Is being gay morally wrong?

[smoothmoniker]

you're just pointing out that rights are based on 'moral' precepts? and so a violation of a right is a violation of a moral?

And, by extension, that the phrase ...

yes yes...but not because of morals. that would be for violating their(metaphorical) rights.

... doesn't make sense. If your sense of indignation is based on the rights of your mother and sister being violated, then it is moral indignation.

[LJ]

well, yeah....but the reason for the distinction....

you can violate my morals without violating my rights. I can get offended (passively) if you violate my morals, but violate my rights, and I'll defend them.....actively. If someone goes to jail for rape, they go for infringing on the rights of their victim...not for offending their morals. makes sense to me.

[classicman]

Thats an excellent distinction LJ.

[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.

[Mockingbird]

I like Ayn Rand so anytime I hear anything at all about Kant or what he had to say about anything, I smash something fragile.

That said, I don't think the act of sex with someone you love is wrong under any decent code of ethics. Love is love and it doesn't really matter what diddly parts you happen to have. I think a majority of people should probably just mind their own business if they have something to say about who someone can and can't love.

[Ibby]

You're interpreting this wrong, under Kant. Even under his philosophy, being gay isn't morally wrong.
It's not about heterosexuality or homosexuality. It's about loving whoever you want, loving whoever it just feels right to love.

If everybody loves the person that makes them happiest, then everything is right with the world, as far as I'm concerned. That is why, EVEN WITH kant's philosophy, there is nothing immoral about being gay.

[Cloud]

Mercenary and PierceHawkeye: Not sure I agree that age has much to do with it. I'm older, and I never believed being gay was wrong. Not ever.

[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?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Cloud

Mercenary and PierceHawkeye: Not sure I agree that age has much to do with it. I'm older, and I never believed being gay was wrong. Not ever.

Well I may be going out on a limb here but there is certainly a subgroup of the population from the 60's and 70's who experienced a profound transformation and their views have not changed much since when it comes to how people relate to each other sexually. Then there is the other group, which I believe is the majority who did not experience the profound changes, and or who came after that time and religion played a bigger part of their lives. I believe it is this group who places moral value on many issues to include the issue of homosexuality. You are right though, age as a brod indicator may not have been the best choice to describe the differences. I do believe that older people are more interested in religion and it may play a larger part of their decision making when it comes to issues like this.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by LJ

well, yeah....but the reason for the distinction....

you can violate my morals without violating my rights. I can get offended (passively) if you violate my morals, but violate my rights, and I'll defend them.....actively. ...

Are you saying that you differentiate between morals and rights by whether you react passively or actively?

[LJ]

No

[Cloud]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Well I may be going out on a limb here but there is certainly a subgroup of the population from the 60's and 70's who experienced a profound transformation and their views have not changed much since when it comes to how people relate to each other sexually.

For me, it wasn't so much as a transformation, as original indoctrination.

[Shawnee123]

Well, it is more mainstream now, for women anyway. Look at the proliferation of girl on girl in things like Girls Gone Wild. If I were a lesbian, I would be offended by pretend lesbians who just think it makes them sexy, and gets them attention from males, so use the alternative lifestyle to raise a couple boners. How vapid.

[LJ]

my cock isn't all that judgemental. srsly