According to the Bible, gay is not okay.

[seattleite]

You know what - I'm tired of this. Replying to all this is too much for 1 person to handle, and If i have something to say, that will just breed 4 more rebuttals.

 

I will just say to technodoom concering his second quote - I was using that as an EXAMPLE. I never saw god, nor think that all gays are evil and will go to hell. You do not know the dogma of my sect of christianity.

 

So, This is going to get nowhere. I will take my ideas elsewhere. This thread is going to get boring while i'm gone.

[Dr. Cakey]

You know what - I'm tired of this. Replying to all this is too much for 1 person to handle, and If i have something to say, that will just breed 4 more rebuttals.

 

I will just say to technodoom concering his second quote - I was using that as an EXAMPLE. I never saw god, nor think that all gays are evil and will go to hell. You do not know the dogma of my sect of christianity.

 

So, This is going to get nowhere. I will take my ideas elsewhere. This thread is going to get boring while i'm gone.

I'm going to pretend this means that you have been convinced by our arguments. Yay, another victory for the good guys our particular school of thought no better or worse than any other!

[Chaos Pudding]

To the above poster: Stop being so politically correct. If you believe that homosexuals should be treated as equals in all cases, then you believe you have the moral high ground, therefor you believe that you are, in fact, the "good guys".

[seattleite]

I'm going to pretend this means that you have been convinced by our arguments. Yay, another victory for the good guys our particular school of thought no better or worse than any other!

 

No, I still have my own reasons and you haven't changed them.

[TechnoDoomedOne]

So... You still think someone would change oneself's sexuality to another willingly? Well, please, read:

 

 

There are some people that are not straight, but open-minded. Those do not care if they like a man or a woman: that's called bisexuality. Or maybe they are just exploring their sexuality by their own choice. Still, they will not change what gender they did already like. Also, if someone likes girls, and then also likes boys, is not that they switched their mind to also like boys, it is that they never before tried boys out to know if they liked them.

 

Imagine you like pizza. Did you changed yourself willingly when you tasted pizza for 1st time to like it?

Or was it that you liked it but didn't know until you discovered it?

 

 

 

You may still think differently, something as "Gays are just depressed or predisposed by x-reasons to lose interest in girls and then they get attracted to boys, it's just part of a trauma". Am I wrong? Well, then I can answer you this, from various gay people experiencies, including mine:

 

"Maybe some gays were turned into gays by that reason, I do not know, but I can tell you the following: Most gays were not depressed, and then they found out that they liked boys as soon as when puberty started. Some were interested in women before that (I was), and some not, but never in a sexual way, that doesn't happen until puberty, and mostly in a close friend context than anything else."

 

So, most gays just discover their homosexuality, and there are some studies that give a basis on the hypothesis that it is more genetic than anything else. I will not say no to your above statement, because the human mentality is difficult to understand and does things that may seem not normal to us, so who knows, maybe there are gays that turned into gays by those reasons.

But I can tell you most did not. I did not. Most of the people I know did not.

 

 

 

So, you can still think whatever you like, but I asssure you that, in most of the cases, it is not a choice.

[poopybuttoxes]

I dont believe being gay is ok. Its just a way for messed up kids to get attention. Then they eventually grow up without any correct home training and are released into the world like H1N1.

 

But anyway haha, just think of it like this (this is for the people who believe like i do), they're not gonna breed so they die off. So we wont have to worry about them too much. Dont get me wrong. I love all people, no matter what they do, say, where their from, their race, gender or language, but when a man wiggles his penis in excrement it is not ok in my book.

[2sick4u]

To the above poster: Stop being so politically correct. If you believe that homosexuals should be treated as equals in all cases, then you believe you have the moral high ground, therefor you believe that you are, in fact, the "good guys".

 

You're implying morality is objective, and therefore who the 'good guys' are is definitive.

 

When it isn't.

[Dr. Cakey]

To the above poster: Stop being so politically correct. If you believe that homosexuals should be treated as equals in all cases, then you believe you have the moral high ground, therefor you believe that you are, in fact, the "good guys".

Seeing as I did in fact write "good guys", before striking though it, I assumed my actual opinion was clear enough.

 

I dont believe being gay is ok. Its just a way for messed up kids to get attention. Then they eventually grow up without any correct home training and are released into the world like H1N1.

 

But anyway haha, just think of it like this (this is for the people who believe like i do), they're not gonna breed so they die off. So we wont have to worry about them too much. Dont get me wrong. I love all people, no matter what they do, say, where their from, their race, gender or language, but when a man wiggles his penis in excrement it is not ok in my book.

This is stupid and wrong on so many levels that simply my responding to it has dignified it beyond its wildest dreams.

 

I'd say your particular complaint about homosexuality is pretty ironic, looking at your username and all.

 

You're implying morality is objective, and therefore who the 'good guys' are is definitive.

 

When it isn't.

I am in fact of the opinion that there is an absolute morality. I don't know what it is, but it's out there.

[Chaos Pudding]

You're implying morality is objective, and therefore who the 'good guys' are is definitive.

 

When it isn't.

 

Of course morality is subjective. What one person believes is moral and just could be considered immoral and unjust by the next. Hell, that's how almost all wars are started.

[The Dark One]

.I am in fact of the opinion that there is an absolute morality. I don't know what it is, but it's out there.

Prove it.

Of course morality is objective. What one person believes is moral and just could be considered immoral and unjust by the next. Hell, that's how almost all wars are started.

You just described subjectivism. Regardless of whether or not there truly is an objective morality (such a belief usually comes paired with a belief in a god or gods), people's opinions on morality will often conflict. And ultimately the only thing we will ever be able to know is the opinions.

 

However, it doesn't matter what system of morality you have. Our world is based on a social contract between an individual and his peers. At the basis of that contract is the belief that an individual has the right to do anything that he wants to do as long as such an act does not harm others. This is not so much a moral notion as it is a practical one. If you don't infringe on the rights of others, than you can expect not to have your own rights infringed. If, however, you do make it a routine to interject your moral standards upon others, you can expect them to do the same to you. It's actually in the best interest of the individual not to restrict the actions of his peers.

[Tentacruel]

Can any of you prove right now that this is all not just an illusion created by the Matrix? Bad example, I know, but theoretically, you can't prove anything.

[Chaos Pudding]

Prove it.

 

You just described subjectivism. Regardless of whether or not there truly is an objective morality (such a belief usually comes paired with a belief in a god or gods), people's opinions on morality will often conflict. And ultimately the only thing we will ever be able to know is the opinions.

 

However, it doesn't matter what system of morality you have. Our world is based on a social contract between an individual and his peers. At the basis of that contract is the belief that an individual has the right to do anything that he wants to do as long as such an act does not harm others. This is not so much a moral notion as it is a practical one. If you don't infringe on the rights of others, than you can expect not to have your own rights infringed. If, however, you do make it a routine to interject your moral standards upon others, you can expect them to do the same to you. It's actually in the best interest of the individual not to restrict the actions of his peers.

 

I did indeed mean to post "subjective" instead of objective. So yeah...

 

Can any of you prove right now that this is all not just an illusion created by the Matrix? Bad example, I know, but theoretically, you can't prove anything.

 

Your username is really familiar... Aren't you that guy that me and Crab trolled hardcore with one of our banlists a while ago? Or am I confusing you with someone else.

 

And when you get the debate to that point, the debate itself is meaningless. Therefor, your comment is meaningless.

[Dr. Cakey]

Prove it.

I can't. It's the closest thing I have to faith.

[Tentacruel]

Just to let you know where us religious nut-jobs are coming from, they are not necessarily saying that gays should not have the right to get married, yet saying that they cannot because that does not fit the definition of marriage. They are trying to establish the definition of marriage as defined by their religious text.

 

The above statement is neutral, you can argue against it as much as you want, but I would like to wash my hands of this discussion.

[2sick4u]

Of course morality is objective subjective. What one person believes is moral and just could be considered immoral and unjust by the next. Hell, that's how almost all wars are started.

 

I'm aware. Therefore, there are no good guys.

 

Cheers for the introduction into motive for war, though. Totally needed it.

 

Also@ThatGuyWhoSupportsAbsoluteMorality: Absolute morality is impossible. There is level of moral cohesion between humanity, but nothing absolute. In-fact, using the word 'absolute' in any debate is imprudent.

 

 

As for the topic at hand, ethical subjectivism directly defines why gay marriage, despite being necessary for equality, is somewhat incomprehensible. As The Dark One said, the moral objectivity invoked by theistic groups that oppose certain 'unnatural' traits in humans impedes upon an individual's right to sexual liberty. Whilst humanity lacks a hive mind or has a society where interjection into an individuals' morality is existent, I don't see gay marriage happening in any sort of universal manner. But I ask, where is the harm in it? Surely, the purpose of law is to restrict harm. Then, to who does it harm? Religious groups can evidently achieve some level of sympathetic toleration. Religious texts, definition or otherwise, there shouldn't be such legal regulation of personal relationships. The homosexual marriage does not aim to invoke upon the moral perception of others, but merely restore the equality in some. Simply, there is no foundation for marriage to be a strictly heterosexual institution, as well as parenting.

[Chaos Pudding]

I'm aware. Therefore, there are no good guys.

 

Cheers for the introduction into motive for war, though. Totally needed it.

 

No, because morality is subjective, you believe that whoever holds your beliefs is the "good guy". There is no absolute "good guy", only "good guys" in the sense that they follow what you believe to be good morals.

[Dr. Cakey]

Just to let you know where us religious nut-jobs are coming from, they are not necessarily saying that gays should not have the right to get married, yet saying that they cannot because that does not fit the definition of marriage. They are trying to establish the definition of marriage as defined by their religious text.

 

The above statement is neutral, you can argue against it as much as you want, but I would like to wash my hands of this discussion.

*blocks faucet*

 

Correction: it does not fit their definition of marriage. For instance, while any religious group can say that only these entities can marry (that is, two consenting individuals, one male and one female, both aged at least 18 - at least, that's usually what it is), marriage is not solely a religious matter. It is also a social and financial matter with a variety of ramifications. The government can't legislate that churches must marry these people, but it CAN legislate that these people can get a civil union.

 

And while YOU may not be saying that gays should not have the right, most people similar to you ARE.

 

Also@ThatGuyWhoSupportsAbsoluteMorality: Absolute morality is impossible. There is level of moral cohesion between humanity' date=' but nothing absolute. In-fact, using the word 'absolute' in any debate is imprudent.[/quote']

That's why I have to take it on faith.

[2sick4u]

No, because morality is subjective, you believe that whoever holds your beliefs is the "good guy". There is no absolute "good guy", only "good guys" in the sense that they follow what you believe to be good morals.

 

It isn't so much that you can perceive someone as a "good guy" based upon your subjective morality, it's so much so that you cannot claim they are "good guys" as their is no real evidence that they are. I hardly think it's logical to define yourself as the 'good guys' in a Debate, when there's evidently no such thing. Simply because you perceive someone who is synonymous with your beliefs as a good guy, does not make them so.

 

Whilst before I was saying there's no absolution to "good guys", I disagree that you can define whoever believes the same things you do as the "good guys". As 'good', in itself, is generally made to be a universal term.

 

I'm pretty much splitting hairs here. But still.

 

That's why I have to take it on faith.

 

You just keep using words you shouldn't, don't you?