Is being gay morally wrong?

[Kerotan]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Being gay might be morally wrong to some people, but not to me.

My morals think it's perfectly ok. If I were a prude perhaps, or staunch catholic etc, I might think it's morally wrong to be gay.

With regard to the question posed earlier, "do your morals change according to who you're with", I think that's an interesting question.

There is no doubt that our sense of propriety stops us from behaving the same way in front of our 80yr old granny than we might when we're out with friends at the pub. Does that mean our morals change or that we simply prop our morals up because we don't want to offend granny?

Wow complete indecision within me, I was going to take this line originally then I thought I was full of shit, and took a different line, and then I thought that that was shite too, and back to this one.

Anway...

I think its more the case that we prop up our morals in situations with our granny, I don't think that swearing and burping round a table is wrong per say, I don't do said acts because others round the table think that it is wrong.

however, doesn't that just make a situation of your morals, "burping and swearing are a ok, except when my granny is here"

So really after all my confusion, I have to say that really the bolstering
of my morals just comes under that on an absolute level, in my moral laws I have a moral which says that I should take into account other peoples morals, so really I would say that my moral code is more accommodating than changing, but none the less it is changing.

In short, morals do change!

(post script-Well if you read all that extremely messy post of indecisivenesses, congratulations, if you understood it as well your a better man than I am. Also if you want an analogy to how my moral laws work, just think of Nietzsche attacking Freud, and Freud retaliating by more or less encapsulating Nietzsche's attack. I describe it poorly but none the less if you have no idea what I am vainly trying to get at, you will just have take my word for it. - Also the smart ones amongst you would have noted that this a post script at all since at the time of writing of the post script, the original article hasn't been posted, this is just merely a mechanism for me to add additional material on the end of my post without calling it a note and therefore seeming utterly up my own arse, which would have been surely spotted and commented on, even if i had not mentioned thus.)

[Clodfobble]

There's a difference between morals and decorum. It is not wrong to fart and swear, but it is rude. There are people with whom I can be rude, and people with whom I prefer not to be, but I'm pretty sure none of those people think it's wrong either, just impolite.

My morals do not change depending on whom I'm with, only the extent to which I am willing to discuss them. I can keep my mouth shut when it is advisable to do so, but I can't think of a situation where I would say or do something that I wouldn't have otherwise.

[Elspode]

How can what consenting adults do with each other, short of perhaps homicide, be immoral?

Morality varies by individual, by society, by religion, and probably by a zillion other factors. There are very few moral absolutes.

Read Clockwork Orange for one interesting POV on Right and Wrong.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If you're having more fun than I am, what you're doing is immoral... and if I have my way, also illegal.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If you're having more fun than I am, what you're doing is immoral... and if I have my way, also illegal.

You forgot to identify the source of that quote, George W Bush.

[xoxoxoBruce]

[LJ]

3 people think...or thought that being gay is morally wrong. all 3 of them were too timid or not sure enough about their opinion to post a comment to that effect. fear of being persecuted for their belief? ironic?


the login anonymous ...password.....cockpuppet

[Cicero]

That's so wrong.....just ask my girlfriend.

According to the Bible (where most issues of moral behaviour are evaluated), the Christians deduce that homosexuality is immoral. But Christians are not the only valid (did I say “valid”?) source of metaphysical conviction.

Assuming that any of the existing religious institutions are correct about the creation of life and expectations of us, as mortal beings – then we’ll only know the answer to sexual morality when we’ve reach the “after life” – maybe.

[Ibby]

*groan*

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Ibram

*groan*

That's what he said! lol!!!

[Cicero]

[quote=Kerotan;417449] I think that a philosophy section should discuss matters of such import, especially when a User named Cicero frequents this area of the forum regularly.


[/b]

Just noticed that...thank god for searching myself. :p Kero- philosophy used to be discussed here widely. Anymore...not so much.

[classicman]

thats a shame too!

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by Kerotan

... Immanuel Kant, using his moral theory, homosexuality is morally wrong because it universalises the axiom that (putting it simply) we should all have homosexual sex.

he would argue that this creates a contradiction, in that by everyone having homosexual sex, we fail to reproduce, no therefore in time can no longer have homosexual sex.

So using Kants moral theory, we have concluded that being (in Kants eyes) homosexual is wrong.

This is, on the face of it, ridiculous and based on a logical falsehood. By this reasoning masturbation would also be wrong because if we all only masturbated then we would fail to reproduce. To make the logical error more clear, lets look at another example divorced from the issue:

Suppose a man falls out of a boat in the ocean and finds himself completely submerged. A fellow boater suggests that the man hold his breath. Kant disagrees, saying that if we universalise the axiom we would all asphyxiate. Kant is also a moron.

Originally Posted by Kerotan

but where do you stand?

Personally, I am inclined to treat homosexuality as just another form of masturbation. Be it by hand, mouth, anus, whatever, any sexually satisfying act that is not reproductive in nature is masturbation. I am not stimulated by the male form so I don't partake of that particular fetish, but it is no more immoral than prophylactics.

Originally Posted by Kerotan

Do you believe that homosexuality is against god?

This is an unproductive question, as the assumptions required to answer it are unlikely to be agreed upon.

Originally Posted by Kerotan

Do you think that homosexuality is the preserve of the rich?

Do the rich somehow have a greater supply or access to their own sexual organs? It could be argued that they have access to more *other* sexual organs I suppose, or that they have more free time, but I don't see anything about being poor that prevents being gay.

[aimeecc]

There is a line of thought that being homosexual isn't wrong, but its acting on those impulses that is.

I am inclined to feel that its not wrong, and what do I care about what someone else does in their bedroom. Unfortunately, since being homosexual has become more "right" than "wrong" over the last 2 decades, along with the loosening of morals on pre-marital sex, there seems to be a large acceptance on sexual promiscuity. More than acceptance... almost expectance. This leads me to believe its wrong, even though logically the two aren't necessarily related. Its also seemed like its more acceptable to be 'experimental' and trying to figure out your sexual preference, or acceptance for trying anything and everything. And I believe this to be immoral.

I had an issue, being Episcopal, with the appointment of the gay bishop that made news 2 or 3 years ago. But it wasn't that he was homosexual. It was because he was an adulterer. He cheated on his wife, put her health at risk, destroyed their family. It happened to be over another man. I don't believe someone that does that is in the right spritual mindset to make bishop.