Is it wrong to be gay?

[devonin]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

While he may be conflating those two concepts, he was additionally still harping on bestiality, which I think he'd concluded we were all universally opposed to, and that by trying to pin us into accepting that we'd have to approve of both under certain circumstances, thought he was being clever.

And while the idea of sex with animals is pretty gross to -me- what business would I have telling other people that they shoudln't, but for the issue of consent? If the animal could consent, and did so, they are welcome to do whatever they like, as long as I don't have to see it.

I'm hoping that the blatant statement addressing what seemed like his only "reasonable" objection will get Bobeck to go ahead and pay attention to the rest of what everyone has been saying to him.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

What honestly disgusts me about the whole matter is the fact that it's taking so long for this homosexual-discrimination issue to run its course. Prop 8 in Cali and the recent actions of Maine just piss me off. NY, not less than a day ago, chose to shelve the voting decision... I hope they actually do the right thing, here.

So many anti-homosexuality advocates rely on the education crutch, which is just total hogwash. "Schools will start teaching homosexuality!" Utter bull****. Last I checked, I don't remember my teachers forcing a certain lifestyle down my throat. All arguments against homosexuality that I see are purely speculation of the unknown in the face of the wealth of data that just states the obvious: Humans are humans, and good parents are good parents.

[mhss1992]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

It's really cool to be able to see a straight person that's not afraid of defending homosexuality like MrRubix does.

[krunkykai22]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

The reasons for approving homosexuality are totally different from the reasons for approving bestiality. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Quit equating the two and quit loading questions like "if we put this issue and this issue aside."

As for your point on morality, you bring up an interesting point that I do think is worth addressing. We, as a society, have defined our moral compass the way we have because it's a way to create a utility-maximizing social optimum for everyone involved. We put rules into effect that give us rights, and therefore allow us to create a stable society where we can achieve the maximum amount of happiness. For instance, if we were able to kill at will, our society would crumble around us, so we put that law into effect to keep ourselves alive. Any number of examples could fit this bill, and the end result is "human rights." The law evolves to keep this general notion under check, which is why there is always an uproar when these fundamental rights are breached. Again, if you legalize bestiality, you're also kicking the notion of consent in the face, which in turn kicks a dozen other issues in the face. It's just not going to happen, especially considering how few people actually have a desire for it.

It's not an unsolvable debate -- you just need to understand ethics.

I firmly believe that "meaning" is a purely human construct (which is one of my anti-theist arguments), and nothing is "objectively" right or wrong, but as humans, we have a natural desire to survive and enjoy the fruits of existence that come with being alive. As a result, we need a system that best ensures that we can do so, and those systems are society and law.

Dude, okay. You are obviously not very bright, so I will make this very clear to you.

Consent is the reason why bestiality is illegal. Consent is based on mental ability and status and communication. Consent has nothing to do with the acceptance of homosexuality. Do you or do you not understand?

And just because people said one thing was acceptable 20 years ago doesn't mean I would have agreed with it. It doesn't offer a "perfect example of societal progression" because you're more focused on social stigma than the underlying RIGHTS involved.

I fully believe that not allowing homosexuals to marry is a violation of rights and is discrimination. I fully expect there to be legalized homosexual marriage in the future once people come to their senses. It's honestly sad that it's taking so long to arrive at such a simple conclusion. It really makes me wonder how effective society is at handling social change. Most people are stupid, ignorant, and fearful.

I'm comparing illegality versus acceptance because for some twisted reason, you keep bringing it up with crap like "What is it then that can or will separate the approval of homosexuality from eventually the acceptance of bestiality?" It's already been explained: CONSENT. If there is no consent, it is illegal. Comparing bestiality versus homosexuality is absurd because it makes more sense to compare bestiality versus human sexual activity in general. That's the LEGALITY side. You're bringing up "acceptance" with your question of what makes something "inherently" right or wrong. Do you even understand your own argument? Social acceptance and the law are different things, and you're mixing the two up.

I get the notion that "consent is the reason why bestiality is illegal" because it IS why bestiality is illegal. Animals can't consent, and if you try to bang an animal, you'll get hit with all sorts of animal abuse charges.

Consent has no role in the acceptance of homosexuality. Consent pertains to activities such as rape. Why do you assume sexual consent has anything to do with whether or not homosexuality is okay? Homosexuals are human and can say "Yes" just as easily as any heterosexual can.

I agree that certain "socially intolerable" views are a bit ridiculous, but only because I find human ignorance to be ridiculous. Everyone has their own way of living life, and as long as those fundamental, utility-maximizing human rights are not violated, there should be nothing against such preferences.

My mother, for instance, is a huge homophobe. She finds it disgusting. Whenever the subject comes up, she says the most bigoted things ever. Unfortunately, a large part of society is like this. However, fortunately, I think our generation is a lot more open minded and free-thinking compared to the traditionalist thought process of many of our elders today, and so I foresee a lot of change in the right direction as long as fundamental rights are kept in check.

I told you earlier how underlying rights are derived. Re-read again if you don't understand.

Yes, I quoted all of that. I think for the first time I 100% agree with Rubix here. The basic thing is, as he said, if there is no CONSENT, it is illegal. How can you justify an animal giving you consent? They don't speak our language, its not like they pop up one morning come walking over to you and say " hey, lets do it." :/ I don't understand how hard it is to understand that.

As for the "society," If there were NO laws it would be " the strong survive " type deal. Everyone would destroy everyone until there were only a select, handful, people left. What would that prove? Nothing. They law is our system to withhold stability in our world/country.

However, some of "society's" views are ridiculous, I won't lie. If we believe something that the society does not, then we are looked down upon. An ongoing predicament that has been going on for, YEARS, CENTURIES, blah blah.

Now, on to the topic of this entire thread. Is it wrong to be gay? Absolutely not. In no way shape or form is that a crime, should be looked down upon, etc etc. I know that many catholics, christians, etc say its a sin to be gay. But with all due respect, over the years people have become more open minded. We have learned many different things over the course of our generations, which has led us to believe what we will. I was raised Catholic. Had to go to church every damn sunday. Didn't like it. I am now Wiccan. ( Even with all the controversy surrounding this religion, I still am proud to be one ) In my religion it has NO bearing on your sexuality.

But one question I do have to ask is, who has the right to tell you it IS wrong to be gay? No one here is in power of any sort. No one has the right to tell you it IS wrong. Yes people can believe it is, however, it is solely up to your own mentality as to whether it is or isn't. I could pull the "hey I have gay friends so it's not wrong" card, even though that is true, but I firmly approve of gay relationships. It's the freedom upon which we are granted. Freedom. We have ONE LIFE to live, and we should do what we want, within reason. Again, WITHIN REASON. I use that strictly. This topic, however, is definitely within reason.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Agreeing with me 100% of the time is a good way to get ahead in life. It's called being correct :P Arrogance independent.

[MrGiggles]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

But one question I do have to ask is, who has the right to tell you it IS wrong to be gay? No one here is in power of any sort. No one has the right to tell you it IS wrong.

I don't want to be 'that guy' but this is actually a protected right under the Bill of Rights. =/

[bobeck]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

It's already been made clear as day that consent is what defines the illegality of bestiality.

I get the notion that "consent is the reason why bestiality is illegal" because it IS why bestiality is illegal.

I really can't emphasize how uninformed a statement this is. You offer these statements without any backing, either from court decisions, legislative history or intent or any other verifiable sources. Further, if this concept that lack of consent justifies the illegality of bestiality is as clear as day and therefore indisputable, then why is it that Google gives me conflicting and contrary evidence when I enter the question.. "is lack of consent the cause for the illegality of bestiality?" Wikipedia brings up Jacob M. Appel, who argues that lack of consent is not a meaningful concept when discussing human-animal sex. (This is by no means an exhaustive list). Point is, this issue of consent is not as clear as you or other posters have made it out to be.

I really hate belaboring this issue of consent as for the most part it is now moot with regards to Devonin's post. However I will make one last statement with respect to consent. You say, Bestiality will never become legal because an animal can never give definite consent to the act. My question is, who said it had to give consent in the first place? Impliedly with your statement, you erroneously elevate an animal to the status of a human being, and infer that every right a human has, an animal has as well and to the same degree. Talk about faulty comparisons.

I will live my life the way I want to, and anyone else should be able to do the same. However, you can't violate fundamental rights and laws in doing so.

The issue here is that you are using the concept of ''Fundamental rights" as the barrier or standard between right and wrong and argue that it is what keeps society ''flowing''. Yet the entire issue of Fundamental rights is really a constantly shifting scale that again revolves around the social circumstances.

Take a drastic hypothetical situation where say 2/3's of the population died off because of some disease. The government could enact a statute requiring all females to become inseminated, either naturally or artificially (with or without consent) for the purposes of procreation. What just happened to the fundamental right of consent and the right to give birth? Yes, this is drastic and likely not to happen, yet nevertheless it is possible.

And for those of you who doubt this (not necessarily the specific hypothetical but the fact that the government can infringe on fundamental rights) a basic understanding of constitutional law will easily explain it. Very basically, there are fundamental rights spelled out in the constitution. However, laws may curtail these rights only if that law serves a compelling state purpose, and is narrowly tailored to that compelling purpose. All it would take is for the justices to determine that the possible extinction of the population was compelling enough to supersede the rights of the individual, and that insemination was the least intrusive way to prevent that. (Please don't argue over the fact of how it is or isn't the least intrusive way... that's left up to the court).

All this lengthy discussion to show that this concept of fundamental rights is by no means the infallible stand against the conduct of society because it too can change.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

You make this assumption that because I count one rule as a comparison, this must also imply all other rules count (you just love to screw up your logical comparisons for some reason). I don't hold animals and humans on the same level because it isn't essential for social optima. Otherwise we wouldn't kill them for food.

Without consent, are you going to tell me that "just because the animal seemed to like it, it was okay"? Are you going to take the same logic to the human level? "She was drunk! She was getting into it! She liked it!" Are you saying that just because an animal is an animal, there aren't similarities in their fundamental functionalities to humans that should require the same types of logical and ethical considerations that uphold social optima, e.g. consent?



We maintain certain fundamental rights as our defining points for "right" and "wrong" in our society, and it of course depends entirely on social circumstances. But here you are simply setting up a straw-man argument, as this is not what I am debating about at all. Your entire response there is null, because it's addressing a different point.

But to reply to your concept: Good luck trying to justify that allowing a widespread acceptance and legalization of bestiality is somehow essential to improving our social situation while maintaining the fundamental rights we've developed in our current standing.

[bobeck]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

I'll give you a general principle that is one that addresses basically every point you've tried to raise here: "If all effected parties consent to X with a full understanding of X, X should be allowed, universally"

That seems to make sense but when applied, it rests on shaky ground. On your theory, Should the use of drugs, the practice of incest and polygamy be allowed? (I base these statement's solely on Devonin's general principle). It seems that consent and knowledge are not enough to make something ''right'' or legal.

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)

[MrRubix]

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.

[bobeck]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Without consent, are you going to tell me that "just because the animal seemed to like it, it was okay"? Are you going to take the same logic to the human level? "She was drunk! She was getting into it! She liked it!"

I am quite baffled by this comment. This concept ironically seems to be what you are and have been advocating. You've been saying all along "A human must give explicit consent before sexual intercourse!!!" Likewise, an animal must give explicit consent before there can be sexual intercourse with it! (and your point is that an animal can't give this type of human consent, thus you can not have sexual relations with it). Seems to me that you are the one taking the animal to the human level.

Are you saying that just because an animal is an animal, there aren't similarities in their fundamental functionalities to humans that should require the same types of logical and ethical considerations that uphold social optima, e.g. consent?

Did you happen to miss this phrase ''to the same degree''?

But to reply to your concept: Good luck trying to justify that allowing a widespread acceptance and legalization of bestiality is somehow essential to improving our social situation while maintaining the fundamental rights we've developed in our current standing.

And I'm still trying to figure out how you were logically able to fit this statement in.

[MrRubix]

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.

[qqwref]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Should the use of drugs, the practice of incest and polygamy be allowed? (I base these statement's solely on Devonin's general principle). It seems that consent and knowledge are not enough to make something ''right'' or legal.

Actually I would say that all of these things should be allowed if everyone involved consents and understands the risks. But then, I'm more libertarian than most.

PS: Nice trolling, if that's your aim.

[bobeck]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

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.

Maybe what you fail to understand is that by taking a backwards approach you arrive at the same conclusion. 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.

You bringing up the point of homosexuals again proves that you AGAIN conflate legality and social acceptance.

I don't recall ever bringing up the issue of legality in the post you are referring to. I did use the word "right" but that by no mean's connotes legality. Though for your sake I will explain my understanding of how legality and acceptance do interplay. An act become socially acceptable and deemed ''right'' in the eyes of the majority of the public, yet it is not legalized. Through general publicity, lobbying, land mark court cases and the like, pressure is put on the legislature to enact statues protecting or legalizing said act. Thus you have the transition from acceptance to legalization. That pretty much sums up how homosexuals achieved their current status.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Actually I would say that all of these things should be allowed if everyone involved consents and understands the risks. But then, I'm more libertarian than most.

PS: Nice trolling, if that's your aim.

I am personally not against incest/polygamy/etc either. Again, it doesn't really violate anything at all on a rights level in itself.



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.