![]() |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
In conclusion the answer then to this topic depends what standard you use for "right and wrong". Society defines right and wrong as determined by whether it's generally acceptable or not. If society has grown accustomed to homosexuals and thus accepts the practice, then it must be right. Thus according to our modern social standards being gay it right. Biblically it's wrong. *Be ware though; applying the contemporary social standards as it applies to one's morality causes that person to fall prey to the old saying that the crowd may be wrong. (Wrong referring to the best interest of society) |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
But that is where you're wrong, bobeck. Consent IS enough to make something "right" or "legal" regarding sex. If you approach a girl for sex, and she's fully aware of what's going on and accepts your advances, then it's consensual sex, and no fundamental rights are violated. But if you have to force yourself on her or if you're taking advantage of her when she's unable to fully comprehend the situation, then you're grinding against those fundamental rights we've set up.
It's not like all laws were purely set up without individual consideration -- but your problem is that you extrapolate WAY too hard when it comes to a given comparison, much like Dev said. Society DOES NOT always base "right" and "wrong" on what is "generally acceptable" ffs. There is actual reasoning behind a lot of it that pertains to utility, stability, and social optima. You bringing up the point of homosexuals again proves that you AGAIN conflate legality and social acceptance. I can't even believe you brought that point up again. How old are you? Go take an ethics course or something and try coming back here again. You're consistently missing the point. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
*FACE ****ING PALM*
Again you make the same damn error in logic. Just because I bring the concept of consent on the same level between animal and human doesn't suddenly mean ALL concepts of the animal are now on par with ALL concepts of human. Quit conflating the logic. And it doesn't surprise me that you're still trying to figure it out. You seem to be misunderstanding everything being told to you in this thread. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
PS: Nice trolling, if that's your aim. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
Bobeck, I'm convinced at this point that you're trolling. I can't understand how someone can have such a hard time understanding this argument. "Society sees something that it thinks brings stability, and social optima, which then becomes generally accepted (because of those factors) and thus they determine that it is right." Again, stop equating the two, ffs you're thick. Social optima is different from "generally accepted." I'll even put it down a few times. Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." As for your last point, it doesn't have to do with "pushing for the generally accepted." People on both sides mistakenly, as you are, try to push with "generally accepted principles" as a basis for a new law, when what matters is the underlying fundamental right. The problem is the underlying definition of marriage as a right. There are various reasons, both practical and theological, why people argue for either side, and these functions are indeed already part of the Constitution. The entire debate right now essentially pertains to modifying pre-existing stats laws or reinterpreting. Lobbying only does so much to put the issue to the table. In the end, it has to be solved within the confines of the rights systems we've set up. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
Anyhow, I've said all that needs to be said. I've spent more than enough nights on this topic so much to your enjoyment I'll just be a viewer from this point on. I've been wanting to lay this off some time ago, but your constant misunderstanding and misinterpretations of what I've been saying has been most time consuming. Night. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
And I'm not the one misunderstanding -- you've just got a very dim understanding of rights and ethics. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
What are these "several other issues" you disagree with?
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
Consent and knowledge are -not- enough to make something legal, but they SHOULD be. So yes, in my opinion, with knowledge and consent, incest, polygamy, duels to the death, suicide, assisted suicide, cannibalism, all of these things should be 100% allowed provided all parties involved demonstrate informed consent. Quote:
The principle that Rubix is applying here is reasonably defined as "Things which can suffer need to have that suffering taken into account" He's not even saying all animals and humans are equal, let alone all equal in their ability to suffer or to have that suffering taken into account. The proof of that is the fact that it is illegal to pointlessly torture an animal, but it is legal to kill it humanely in order to eat it, but you can do neither of those things legally to a human. The ability of sentient animals to suffer is accounted for (You can't torture them or humans legally) as a matter of Threshold (They are sentient, thus, like all sentient creatures, it is wrong to make them suffer needlessly) as well as a matter of degree (They are less intelligent and developed than humans in terms of their intellect and mental faculties, thus, it is okay to kill them humanely for food) Put another way: Just because their intellectual development as sentient creatures is advanced enough to not justify making it suffer needlessly, doesn't mean it is the equal of humans (meaning no torture, but we don't give them the right to vote either) |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
I would assume, given the list you presented, Dev, that it involves things that are illegal for reasons outside of pure consent (incest, polygamy, duels to the death, suicide, assisted suicide, cannibalism, etc).
Polygamy is again due to the definition of marriage, and I don't know much about cannibalism, but I do know that one guy in Germany wound up going to jail for life (the one who ate a man who consented via the Internet to be killed/eaten). To allow "consensual cannibalism" would make it too easy for someone to blatantly commit murder and try to hide behind a false "consent" argument in some way. Unlike rape, a victim is not alive to be able to claim whether or not he/she actually consented. :P And assisted suicide is actually legal in my home state of Oregon, lmao. The problem there is that "assisted suicide" can also be thought of as "murder with consent," which is another tricky legal hoop. There is always a weighing when it comes to a given law regarding what exactly is being legalized and what type of situations may arise. It's all done with the overall intent to maintain fundamental human securities and rights while allowing the greatest optima in the unrestricted area. |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
People go to prison for rape all the while claiming that consent was given while the person (Who may well have given consent) is denying having done so after the fact. If you got their consent in writing, they'd have a much harder time denying it afterwards. When I say that all parties involved need to demonstrate informed consent, for a number of things people might want to do (cannibalism, duels to the death etc) I see no reason why a formal legal proceeding to establish "informed" and "consent" shouldn't occur. My main statement is more of a negative than a positive: "There is no reason I can think of why people -shouldn't- be allowed to do anything they want, if all parties involved give informed consent" |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Yeah, I think the law would have to be defined in a way to describe exactly what type of consent was required.
But let's assume a "more than reasonably thorough consent process" where lawyers and multiple witnesses are present, further consent in writing, possibly video proof, etc, for these "extreme" scenarios that may involve serious fundamental human right violations. I think it should be allowable -- I just don't think there's much demand pushing for such a thing. We can waive Constitutional rights all the time. When we're pulled over by the cops, we have every right, for instance, to say "No," when asked if our cars can be searched, but most people waive the right unknowingly. At what point does it become "wrong" to waive a more fundamental right (say, the right to life)? EDIT: My point is that, going along with what I've said in this thread, we establish the rights that we do for protection. The Constitution, for instance, is purely a device meant to protect the citizens and keep the government in check. The laws made are done so to maintain society in a certain way and to maintain that protection and freedom. However, who's to say we can't opt out of that if we want to -- as little or as much as we want? |
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
I feel like bobeck would make a good lawyer. Uses really fluffed up paragraphs full of no actual information or argument while dodging every question and argument thrown at him.
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Quote:
The main problem between theistic/atheistic debates is that, from what I find, theists have an extraordinarily bad understanding of the scientific views against their favor. Either way, a theist is not concerned with proof, and so all efforts are nullified from the getgo. But I will once again proclaim that I can "let it get to my head" because I'm right. The only thing I regret is that when people die and realize they're returning to the same state of nonexistence that they did before they were born, I won't be able to say "Hah! Told you so!" There is a very good reason why we don't look at a 24-sigma event and put "faith" in the residual. If we've been flipping Heads the whole time, we don't kick Occam's Razor in the face hoping for Tails with a BS explanation. We use our brains and understand that it's a two-headed coin. Of course, relating back to my original point, choosing to agree or disagree with any given view of the heavens won't matter. An atheist and theist alike can still live a fulfilling life. Quote:
|
Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
Yea, but people are idiots. Just being a persistent douche is bound to convince sound unintelligent jury members.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution