Is it wrong to be gay?

[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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''?

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

*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]

Originally Posted by bobeck

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]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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.

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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]

Originally Posted by qqwref

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.

[bobeck]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

*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.

But one question then. If your accusing me of applying all areas of humans to all area's of animals, how come you get to pick and choose which element's apply and which one's don't?

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.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by bobeck

But one question then. If your accusing me of applying all areas of humans to all area's of animals, how come you get to pick and choose which element's apply and which one's don't?

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.

Because our entire system is BUILT on "picking and choosing" to certain extents. It's why we can't kill other humans. It's why we can kill animals "humanely." It's why nobody gives a damn if we kill a fly. It doesn't make sense to say one solution now applies to all other problems. A solution (or precedent, if you will), however, applies when the inputs to the problem cross into the same problematic questionings of the underlying rights, SUCH AS, SURPRISE SURPRISE, CONSENT.

And I'm not the one misunderstanding -- you've just got a very dim understanding of rights and ethics.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

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

Don't let it get to your head... I, for example, still disagree with you on several other issues.

[MrRubix]

What are these "several other issues" you disagree with?

[devonin]

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.

You're taking my ought and assuming I said Is. Is =/= ought.

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.

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.

Not all issues are what are called "issues of threshold" (IE, once you get to a certain point, everything above it is treated equally) some are "issues of degree" where the comparative difference between them is relevant as well.

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)

[MrRubix]

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.

[devonin]

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.

Unless you weren't an idiot, and, as an example off the top of my head, got your consent with witnesses notarized by a lawyer in a court of law ahead of time.

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"

[MrRubix]

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?

[krunkykai22]

Originally Posted by MrGiggles

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

Sorry for late reply. You're right. I agree with you on this. We all have the freedom of speech, freedom of religion so on and so forth. But, if I am not mistaken, I distinctly remember our current president making a speech of some sort that included the freedom of speech bill in there. His words, more or less were as such " We have freedom of speech as long as it does not harm or offend anyone." Which brings me back to Marcus' posts about having a stable system. Sure people can tell you it is wrong, but are they right? Is there a law justifying gay is wrong? The only law I know of is gay marriage. ( In some states ) Other than that, there is not any law forbidding homosexuality.

[mhss1992]

Originally Posted by MrRubix

What are these "several other issues" you disagree with?

Do you remember the Metaphysics thread?

[Izzy]

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.

[MrRubix]

Originally Posted by mhss1992

Do you remember the Metaphysics thread?

Honestly, you were totally crushed in that debate. Every argument you threw at me was completely torn apart, and you ignored half of the evidence/arguments that contradicted your claims. Your only retaliation was to spin it towards extraordinarily strange thought experiments, only to get dominated there as a result of a lack of understanding for how the human brain actually works. In the end, when the entire argument clearly destroyed your position, all you were able to say is "Well I don't care, I still believe in God."

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.

Originally Posted by Izzy

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.

Izzy: Actually he would make for a very bad lawyer. Pure fluff and misunderstanding will get pissed on hardcore in the face of a more robust argument.

[Izzy]

Yea, but people are idiots. Just being a persistent douche is bound to convince sound unintelligent jury members.

[TheSaxRunner05]

Originally Posted by Dr Tran

im more or less thinking about the children. if children are taught that being gay is ok and that it can be a choice instead of something you're born with like a mental disorder then some years from now there will be fewer children going to school in the future because not as many couples would be having children do to some couples being the same sex. eventually teachers will be laid off due to lack of students and our workforce will slowly start to wither away.


i have gay friends so i am not homophobic by any means

I do no believe there is any lack of population growth in the USA. http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/census/popchart.phtml
We are still having more people born than pass away in the country, with a steady increase for over a hundred years. If anything, homosexuality could be population control. It would be easier to get a job if there were less people. The number of fewer babies would be marginal so it is not as if the economy would collapse (1-3% of men admit to being gay (various online sources)).

I do not consider homosexuality as some kind of mental disorder that people are simply born with. For example, the kind of girl I am attracted to is based a lot on my own personality and other traits. I would be uncomfortable around large or very athletic women, because I am neither a very large person or very athletic myself. I like girls who are easy going and at least a little nerdy, like myself. While I do not find men attractive, I can see how other people, male or female, can see the same gender as attractive.

One definate example I can give is my sister. She went through high school having a few boyfriends, but had never thought about dating a another girl before she went to college. Once she met a certain person, she fell in love, at that was it. She had been at one point attracted to men, but that does not matter to her anymore; she found what she was looking for.

Maybe all that has to be said to children can be along the lines of "Sometimes Men like men, and sometimes women like women." Some boys may be born with traits which lead them to be attracted to men, and some people you swear would be gay are perfectly straight. It would be inaccurate to say All gays are born gay, like people being born with some kind of mental condition. It's ok to say being gay is ok.

[MrRubix]

Nobody's denying that some people choose to be gay at some point in their lives after having been straight. It's just that some people are born with the natural inclination to find the same sex attractive, and never had "straight" preferences, even from a very, very early age.

Nobody will deny, either, that there may be environmental influences -- but there is ample proof showing that there are certainly physical "hardware-level" differences in the brain that have a significant impact on which sex we find attractive.

In other words, much like any other preference, homosexuality is a preference with many possible contributing roots/variables. At the end of the day, we have to simply accept that people like what they like.