My views on homosexuality

[LuisDantas]

No? :flirt:

No. I was told only us godless heathen kafir atheists were allowed to be amoral people. I guess the joke is on me.

Well, you know,
people create moralities,
and to a certain extent
that can be fine,
but there will never be agreement
as to what the "real/right/correct" moralities are,
because
there really is no such thing.
Just people
and their ideas, opinions and constructs.
people and their preferences and predjudices.

I personally do not understand
why those who realize that god is a construct of man,
do not also realize that morality is a construct of man.

Oh, morality is entirely a construct of man (albeit one that is influenced by some elements of nature and of instinct). I just don't see how that would make one amoral. In fact, I don't see how a non-pathological human being can be amoral either.

Morality is a social construct, and a very necessary, even unavoidable one. Sure, it is a major pain to actually settle in any consensus about moral behavior and values. But all that shows is that there is a challenge and no clear universal reference. The moral aspect of humanity is still very much a reality.

 

[blackout]

Yet you continue to read and respond.

Your contributions make me yawn.

Mine, on the other hand,
I find quite stimulating.




Hint: It's not all about you.
(or what you think)

 

[thebigpicture]

You seem to base all your arguments around there being a natural order or purpose of the universe. There actually isn't one. Our universe, our minds and our bodies, have no purpose beyond what we choose to use them for. Anal sex, which you refuse to name explicitly, is one such purpose. And I maintain it is morally neutral.

If you can't look at the universe and see that there is an order to things, you're blind.

 

[blackout]

No. I was told only us godless heathen kafir atheists were allowed to be amoral people. I guess the joke is on me.





Oh, morality is entirely a construct of man (albeit one that is influenced by some elements of nature and of instinct). I just don't see how that would make one amoral. In fact, I don't see how a non-pathological human being can be amoral either.

Morality is a social construct, and a very necessary, even unavoidable one. Sure, it is a major pain to actually settle in any consensus about moral behavior and values. But all that shows is that there is a challenge and no clear universal reference. The moral aspect of humanity is still very much a reality.

It could just be my background,
but I would not call this "morality".
I would call it ethics.

Ethics to me
says "philisopical question".
Pragmatic decision making,
having to do with equalities and freedoms...

but
"Morality" says to me
"right" and "wrong" in an intrinsically
right and wrong sense.
But there is no basis for this.

People generally propose ethics
and proclaim moralities.

 

[The Wizard]

I'm just pro-choice on almost all accounts in the department. Of course there is another side of the coin but not even a middle ground with most these chaps, such of course is impossible and not logical.Why someone would ridicule that or attack it is beyond me..Perhaps it threatens some indoctronated belief bubbles or something, but displays their position towards mankind and the power of choice and self development through choice and responsibility. One day future advances will wake them up, but in mean time they serve their master handlers well. I've already did all of this and just wanted to offer more reference for more reading to those inclined. Have no wish to jump back in and waste my time on the silent wolf pack of sciencratic obedience... chow.

 

[blackout]

I'm just pro-choice on almost all accounts in the department. Of course there is another side of the coin but not even a middle ground with most these chaps, such of course is impossible and not logical.Why someone would ridicule that or attack it is beyond me..Perhaps it threatens some indoctronated belief bubbles or something, but displays their position towards mankind and the power of choice and self development through choice and responsibility. One day future advances will wake them up, but in mean time they serve their master handlers well. I've already did all of this and just wanted to offer more reference for more reading to those inclined. Have no wish to jump back in and waste my time on the silent wolf pack of sciencratic obedience... chow.

I truly have no idea what that was about, ...or...
what it means.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Morality" says to me
"right" and "wrong" in an intrinsically
right and wrong sense.
But there is no basis for this.

It is more like the basis hasn't been demonstrated - or, more properly, fully understood and realized. In some ways it is like a chess problem or a mathematical puzzle. Rather appropriate, since for the most part morality is a matter of balancing various competing demands to the best possible result.

It is my assertion that there are indeed things that are intrinsically right or wrong (assuming the existence of a society or ecosystem, that is). It just turns out that dogma is not an adequate vehicle to find out about such values. One must turn to personal responsibility and a sincere desire to learn and grow instead.

 

[blackout]

It is more like the basis hasn't been demonstrated - or, more properly, fully understood and realized. In some ways it is like a chess problem or a mathematical puzzle. Rather appropriate, since for the most part morality is a matter of balancing various competing demands to the best possible result.

It is my assertion that there are indeed things that are intrinsically right or wrong (assuming the existence of a society or ecosystem, that is). It just turns out that dogma is not an adequate vehicle to find out about such values. One must turn to personal responsibility and a sincere desire to learn and grow instead.

I see many MANY adjectives,
(better, worse, helpful, fair, intrusive, hypocritical, destructive... etc etc)
but I generally only see "right" and "wrong"
in reference to test questions,
(that must match the doctrine of the 'text book')
and technical manuals.
..... and even then, sometimes.....? :cover:
(there are other, better, and more interesting, creative answers)

 

[blackout]

Yet you continue to read and respond.

I also have Luis here
to help keep me awake. :sleep:




and vital.

 

[thebigpicture]

Morality is a human construct.

As an Amoral person, your comparisons do not impress me.

If people are not ACTUALLY hurting anyone,
leave them alone.
simple.

This is not a moral statement either.
It is a pragmatic one.
It has to do with basic human freedoms.

IMO, the biggest potential problem with incest
is deformed babies.
This would constitute ACTUALLY hurting someone.
I would think that tied tubes and vasectomies
would be necessary.

People are quick to judge others,
but not half as quick
to carefully discern their own choices
and their own deeper motivations.

It would be best
if individuals put all the extra energy they spend
judging other people's relationships,
into improving their own relations.

It's not just deformities that can happen with unborn children. By your reasoning, everybody should be getting their tubes tied and having vasectomies because there is always a chance something could go wrong and that, in turn, would be "hurting someone."

If you're going to say leave people alone, then you should probably stick to it altogether.

Whether you like or not, there has to be boundaries in life. I do have to say one thing, though. It's actually amazing and quite disturbing that some of you actually see nothing wrong with incestuous relationships. Man, oh man! This crazy world.

 

[blackout]

It's not just deformities that can happen with unborn children. By your reasoning, everybody should be getting their tubes tied and having vasectomies because there is always a chance something could go wrong and that, in turn, would be "hurting someone."

If you're going to say leave people alone, then you should probably stick to it altogether.

Whether you like or not, there has to be boundaries in life. I do have to say one thing, though. It's actually amazing and quite disturbing that some of you actually see nothing wrong with incestuous relationships. Man, oh man! This crazy world.

It's just common sense that when the odds of deformity go up notably,
the ones having potential baby making sex
might have enough sense
as to prevent pregnancy?
Certainly incest is not the only example of notably raised deformity odds,
but, it's the one you brought up.
I was just responding.

Who would acutally WANT to bring a deformed baby into the world?
Who would not AT LEAST try to avoid such a pregnancy?

Well, we do agree anyway, that it is a crazy world.

 

[thebigpicture]

Your contributions make me yawn.

Mine, on the other hand,
I find quite stimulating.




Hint: It's not all about you.
(or what you think)

Then shouldn't you be having the conversation with yourself? Sounds like you'd have a lot more fun. You don't need me for this. If there's something on t.v. I don't like, I waste no time in switching the channel. I don't just sit and continue to watch and complain when there are so many other options. So... Psst... a suggestion to you -- switch the channel. Then you won't be bored.

 

[thebigpicture]

I'm just pro-choice on almost all accounts in the department. Of course there is another side of the coin but not even a middle ground with most these chaps, such of course is impossible and not logical.Why someone would ridicule that or attack it is beyond me..Perhaps it threatens some indoctronated belief bubbles or something, but displays their position towards mankind and the power of choice and self development through choice and responsibility. One day future advances will wake them up, but in mean time they serve their master handlers well. I've already did all of this and just wanted to offer more reference for more reading to those inclined. Have no wish to jump back in and waste my time on the silent wolf pack of sciencratic obedience... chow.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I grasped everything you were saying. But if you want to end it here, I understand. I've had to do the same myself on a thread where it seemed pointless to go on. If I do get the time, I might check out that other thread you spoke of about homosexuality/evolution.

 

[blackout]

Then shouldn't you be having the conversation with yourself? Sounds like you'd have a lot more fun. You don't need me for this. If there's something on t.v. I don't like, I waste no time in switching the channel. I don't just sit and continue to watch and complain when there are so many other options. So... Psst... a suggestion to you -- switch the channel. Then you won't be bored.

I often do have conversations with mySelf on this board.
apparently.
Though not tonight it seems.


.... are you trying to get rid of me? I wonder?
consider though, you don't own the channel,
and have no domain over the programming.

 

[blackout]

Sex of the baby making sort,
(ie. heterosexual)
is the most potentially harmful kind of sex.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[parts]

I taught my duaghter that homosexuality is a fact of life. I've had many gay
friends most of whom told me variations of this; "How would you like to go through
life hiding who you are?"
I'm now in my 50's and when I was a kid you would have had you #$^ beat if anyone even
called you gay, let alone knew it for sure.
It is NOT a choice for anyone I've met. In many cases they saw it as a curse. Would YOU live
life that way on purpose? Prob not, nor would I.

 

[thebigpicture]

It's just common sense that when the odds of deformity go up notably,
the ones having potential baby making sex
might have enough sense
as to prevent pregnancy?

But that's not how people always look at it. You would think that a couple who continues to have miscarriages would stop trying because of all the emotional turmoil the miscarriages bring. But some couples still continue trying, even putting the woman's own health at risk sometimes.

Certainly incest is not the only example of notably raised deformity odds,
but, it's the one you brought up.
I was just responding.

And I responded to your response by stating that deformity is not the only thing that can go wrong with a baby. There are a number of things that could go wrong surrounding pregnancy altogether. Things that can hurt not only the baby, but everyone else involved as well. Someone is still getting hurt whether it's deformity or not. So it would be like telling everyone to get their tubes tied or have a vasectomy because someone could still get hurt by something else that could go wrong other than deformity.

Leaving everyone to do whatever they want has the potential in and of itself of hurting others. What could start out as harmless can become harmful rapidly. There has to be boundaries.

Who would acutally WANT to bring a deformed baby into the world?
Who would not AT LEAST try to avoid such a pregnancy?

I never said that people should want to bring a deformed baby into the world.

Well, we do agree anyway, that it is a crazy world.

And only getting crazier.

 

[thebigpicture]

no. YOU say they are both immoral behaviors.

I say it because they are.

You form your relational boundaries,
and then be gracious enough
to let others do the same.
(for themSelves)

I'm not stopping them from setting their own boundaries. I'm disagreeing with their boundaries.

Come on now. There is nothing whatsoever immoral in homosexual behavior.

Oh, but there is.

 

[thebigpicture]

I often do have conversations with mySelf on this board.
apparently.
Though not tonight it seems.


.... are you trying to get rid of me? I wonder?
consider though, you don't own the channel,
and have no domain over the programming.

(Laughs) True. I don't. Just suggesting you might want to take a look at a different lineup, is all.

 

[blackout]

But that's not how people always look at it. You would think that a couple who continues to have miscarriages would stop trying because of all the emotional turmoil the miscarriages bring. But some couples still continue trying, even putting the woman's own health at risk sometimes.

Deformity and miscarriage are not the same thing,
however,
since you bring it up,
miscarriage is natural abortion,
so someone with high odds of miscarriage
that continues purposefully to keep getting pregnant,
is ... encouraging the odds of more natural abortions.

You're the morality guy.
I'm guessing you have no moral issues with this,
though natural abortion and medical abortion
do end in the same results.

I'm doubting also that the health of the woman
plays into your morality spectrum either.
But you can correct me if I'm wrong.

And I responded to your response by stating that deformity is not the only thing that can go wrong with a baby. There are a number of things that could go wrong surrounding pregnancy altogether. Things that can hurt not only the baby, but everyone else involved as well. Someone is still getting hurt whether it's deformity or not. So it would be like telling everyone to get their tubes tied or have a vasectomy because someone could still get hurt by something else that could go wrong other than deformity.

I was referring to notably high odds of deformity.
(as in incest)

Your chances of death after birth are 100%...
and everyone winds up hurt in life.
It is inevitable.
But certain things raise the odds of certain kinds of hurts.
It is up to every individual to guage the odds of their own hurts,
and their own casualties,
and play their own odds,
against their own weak hands,
in hopes of their own win.
It's just not necessary to drag children into the middle of your high risk gambles.

Leaving everyone to do whatever they want has the potential in and of itself of hurting others. What could start out as harmless can become harmful rapidly. There has to be boundaries.

Start setting your hand picked boundaries
on individuals who are not hurting anyone,
who are just living their lives,
and don't be too suprised
when you don't like the boundries
others set on you.

Live and let live,
(ie. live your life and leave the other guy alone)
in the end, tends to work out best for everyone.
(except of course the control freaks)