(01-01-2009 05:56 PM)West Is the Best Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 09:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 09:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 08:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  BTW, in case you didn't know, AIDS is not only a gay disease but is a common problem throughout the world in hetero populations as well.

You may want to think about your numbers. Homosexual men in this country make up just a small percentage of the population yet they have 50% of the infections. I'll go out on a limb and assume you feel "male-to-male contact" is gay. BTW... This is from the CDC website, not Fox News.

It may be more common in gays here but I said throughout the world. Your point thatwere quick with the graphs. You keep those on hand to prove your point that gays are bad, immoral and disgusting people don't you? You have them saved on your computer for such cases.

Immoral? Without question - yes!

But note we are tought to love the sinner and hate the sin.

Please tell me why it is immoral(no Biblical quotes please).

I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

(01-01-2009 06:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 05:56 PM)West Is the Best Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 09:40 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 09:23 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-31-2008 08:49 PM)RobertN Wrote:  BTW, in case you didn't know, AIDS is not only a gay disease but is a common problem throughout the world in hetero populations as well.

You may want to think about your numbers. Homosexual men in this country make up just a small percentage of the population yet they have 50% of the infections. I'll go out on a limb and assume you feel "male-to-male contact" is gay. BTW... This is from the CDC website, not Fox News.

It may be more common in gays here but I said throughout the world. Your point thatwere quick with the graphs. You keep those on hand to prove your point that gays are bad, immoral and disgusting people don't you? You have them saved on your computer for such cases.

Immoral? Without question - yes!

But note we are tought to love the sinner and hate the sin.

Please tell me why it is immoral(no Biblical quotes please).

Morality is a norm set by the "current" society...which is totally arbitrary. depending on a time frame and the extent that others wish to control the lives of others..I hate to be annoying..but..Slavery was not considered immoral for the majority of mans existence on this blue planet...yet...by any standard of rational thinking...Slavery is immoral.

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Morality is a norm set by the "current" society...which is totally arbitrary. depending on a time frame and the extent that others wish to control the lives of others..I hate to be annoying..but..Slavery was not considered immoral for the majority of mans existence on this blue planet...yet...by any standard of rational thinking...Slavery is immoral.

You're confusing your terms. Behavior is a norm set by the "current" society, not morality. Morality be definition doesn't change. It's an absolute and a constant. If it's not, there's no such thing as morality.

You say by any standard of rational thinking. What thinking is that? What determines the standard? By your words you're assuming an absolute. So what is it?

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

Ok, but why is it wrong? What reason do you give for that-other than you find it wrong?

(01-01-2009 06:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

Ok, but why is it wrong? What reason do you give for that-other than you find it wrong?

Because they can't perpetuate themselves and that makes gaydom unnatural if not outright freakish. Just about all life requires a male and a female to keep the species alive. If there was a Garden of Eden what would have happened if Adam was gay? And another thing, when a teenager starts having his hormones kick in it's because he's at the prime age to procreate, his genes are telling him to keep the species going another generation. For a gay guy all those hormones do is provide a salty protein snack for his partner.

And if none of this matters to you then a family with only one son in it might be worried about losing their bloodline if that son was gay.

I find it wrong. What do you want me to tell you Robert? Apparently you find two men blowing each other acceptable behaviour. Why? Is there a reason? Maybe you find what they do in private none of your business. I feel the same. I don't care, but I still find it wrong.

(01-01-2009 07:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

Ok, but why is it wrong? What reason do you give for that-other than you find it wrong?

Because they can't perpetuate themselves and that makes gaydom unnatural if not outright freakish. Just about all life requires a male and a female to keep the species alive. If there was a Garden of Eden what would have happened if Adam was gay? And another thing, when a teenager starts having his hormones kick in it's because he's at the prime age to procreate, his genes are telling him to keep the species going another generation. For a gay guy all those hormones do is provide a salty protein snack for his partner.

And if none of this matters to you then a family with only one son in it might be worried about losing their bloodline if that son was gay.

So because they can't have kids makes it immoral? I can understand why it would be upsetting to a non-gay parent if they found out their son or daughter were gay and the family bloodline would not continue. But what part of it makes it immoral? Those are just your opinions but don't tell me why it is immoral.

Robert,

I'm actually backing you on this one. In return, I would hope that we can have intelligent discussion instead of name-calling on the issues where we disagree.

(01-01-2009 07:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  But what part of it makes it immoral? Those are just your opinions but don't tell me why it is immoral.

You're being like my son who endlessly asks "why" after I answer his questions.

And would you not agree that morality is influenced by the collective opinions of the majority? With that said my opinion, along with the opinions of millions of others, is what makes it immoral.

(01-01-2009 07:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So because they can't have kids makes it immoral? I can understand why it would be upsetting to a non-gay parent if they found out their son or daughter were gay and the family bloodline would not continue. But what part of it makes it immoral? Those are just your opinions but don't tell me why it is immoral.

To argue moral vs. immoral there has to be foundational standard from which one starts. Without a standard, the discussion is pointless.

Not to speak for PaulM, but his standard seems to be grounded in nature. Meaning that nature ordains that two species of opposite sex are, in nearly every instance, required for procreation. And that the purpose of species are to procreate and multiply themselves. Every mammal has this instinct. So, if that's your standard, then one could ask do you have any problem with terminating the mentally disabled. Because nature also teaches us survival of the fittest. There is a clear hierarchy in nature, only the strong survive. So if nature is where you look for your standard, then survival of the fittest would, logically, be a natural offshoot of that view.

You can't argue morality is dicated by the whims of society on the whole, primarily because societies idea of right and wrong is constantly shifting. The very idea of a moral standard means it's not something that shifts from society to society, but that it's always constant, acting as a foundational starting point for right and wrong. If the view of the majority is the standard for morality, then you can't really say it was wrong for people to have slaves centuries ago because the majority of society had no issue with it. You then have to say it only became immoral once the majority had an issue with it. Such a viewpoint makes the idea of moral and immoral an untenable position to hold. There's no such thing. There is only the view of the majority that governs behavior until the majority changes it's mind.

To debate moral vs. immoral there must be an absolute standard by which to judge it. The mere fact that it's absolute rules "society" out as being able to establish it because societies view are constantly in flux. So there has to be a moral law of some kind, and if there is a moral law, there has to be a moral law giver. There's no way around that.

(01-01-2009 11:06 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 07:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So because they can't have kids makes it immoral? I can understand why it would be upsetting to a non-gay parent if they found out their son or daughter were gay and the family bloodline would not continue. But what part of it makes it immoral? Those are just your opinions but don't tell me why it is immoral.

To argue moral vs. immoral there has to be foundational standard from which one starts. Without a standard, the discussion is pointless.

I see it pretty much that way as well ...

And what I mean is this - - each person has Mental Boundaries that we know that we should not to cross or we have Done Wrong. This is "Morality" and that kind of Morality can not be forced or legislated upon human kind.

There is the kind of Morality that Laws are supposed to provide for us and present a Strict Guide as to "How Not to Act" or society will punish you ... and most laws are proper and just in that they Offer People Protections from truly Morally Vapid Individuals.

Sociopaths and Maniacal people still commit heinous crimes and have no regard for the letter of the law when contemplating these crimes ... but the punishment is still there when these kinds of Amoral People are caught.

I believe that most people have a "Moral Compass" and simply know when an Act is Wrong even when it "Feels Good".

If all Morality were easily legislated or forced onto people, we would never have Revolution .... and without it, there would be no 'Us or We' to be moral about.

.

(01-01-2009 06:51 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Morality is a norm set by the "current" society...which is totally arbitrary. depending on a time frame and the extent that others wish to control the lives of others..I hate to be annoying..but..Slavery was not considered immoral for the majority of mans existence on this blue planet...yet...by any standard of rational thinking...Slavery is immoral.

You're confusing your terms. Behavior is a norm set by the "current" society, not morality. Morality be definition doesn't change. It's an absolute and a constant. If it's not, there's no such thing as morality.

You say by any standard of rational thinking. What thinking is that? What determines the standard? By your words you're assuming an absolute. So what is it?

I get your point...but..Isn't there evidence that the morals of collectives shift over time?

(01-02-2009 10:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I get your point...but..Isn't there evidence that the morals of collectives shift over time?

Yes, but shift towards what? Right or wrong?

Slavery didn't just become wrong at the point 51% of the populace thought it was. Forced child labor didn't move from the right side of the spectrum to the wrong side when the majority clued in it wasn't moral.

If society dictates what is moral, then morality is never anything more than something established by the whims of humans. I would argue that's not morality, merely cultural norms. And as such there really is no such thing as right or wrong, merely preference.

But by your previous statement it's clear, I think, that you believe there are moral absolutes. So that begs the questions what establishes those absolutes? It simply can't be society because as you rightly point out, societies "morals" move over time.

(01-02-2009 10:29 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-02-2009 10:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I get your point...but..Isn't there evidence that the morals of collectives shift over time?

Yes, but shift towards what? Right or wrong?

Slavery didn't just become wrong at the point 51% of the populace thought it was. Forced child labor didn't move from the right side of the spectrum to the wrong side when the majority clued in it wasn't moral.

If society dictates what is moral, then morality is never anything more than something established by the whims of humans. I would argue that's not morality, merely cultural norms. And as such there really is no such thing as right or wrong, merely preference.

But by your previous statement it's clear, I think, that you believe there are moral absolutes. So that begs the questions what establishes those absolutes? It simply can't be society because as you rightly point out, societies "morals" move over time.

You are equating behavior which victimizes a participant with homosexuality, which does not. It's not apples to apples.

Be careful, Queerly beloved, homosexuals like coming in the back door.

(01-02-2009 04:02 PM)Artifice Wrote:  You are equating behavior which victimizes a participant with homosexuality, which does not. It's not apples to apples.

So, what kind of...ahem...fruit are they?

(01-01-2009 07:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:57 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2009 06:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm agnostic and find it immoral. You don't have to have religion to know right from wrong. You do have to be a liberal though to get confused between the two.

Ok, but why is it wrong? What reason do you give for that-other than you find it wrong?

Because they can't perpetuate themselves and that makes gaydom unnatural if not outright freakish. Just about all life requires a male and a female to keep the species alive. If there was a Garden of Eden what would have happened if Adam was gay? And another thing, when a teenager starts having his hormones kick in it's because he's at the prime age to procreate, his genes are telling him to keep the species going another generation. For a gay guy all those hormones do is provide a salty protein snack for his partner.

At least one recent study has suggested that families with the (or at least one of the) male "gay" gene are more sucessful at reproducing and passing along their genes to future generations. While the gay male is less likely to reproduce, female relatives are more likely than average to reproduce. It appears as if the gene works the same way in both men & women, increasing the level of attraction to men and that the gay genes are not a detriment to the propogation of the species.

(01-01-2009 11:06 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  To argue moral vs. immoral there has to be foundational standard from which one starts. Without a standard, the discussion is pointless.

I would argue that understanding each other's standard & establishing a common, or at least common enough, ground is the beginning of the discussion.

Quote:You can't argue morality is dicated by the whims of society on the whole, primarily because societies idea of right and wrong is constantly shifting. The very idea of a moral standard means it's not something that shifts from society to society, but that it's always constant, acting as a foundational starting point for right and wrong. If the view of the majority is the standard for morality, then you can't really say it was wrong for people to have slaves centuries ago because the majority of society had no issue with it. You then have to say it only became immoral once the majority had an issue with it. Such a viewpoint makes the idea of moral and immoral an untenable position to hold. There's no such thing. There is only the view of the majority that governs behavior until the majority changes it's mind.

I agree that the whims of society do not determine morality. It's not nearly that tidy. All morals are relative, to different societies, cultures, religions, and times, and ultimately to different individuals.

Slavery did not become immoral because society's views changed. It was always immoral because by my standards slavery is immoral. I do recognize, however, that for much of human history slavery was not considered immoral. This affects how I judge the people involved in slavery. People still involved in the slave trade today, when it is generally recognized as immoral, are worse than those engaged in the practice when it was generally acceptable. It affects the morality of the actors, not the action itself.

Quote:To debate moral vs. immoral there must be an absolute standard by which to judge it. The mere fact that it's absolute rules "society" out as being able to establish it because societies view are constantly in flux. So there has to be a moral law of some kind, and if there is a moral law, there has to be a moral law giver. There's no way around that.

There are no absolute standards, at least none that we humans are aware of. Even if there were a set of absolute standards somewhere, there is absolutely no way to come up with an algorithim to allow these standards to be applied to the real world. It's much too messy.