Why do humans use oppression(Homosexual marrage)?

[Biochemist]

Hmmm. taking the contrarian position:

I had no intention of using the word 'good' without a notion of ethics. I might specify 'good' in the sense that the parents don't care more about themselves than about their child, when making choices for the child or concerning how they treat the child. I would ask you not to suppose things about my opinions that I haven't said.

I am still trying to make this make sense. I suggested that your definition of "good" (or mine) is essentially random, so there is no objective "good" without an external reference. In your text above, I could contend that parents taking care of their children first is "bad". It would select for weak children. How do we decide which is "good"?

There's a difference between allowing sex between teenagers, or even between ten year olds, and allowing an adult to seduce a child, or even a teenager.

Why is it different? If I contend that any independent 6 year old can make his/her own decisions and that making decisions is "good" for him/her, why would we contend that they can't make sexual decisions?

It is always hard to draw lines at a number of years, this problem can't be done away with, but it is clearly necessary to prevent adults from damaging children

What about preventing children from damaging adults by precluding fulfillment of "natural" desires?

your comparison between the freedom to be gay and the freedom to be pedophilic was inappropriate

Only by your personal standard. There is no objective reason we should accept homosexuality (because it is a "natural" tendency) and reject pedophilia. I suggest that the current common bias against pedophilia is similar to the bias against gay behavior in the first half of the 20th century.

I also disagree with you considering homosexuality as an immoral choice although a natural tendency. A homosexual does not choose to be attracted by someone of the same sex ond not by someone of the opposite sex.

I did not choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. But I happen to think that some behaviors that are a "natural" consequence of that attraction are not appropriate. What is the difference?

... you don't choose whether or not to be homosexual.

But you do choose to comply with the natural tendency.

[Queso]

i think sometimes sexual drive is hard to choose. and you just do things.

[Qfwfq]

I suggested that your definition of "good" (or mine) is essentially random, so there is no objective "good" without an external reference.

You suggested it, that doesn't mean that it is.

 

I could contend that parents taking care of their children first is "bad". It would select for weak children.

I did not mean "taking care of them first" I meant taking care of themselves rather than of their children. It is totally different. In order to select strong children, should babies be abandoned?

 

If I contend that any independent 6 year old can make his/her own decisions and that making decisions is "good" for him/her, why would we contend that they can't make sexual decisions?

If you could bring a child up to be fully responsible at the age of six, all the better. Some recent generations have come up with a lot less maturity compared to past ones, not more, this is to blame on parents, teachers and the media crap the kids were subject to. The first thing a child of six would have to understand about sex is that they are not yet able to understand sex. Unless their abnormal maturity is just as full physiologically as it is psychologically.

 

Not that an 18 year old can have as much experience as a 40 year old, but how could a 6 year old be fully responsible and aware of not understanding sex?

 

What about preventing children from damaging adults by precluding fulfillment of "natural" desires?

All right, let's throw kids in jail if they say no to a pedophile. Let's throw anyone in jail, if they don't spread there thighs to whoever they have aroused, or happens to be needin' a ride when they were around. Why the hell should women complain about being raped? Are you going to say they should just shut up and pull their skirt up?

 

To say such things would be very irritating to anyone who has been raped.

 

Only by your personal standard. There is no objective reason we should accept homosexuality (because it is a "natural" tendency) and reject pedophilia. I suggest that the current common bias against pedophilia is similar to the bias against gay behavior in the first half of the 20th century.

Perhaps your personal standard is different because you weren't molested. Do you know what problems a person can have because of molestation as a child?

 

Please avoid such discussions about whether or not a child can be damaged by molestation, your points based on it are simply a lack of understanding and they can be very irritating for anyone who has such problems. A child's consent isn't an adult's consent and children need much more protection as well as guidance.

 

I did not choose to be attracted to people of the opposite sex. But I happen to think that some behaviors that are a "natural" consequence of that attraction are not appropriate. What is the difference?

You are free to choose to consider some things inappropriate, as long as you choose for yourself. The only bans I can understand are those for protecting would be victims, this has nothing to do with banning homosexuality.

 

But you do choose to comply with the natural tendency.

Compliance or non compliance is a choice. The latter is a very forceful choice. So are chastity and celibacy. Should there be a law dictating chastity for some people? Anti-homo law isn't all that different from that.

[Fishteacher73]

Why is it different? If I contend that any independent 6 year old can make his/her own decisions and that making decisions is "good" for him/her, why would we contend that they can't make sexual decisions?

It is well described that the maturation and development of mental abilitis continues well into early adulthood. Just as one would not assume that a 6 y.o.'s motor skills are not at peak form, neither would their mental abilities.

 

 

Quote:

... you don't choose whether or not to be homosexual.

But you do choose to comply with the natural tendency.

To be devil's advocate (;) ) could you be celibate? What if it were wrong to have sex with redheads? Maybe short people... A PAGAN!!!!??? (I don't know about the morality of pagan sex [in a chistian framwork] maybe its ok only if they are dead? "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Exodus 22:18. Yet I think it also says something about not killing (I could be wrong).

 

Just like many things in religious texts, there are contradictions. Individual passages that serve the pupose are usually used and not interpreted as a whole. It is also an exilable offense to have sex with a female durring her period...

[Biochemist]

You suggested it, that doesn't mean that it is.

Q- I am not trying to be combative on this. I don't think you identified where your definition of "good" came from, except that is is your opinion. Your opinion is certainly as valid as mine (or anyone else's). But it is still is still arbitrary.

I did not mean "taking care of them first" I meant taking care of themselves rather than of their children. It is totally different. In order to select strong children, should babies be abandoned?

Q-you are debating the random positions I took, instead of discussion the notion that any "good" position is an opinion in the absence of an external standard

To say such things would be very irritating to anyone who has been raped....Perhaps your personal standard is different because you weren't molested. Do you know what problems a person can have because of molestation as a child?

All valid personal views. But the issue is that any personal view can be considered "good" by the individual holding that view.

You are free to choose to consider some things inappropriate, as long as you choose for yourself.

So, you are saying that your personal view is that it is "good" not to impose your opinions on others. Some people believe that it is good to do the reverse.

The only bans I can understand are those for protecting would be victims, this has nothing to do with banning homosexuality.

It depends on who I might identify as a victim.

[Biochemist]

It is well described that the maturation and development of mental abilitis continues well into early adulthood. Just as one would not assume that a 6 y.o.'s motor skills are not at peak form, neither would their mental abilities.

Sure. In fact, there is pretty strong evidence that people's decisionmaking skills improve until well past 40. When are they mature enough? Why not contend 6 is mature enough? 18 or 21 are arbitrary.

To be devil's advocate (;) ) could you be celibate? What if it were wrong to have sex with redheads?

I think you are making my point for me. Any assignment of "good" behavior is arbitrary in the absence of an external standard.

[BEAKER]

children need much more protection as well as guidance.

Who will guide them? The very ones from whom we are trying to protect them? Those with distorted views of what human sexuality should be? Who should decide what human sexuality should be? Should we make no decision and have no standard whatsoever? And if we have any standard at all, somebody will be offended. Should we care more about those offended than we do about the children (who are so confused about it all because we have neglected to give them a proper standard in this area, because we ourselves are confused)? If all sexuality is "good", why should we care about those molested? It was only somebody elses deffinition of "good".

[Queso]

heh, you're right. somebodies ALWAYS offended no matter what! ;)

[Fishteacher73]

.I think you are making my point for me. Any assignment of "good" behavior is arbitrary in the absence of an external standard.

 

Yes and no... "Good" can only be defined by an external definition. Yet to arbitrarily decide that x is the standard, with baggage that is only theological, is reasonably arbitrary as well.(My point mingled w/ yours). On top of that to base morality on a tome that's only consistency is contradiction seems a bit unfounded.

[Biochemist]

Yes and no... "Good" can only be defined by an external definition. Yet to arbitrarily decide that x is the standard, with baggage that is only theological, is reasonably arbitrary as well.(My point mingled w/ yours). On top of that to base morality on a tome that's only consistency is contradiction seems a bit unfounded.

I did not intend to wander into a defense of the Bible (this sure seems like the wrong forum for that). I merely intended to identify that morality requires an external definition. It sounds like we agree on that point.

[Fishteacher73]

I did not intend to wander into a defense of the Bible (this sure seems like the wrong forum for that). I merely intended to identify that morality requires an external definition. It sounds like we agree on that point.

 

 

Sorry, I did not mean to be bible-burning either. This is one topic that does irk me and I tend to get a but pissy about the subject.

 

Perhaps external by meaning a independent source. There are some semantic issues between morality/ethics. Perhaps it is a bit difficult for me to sepparate these because my morality is based on a logical system (Meaning derrived through logic, not that other systems are illogical) which is what a ethical system is. So it is a tricky for me to split the two in my head.

[ledbassest]

sanctus has writen to me:

My answer would be a bit out of topic now, after reading the thread.

Switzerland is a confederation that means a country made of many small federations called cantons (just like the states but much smaller). Such laws can vary from canton to canton, I know that in the one I live (Geneva) the PACs just passed, it is just like marriage but without right to adoption (but I'm not sure about this).

Generally there is no homophobia over here, but in Switzerland we are known for not caring,i.e there are many world stars that live here for this reason(my girlfriend saw tina turner shopping at zurich without bodyguards neither a crowd of fans around her).

 

A part from that I've been once at a gay pride (there are quite a few) and it is something everybody has to do once I believe (unless you feel not loved, as there is no woman that looks at you and you remark it!).

i thank you all for the discussion please keep it up. maybe this forum can change some peoples mind. also anyone else who can provide info on different areas and their rulings on the matter would be much appreciated

[Qfwfq]

Bio, let's try to get it straight, because neither do I want to get into a pointless argument. If you don't want to, be reasonable.

 

I did say what I meant by a "good parent" and you misread it. Is a good parent one that damages their child for their own advantage? Unfortunately there are many bad parents around, too many.

 

Arbitrary doesn't mean random, not in my lingo. If your lingo is arbitrary or even random, discussion becomes pointless.

 

Q-you are debating the random positions I took, instead of discussion the notion that any "good" position is an opinion in the absence of an external standard

I've no intention of discussing the meaning of 'good' here. You are welcome to consider homosexuality bad, but don't compare it with pedophilia:

 

All valid personal views. But the issue is that any personal view can be considered "good" by the individual holding that view.

Try discussing it with a rape victim. She might so welcome you to considering this arbitrarity, as to tear your eyes out. I wouldn't recomend you telling her she is no more a victim than an adult consenting gay partner. Much the same goes for those who've been molested as children.

 

So, you are saying that your personal view is that it is "good" not to impose your opinions on others. Some people believe that it is good to do the reverse.

The latter view is among the things that many westerners, including many Christian ones, have been saying the past few years, to the purpose of accusing Moslem countries of being backward, undemocratic, barbaric, medieval and the likes. How much difference is there, under these aspects, between some Moslems and some Christians?

 

It depends on who I might identify as a victim.

Rape victims and molested children. It's as simple as that.

 

Who will guide them? The very ones from whom we are trying to protect them?

Obviously not. That wasn't the point of discussion. Bio brought in pedophilia, not me.

 

Those with distorted views of what human sexuality should be?

Just in case it's what you're getting at, homosexuals that adopt children should no more guide the kids to be homo themselves than hetero parents should oblige them to be straight. I do believe that far fewer homos would do so than heteros normally do.

 

Who should decide what human sexuality should be?

Quite the point of this thread.

 

If all sexuality is "good", why should we care about those molested? It was only somebody elses deffinition of "good".

Don't get confused by Bio, I haven't said that all sexuality is good, I contradicted Bio's extrapolation in this sense.

 

All sexuality between consenting people, who are able to understand what they are doing, is their own business. Ooohps!!!! I meant, ahem, my opinion is that...

[BEAKER]

Just in case it's what you're getting at, homosexuals that adopt children should no more guide the kids to be homo themselves than hetero parents should oblige them to be straight. I do believe that far fewer homos would do so than heteros normally do.

I totally dissagree. In the first place, Homosexuals who (God forbid), adopted children, would be living a lifestyle in the face of the children everyday, that they might never come in contact with had they been adopted by a heterosexual couple. They could not avoid influencing those children in that direction because they themselves see it as acceptable. You have implied a negative conotation abut the influence toward a "straight" lifestyle by heteros. was that your intention?

[Fishteacher73]

EVERY homosexual that I know (and that is a reasonable number) has attempeted suicied at least once because of the atmosphere of peer/family/school life. This is even those that have halfway reasonable families. To say that the current heterosexual-superior culture is not detrimental to those that have alternate lifestyles is a massive understatement.

 

As well as those promoting a pro-homosexual climate, I think that is a bit absurd to assume that they would turn their family into a "fairy farm". Lets not have Muslims adopt children because thay will become terrorists. Most gays would prefer not to be. It's not easy being ridiculed and marginalized by society. Most studies seem to point to a biological basis for homosexuality, not an environmental.

[Qfwfq]

I totally dissagree. In the first place, Homosexuals who (God forbid), adopted children, would be living a lifestyle in the face of the children everyday, that they might never come in contact with had they been adopted by a heterosexual couple.

What lifestyle?

 

They could not avoid influencing those children in that direction because they themselves see it as acceptable.

I see that direction as acceptable, but that doesn't mean I would influence my, or any, kids toward it, all the less would I be unable to avoid it. Even if I were gay, I wouldn't, and I would be able to avoid it. Do you have a more logical argument to support this inevitability?

 

You have implied a negative conotation abut the influence toward a "straight" lifestyle by heteros. was that your intention?

Slightly, yes. It was my intention to be provocative. I have known of parents that kicked their teenaged sons or daughters out of the house and refused to see them ever again, for no other reason that these had decided not to hide their homosexuality.

 

Is that right, according to your ethics?

[Biochemist]

I've no intention of discussing the meaning of 'good' here. You are welcome to consider homosexuality bad, but don't compare it with pedophilia

Q-you have offered nothing but your opinion as to why one might elect to consider gay behavior acceptable, and pedophilia less so. You are welcome to this opinion, and it is the "mainstream" opinion in the US today. But it is hard to contend that it is not arbitrary.

Don't get confused by Bio, I haven't said that all sexuality is good, I contradicted Bio's extrapolation in this sense.

That is the reason your delinieation is arbitrary. You have selected a subset of behaviors that you think are acceptable, and ruled out the rest. In that sense, you are no different that a puritanical conservative (at one end of the spectrum) or a hedonist (at the other end). Those folks just select different behavior subsets subsets than you.