend. Use my original language, if it's less loaded:

defending the realness of "rights"

[LJ]

definition of morality from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Thu Apr 21, 2005
The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use “morality” normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that “morality” in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism. Thus, although not widely discussed, the definition of morality has great significance for moral theory.

it seems that the conventional definition of 'rights' has, as you've inferred, some consideration for what is considered to be 'moral' behavior. That is, it is considered immoral to violate another's rights.

I guess what i meant when i said that there are no morals, is that I see morals as having their roots in societal opinion of acceptable behaviors. Therefore, you inherently sanction those morals by existing within a given society. If you choose to exist without that society, the morals that come with that society fall away. As is your right to do. (not saying i would do, or recommend this, btw)

If you exist outside of society and society's moral influence, you are left with only your own code to guide you. your personal morals. your rights.

I said there are no morals. there is also no spoon. know'm sayin'?

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by LJ

If you exist outside of society and society's moral influence, you are left with only your own code to guide you. your personal morals. your rights.

Rights have no meaning in that context. A right is a boundary restricting the unjust actions of others toward you.

What possible meaning does the phrase "I have a right to life" mean if not "My possession of my life is fair and just, and others ought not act to remove it from me, and I am justified in acting to protect myself from those who do." What could it possibly mean to have a "right to life" if a person is in isolation?

[Drax]

Originally Posted by LJ

I said there are no morals. there is also no spoon. know'm sayin'?

The Matrix has us?

[Undertoad]

[Kerotan]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Wow epic.

[LJ]

is that right? that's kind of what i meant by this:

which leads you down the road toward a tree falling in the woods......are rights there without someone to excercise or defend them?

I guess i left out the part about the 'person to defend them from' ....although it was inferred in the 'defend them' part.....

in isolation, your rights do not evaporate though, do they? if the tree falls, it still makes a sound.....doesn't it?

in the context of the original question, my point was more along the lines of: A judgement of morality is only as meaningful as the judged allow it to be. If two same sex people find that they love each other...it is only their morality that applies. The reality is subjective. no spoon. no morals.
sorry i'm repeating myself...i'm sure you get what i'm saying. you're smarter than I am.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by LJ

in the context of the original question, my point was more along the lines of: A judgement of morality is only as meaningful as the judged allow it to be. If two same sex people find that they love each other...it is only their morality that applies. The reality is subjective. no spoon. no morals.

But what about the morality with the confines of the society that they live in? The pressures and restrictions, dare I say, moral fiber which is within their society dictates does it not? They may be perfectly happy within the privacy of their own home, but once they venture out into "society" are they not then subject, rightly or wrongly, to the morality - the ethicality - that society has predetermined to be acceptable?

[LJ]

do your morals change because of those of the people you move among?