Gay-Straight Alliance, and Your Children

[ConservativeX]

Let me ask the pro-homosexual crowd a question: Should people be banned from speaking OR writing in the press OR preaching in their religion that homosexuality is morally wrong?

And should they be banned from voting or political support if they hold that viewpoint?

[rhod01]

Yes! I mean we ban racist statements in public and the media, don't we?

[dotcoma]

Ever heard of the first amendment? A person has a right to express their rascists views. We also have the right to alienate those same people and tell them how we think they are wrong. This is America.

[PatrickHenry]

Originally posted by ConservativeX, Let me ask the pro-homosexual crowd a question: Should people be banned from speaking OR writing in the press OR preaching in their religion that homosexuality is morally wrong? And should they be banned from voting or political support if they hold that viewpoint?

CX, I'm not pro-homosex, but I'd like to express on opinion.

Restricting freedom of speech, press, or religious teaching based on changing views of sexuality would violate certain constitutional "rights" wouldn't it? So in essence society would be saying "we respect this group(gays) so much that we will enhance their rights at the expense of the rights of others(Bible believers)."

On the other hand, inciting hatred or violence would likely be considered at the very least pushing the boundaries of law. Neo-Nazi "skinhead" marches through Jewish neighborhoods are provocations along this line too. Extreme and inflammatory, so arguably intolerable. But simply pointing out that the basis of a group's moral code(the Bible) does not condone homosexual behavior is a far cry from this type of implied or overt threat.

Any who threaten the right to vote are tyrants and must never be tolerated...

[Mia]

Originally posted by Merlov, Yes! I mean we ban racist statements in public and the media, don't we?

In the media, yes, in the public, no.

[Mia]

Conservative,

Now you're using the "pro-life" tactic. Calling those who argue for pro-chice pro-homosexuality.

That is a worthless.

[SVMc]

(Conservative X) BTW, are you going to post a comment to Comrade's reference to beating up Christians or is that allowed?

No, I do not condone Castille’s statement. I have, however, learned that my limits for “civil” discussion are somewhat different than a large number of others on this forum. That being said if you were advocating physical harm to homosexuals I would not even bother replying to you. Similarly when someone advocates harming a group of people regardless of which “side” of the debate they are on I do not usually acknowledge it, unless I really think they are actively going to go out and commit that behavior. I have seen Castille’s post similar inflammatory remarks on a number of forum and believe that Castilles is not a person I am interested in engaging in a debate since I believe there is no way that it could be productive. Likewise if someone were to come on here and say that they beat up homosexuals in their school, I'm sure they may get a rise out of others, I would ignore it unless there were specifics that indicated a person was in real danger. We have a saying on another board that I am on “don’t feed the trolls”.

(SVMc) Basically, I don't see how you have answered any questions. You have stated that you think homosexuality is immoral, but you have not substantiated that in any credible way.

(Conservative X) Again, I don't have to justify my morality by your morality's definitions, do I? I am a Christian; it would be like me asking you to justify your belief that there is no life after death if you are an athiest.

You do not have to justify your morality to anyone. However this is a discussion forum so in the interest of constructive debate I think it would further these discussions if you attempted to explain to me in what way you have come to your moral conclusions. I am aware that it would be futile to explain belief as a substantive point, however I think that sometimes reasons for belief can be articulated. So if your morality is simply based on belief than say that, belief is all that it is. However I know several Christians who do not believe that the Bible speaks against homosexuality, and some who even believe that here are homosexual overtones in the Bible. So I am curious why you believe that homosexuality is immoral.

The question here is what are your moral qualifiers? How did you come by them? Why do you believe in them?

(SVMc) If you think the moral qualifier of harm and consent are irrelevant to this debate, tell us why?

(Conservative X) my point is that I am doing the same thing; my line is just drawn in a different place than yours, and supposedly for that fact alone, my morality should be, what, restricted? Censored? Barred from the political arena?

Okay I’m going to need some clarification on this point. Do you think that “harm” and “consent” are moral positions in and of themselves?

Are we at a point where we are reaching a discussion over the limit of legislating harm?

The reason I’m asking this is because this is what I am hearing so far: you disagree with homosexuality because in your view it causes harm, many have used harm as a marker for the ability to legislate effectively aggregate morality. Therefore if it is a question not of harm or no harm but of how much harm, than that is where the discussion is now moving. Are we agreed on this or do we need more discussion on the previous points?

(SVMc) Do you think that homosexuality cause harm? Why?

(Conservative X) It degrades the social system. In what way? Simple; hetersexuality is the standard I believe in; other sexual lifestyles degrade it.

Okay now it looks like we’re getting somewhere in this discussion. I have never understood this concept how does the existence of an alternative lifestyle degrade the one you have chosen? How can homosexual relationships degrade heterosexual ones? I mean the way I see it, if two people love each other than that’s a lot better than two people hating each other. If my neighbors are gay, it does not impact my straight relationship next door. I also don’t understand in what way does the existence (or more accurately the open existence) of homosexuality degrade the social system?

(Conservative X) Do you think adultery is wrong? That's exactly how I view homosexuality. Wrong sexual behaviour.

This particular question since it brings in a new issue could force us to have to open a new thread. I guess what I need explained is what is now that we have established that we are not talking about levels of physical harm but about “wrong” sexual behaviors. I need to know what denotes a “wrong” sexual behavior in your view. Not that homosexuality is “wrong” or adultery is “wrong” but what makes “wrong” wrong?

Personally I think marriage is wrong, so I’m largely unsure what I would decide on adultery (this however should be discussed in a separate thread).

(SVMc) I'm saying that if you are interested in constructive debate then you owe it to this discussion to present your side beyond "I think homosexuality is immoral". Why do you think so? What is your proof?

(Conservative X) Because homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle; it degrades marriage and is against nature. My morality. That's all I need, right? I mean, before I vote or speak, I don't have to check and see that it follows your morality, right?

To vote or to speak all you need is your own morality (sometimes much less than that), however I thought we were trying to have a constructive debate. One in which we both seek to understand (not necessarily agree) the others persons point of view, if we are going to do that then it helps to understand how and where your morality is based. If we are uninterested in this we can go to the elections in our respective countries and vote according to our morality for whichever candidate is the lesser evil in each election and be satisfied. That’s not me, and I don’t think it’s you otherwise you wouldn’t still be responding to me.

So here again I require clarification. How does homosexuality degrade marriage? How would a homosexual marriage make a heterosexual marriage lesser? Does homosexual love make heterosexual love mean less? Feel less?

I’ve always had difficulty with the concept of “naturalness”, probably because I’m not a Hobbesian. I mean obviously the body was built in such a capacity that we can experience pleasure from either sex, how is that unnatural? If sex is only for procreation, then should women who have passed menopause not be allowed to have sex? What about men with low sperm count? A woman who cannot conceive? In a world where hardly any of us chatting here cannot claim to be “of nature” how can we conceivably base right and wrong according to our proximity to nature?

I don’t agree that homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. I think the statistics on domestic violence would indicate that women entering into a heterosexual relationship are in much more danger than homosexuals.

(Conservative X) I am taking offense that you favor the use of YOUR moral qualifiers based on the criteria that YOU use for your moral qualifiers but you don't accept others morality if it doesn't match yours.

So this goes to the how much harm question? (See above).

(Conservative X) You're saying how the system SHOULD work; I was showing that how it DOES work. if there is a Constitutional Amendment that says homosexuality is outlawed, then that's the law of the land. If there is a Constitutional Amendment that says Christianity is outlawed, then that's the law of the land as well.

This is going to be a very difficult debate for me if we keep it to the nitty-gritty of the American legal system. Mainly because I am not American and have not studied that legal system in depth. Generally yes, I will admit there are several flaws with the American system, this is one of the reasons I could not be paid enough to work out of America (there’s my bias).

Okay in most Western democracies that I am familiar with something cannot be outlawed if it violates a persons or a group of peoples human rights religious, sexual orientation, etc.. or discriminates against people based on something they cannot control, such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc…

So for example in Norway, Sweeden, Canada (some countries where I do know the legislation) we could not outlaw Christianity because that would be a violation of religious freedoms. Norway has and Canada is in the process of delcaring sexual orientation a human right, so both countries have allowed same sex marriage because it is viewed as a discrimination violating human rights to deny the same rights to homosexuals. As far as the blue socks analogy, in the three mentioned above to pass legislation against something we have to prove harm, so we could not outlaw blue socks unless they were demonstrated to cause harm.

Here’s the question: Does it not work like that in the U.S? Can you legislate anything so long as people voted for it? If so please show me proof of this because I find that remarkable for what is classified as an advanced democratic system.

(Conservative X) If you use moral qualifiers to defend or define moral qualifiers, it is by definition circular reasoning.

So, saying that homosexuality is immoral because it is wrong sexual behaviour and wrong sexual behaviour is assumed to be immoral is then a good example of circular reasoning.

The difference is that I am not saying that homosexuality is moral because it is correct sexual behaviour and correct sexual behaviour is moral, that would be circular reasoning. In the judicial systems I am aware of the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that harm has been caused.

How much harm is up for debate, that is the legal question, not deciding if harm is a correct method for determinig if something should be restricted. We have decided that protection against certain levels of harm is what a state is useful for.

(Conservative X) Let me ask you this; if a Constitutional amendment passes defining marriage as just between a man and a woman, it is because there is majority support in the nation. Would you support such an amendment if it passes?

I guess I am aware that no such procedure is in place to pass legislation that discriminates against people on what have been deemed to be human and civil rights or freedoms in the countries systems that I am familiar with. If there are procedures in place to pass such legislations in the United States please present them.

(Conservative X) ALL legislation that outlaws behavior is discriminatory.

There are no absolutes. If we are going to use the word discrimination as a synonym for limiting, then the issue in this is not absolute discrimination but discrimination based on what? We have discriminated against violent behavior, however we (countries that I am familiar with again) have limited our ability to discriminate based on human and civil rights. That’s because to do so would not be simply limiting behavior it would be discriminatory.

(Conservative X) And if you are honestly missing it, I don't understand how, since I have stated it many times.

Oh, I'm quite convinced at this point that there is a point that you are trying to make that I am not latching onto.

(Conservative X) It may be radical, but I believe everyone should be able to speak their political voice and vote their conscience, which is based on their individual morality and beliefs whether I agree with them or not. That means Nazis, Black Panthers, all sides of the issues.

Here may be where you are trying to make a point I haven’t followed. In the countries I am familiar with we have what are called hate laws on our books. We also have laws against inciting violence (these pertain to speech in particular). So for instance someone who write a book or gives a speech that advocates hurting a group of people based on a civil or human right that is protected then the author of the book or orator would be arrested. I have heard many libertarians rail against how this is a repression of liberties. So question: if someone was to stand up in front of a mob of angry white men in Alabama and advocate going down the street and burning the local black attended church this is not illegal in the U.S.?

(Conservative X) If the other side wins on a particular issue, I know that I can keep trying to make changes in the system, but I honor the system regardless of my personal morality, something which I don't believe you would do.

From what I’m beginning to understand of the U.S. system, you’re correct I probably wouldn’t honor that system. I don’t believe in obeying unjust laws, and if you have a system where one group of people could pass legislation against another group of people based simply on that then I’m glad I don’t live in the U.S.

(Conservative X) An aggregate of social morality would only be true in a democracy, but you know we are not a democracy.

I know there are no true democracies. And I’ve heard how despite the U.S’s economic success how they are in the least advanced of advanced industrialized democratic nations. However I’m beginning to think I didn’t know the half of how undemocratic the U.S. system is.

(Conservative X) You are saying that it is wrong for me to use MY morality when deciding political action, but you sure have no problem using yours to do the same thing.

Maybe this is why we can’t understand each other on your point. When I hear political action I’m thinking of course you have the right to have your morality when protesting, voting or speaking your mind. But that that moral position is limited to you and you cannot legislate away rights from that group of people because that would be discriminatory. In the nations I am familiar with we cannot pass into law anything that is viewed as discriminating based on civil or human rights. So no only can we not pass legislation against homosexuality, we have to remove any legislation that had been made in the past that is viewed as discriminating against homosexuals. If this is not so in the U.S. then I feel sorrier for anybody living in the U.S. than I already did.

Because your right when we discriminat against our citizens, that's not democracy.

[Clyde]

This is an interesting debate. Ultimately people who do not favour discriminating against homosexuals must believe that 'their' morality is infact superior to those of the opposite view point, though presumeably everyone thinks their own morals are superior to everyone elses, justifying that however seems quite difficult.

But i think we can justify it, to an extent anyhow, by observing that there seems to be fundamental aspects to morality, i do not think there exists a culture that does not have some variant of the "hurting people is bad" 'moral qualifier' this is hardly suprising since our ability to empathise with the suffering of others is grounded in biology.

Because "hurting people is bad" is such a fundamental value, perhaps _the_ fundamental underpinning all human ethics, i think you have to have a pretty good reason for overiding it, and yet that is precisely what the anti-gay brigade lack.

There appear to be different causes behind the various "moral qualifiers", some are cultural artifacts that will not stick around, whilst others are more fundamental to the existence of society - that is after all why ethics exists in the first place, ethics/morals are a system of rules that keep society functioning, that bridge the gap between our nature as individuals and are need to function as a group.

When organ transplants were becoming a possibility, many believed them to moraly wrong, because they were deemed "unnatural", such views have died away, the homosexuality == wrong, is no different in nature to the transplantation == wrong, because it is not rooted in anything, there is no reason that builds upon empathy, thus you cannot justify it from 'ethical 1st principles' it does not harm society so you cannot justify it based upon utilitarian ideals, in short it's based on nothing and harms people, and for that reason it should be resolutely ignored. Furthermore given that homosexuality is NOT a matter of choice, it doesn't even make any sense to attach an ethical slant to it in the first place, surely morality can only be attributed to actions, homosexuality is not an action, it is simply a sexual orientation.