homosexuality and where it stands morally

[emprworm]

ok, a bit more clarification is what i wanted, much better this time. i dont like being accused of supporting the third reich. glad to see you never intended that.

Your thoughts become your words, your words become your habbits, and your habbits become your values. If you preach it, you will practice it.

What you are proposing is "thought police". Guilty before a crime is committed. THis is a dangerous and abhorrent philosophy for anyone to have. You can dislike me for having warped views, but until i actually commit a crime, you have no basis upon which to criminalize me.

Should the KKK be allowed to hold sessions on how to cause a violent death of suffering to black men?

it depends. Is this in their own home? Then the answer is yes. Is this in public? The answer is no. Additionally, there are already laws (at least in the US) that forbid individual threats and harrassment against citizens. A how-to-manual on how to kill a jew is protected by free speech, however, no one would publish such a book. These kinds of books are found on the underground because no store would dare sell such a thing. Repulsive? Yes. Illegal? No. Again, you CANNOT forbid opinions. A book is just some guy's opnion. It is NOT illegal. No one is forcing you to read it. Its a very hazy line you are drawing. Whats next? A how-to-manual on debating Jews? how about a generalized how-to "critique on christian hypocrisy?" YOu have NO LINE to draw once you start a book burning bonfire. Unless you have KKK actually killing people, you have to grant them every right and freedom as any other citizen. INNOCENT until proven guilty. Guilty of what? Thought? Opinion? NO!

Guilty of CRIME!

If you outlaw an anti-jew book, then you will need to outlaw an anti-(fill in the blank) book as well. People can be ANTI in this world. No big deal. You cannot arrest nor should you censor them unless they commit crime.

"Do good. Kill a Jew today.",

this would be forbidden in a newspaper because it is encouraging criminal activity. The statement "Go inject illegal drugs today" would also be forbidden because it is promoting illegal behavior.

HOWEVER!!!!

The statement "homosexuality is a sin" would NOT be forbidden, and SHOULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN. It is not condoning any illegal behavior. You cannot use an example of condoning illegal behavior to support your premise that homosexual criticisms should be forbidden from the public arena. In fact, there are many many publications that are critical of homosexuality (in the US anyway). And none of them promote criminal behavior. You dont like it? Awwwwww.....well i'm so sorry. I guess thats why its good that there are 9000000000 other publications you can read. No one is forcing you to read anything, so suck it in and deal with it.

What if you wrote something worse than mein kamph?

and? what if i did? big deal. u should not be able to arrest me for it. If you read such a thing, what does that say about you?

only if I am forcing people to read it, or following people around screaming it does it break criminal law. Otherwise, its just some stupid homosapic bipedal anthropod's opinion. Surely you are not so weak and fragile, that you cannot withstand the idiotic opinion of some stupid mammalian homosapic bipedal anthropod temporal dependent carbon-based 90% bag of water lifeform....right? Ace, you are better than that! You are stronger than that. Don't let the weak minded of your society dictate and brainwash you with their narrow-minded intolerance. We MUST allow people to have outrageous, insane, disgusting and revolting opinions or freedom has no meaning. In the US, the entire freedom of speech law is NOT geared at protecting majority opinion- they dont need any protection at all. Its to protect MINORITY opinion from the tyrrany of the majority.

An opinion is different from hate. An opinion would be, "I think homosexuality is un-natural." Hate would be "Homosexuals shouldn't have the right to live."

i partially agree. not all opinions are hateful. yet all hate is an opinion. yet you cannot outlaw someone from hating. it is NOT a crime.

IMO, religion has no place in law. Homosexuality, contraception, and un-wedded polygomy should be legal everwhere.

honestly, if 5 guys and 4 women want to have a polygyandry gang-bang marriage, i really dont care. However such an arrangement should NOT be condoned by the state, meaning that marriage benefits normally granted to monogomous couples would not be extended to them.

but acknowledging its existance and teaching people not too beat gays (happened in my own school) can't be all that bad.

you teach kids not to beat ANYONE. You do not single out gays. I believe in teaching kids the LAWS. NOT right and wrong. YOu teach them what the LAW says : "Do not assault another person" And leave it right there!!! Do not start elaborating on the "morality" of homosexuality. You can teach the definition of homosexuality, but NO MORAL ELABORATION

that is unacceptable and not the place of any school to teach right and wrong. Doing so infringes upon other people's beliefs.

but thanks for clarifying yourself, you are not my enemy. i was kind of in a touchy mood anyway, and that just snapped me. not sure why cuz i dont usually get offended in these forums. heated, yes, but very rarely personally offended. i may have jumped the gun a bit, i am human and that happens to me sometimes. nazi'ism is very personal to me, if i had to pick something i really truly hate, that would be it. I literally cannot stand the KKK. They make me sick, yet i know their opinions must be protected. not everyone in the KKK commits violence, even though they are repulsive people. They must be allowed to have their beliefs. the moment they lay a hand on a jew or a black man, however, i say put them in prison or execute them.

[VigilVirus]

I agree with emprworm. If you forbid things for example discriminating jews, then you have to forbid things discriminating muslims for example. I mean you can't say that the jews are "better", because that would be an outright discrimination of the others.

[Anathema]

Those are good points, I admit that, but first:

1- the imam did not make those statements at home, or when hanging out with a selective bunch of people. He made them public and it was his intent to instigate hatred against homosexuals.

2- There is a difference between stating your opinion only for voicing your thoughts and trying to get people to follow you. Limitless freedom of speech can very well result in another Hitler.

My country does not tolerate some guy yelling in the middle of the street that jews are inferior or that gay people are repugnant.

[Caid Ivik]

What discrimination are you talking about? Homosexuality is a mental illness, and why would you hate other mentally ill people, what CAN you have against downs or schizophrenics? Homosexuals are even fully economically productive, so they need no money from state, sorry I'm so rude to those who need. In law they have no exception, they are just like us. Morally is their sexuality abominated, but human can live without it. Love isn't dependent on it.

[Anathema]

Homosexuality is a mental illness

If you'd say that in the Netherlands, almost everybody will tell you to shut up. Are you some kind of psychiatrist? ::)

[Caid Ivik]

Is it natural? No. So it is some kind of deviation. Sexual attraction is based on reproduction, and gays can't reproduct.

Ah, also, what kind of political system reigns in the Netherlands to prevent people from telling their opinions? Just a thought.

[Anathema]

A deviation is different then an illness.

There is no law in the Netherlands that says you can't express your opinion. There is a law that says you cannot instigate hatred against certain racial/religious/whatever groups.

[emprworm]

A deviation is different then an illness

ok, i'll agree with this. so if i said that homosexuals were "deviant", you don't think some people would whine and call that hate? Of course they would.

that is the problem with regulating opinion. It seems sincere at first- you only outlaw the really really extreme guys. "We will outlaw only the guys that say really really really bad stuff" But you begin walking a very slippery road that has no definitive line. Soon, the definition of hate speech changes....it molds, bends, contorts...until....

"I believe homosexuality is a natural deviation"

is a hate statement that is punishable by your so-called "fair" judges.

[Dante]

Is it natural? No. So it is some kind of deviation. Sexual attraction is based on reproduction, and gays can't reproduct.

Ah, also, what kind of political system reigns in the Netherlands to prevent people from telling their opinions? Just a thought.

If it isn't natural, how did it happen? As to my knowledge, people are born gay, they don't know it, but they find out later. Therefore, as a baby cannot comprehend this, it must already have a sexuality that it has not decided upon. Then it is natural. What it is caused by has been debated for decades, people still aren't sure. Either way, if something isn't natural, it's artificial. And we aren't robots.

By the way, emprworm, I think we may reach a compromise here...

Either everything (All religions, states of mind, sexualities, philosophies etc) is taught in school to give children plenty of choice and allow them to choose what's best. Or nothing is taught. No religion, no philosophies, nothing. Just facts, not opinions. Either way, the children are not told what to think, and so each system has it's merits. Personally I favour the former idea, but that's just because I think it's fair.

[Anathema]

ok, i'll agree with this. so if i said that homosexuals were "deviant", you don't think some people would whine and call that hate? Of course they would.

Some people are never happy.

And on what basis do you question the integrity of our legal system?

[Caid Ivik]

If it isn't natural, how did it happen? As to my knowledge, people are born gay, they don't know it, but they find out later. Therefore, as a baby cannot comprehend this, it must already have a sexuality that it has not decided upon. Then it is natural. What it is caused by has been debated for decades, people still aren't sure. Either way, if something isn't natural, it's artificial. And we aren't robots.

How did happens mutations, siam twins, downs and other mistakes of nature? They aren't natural, normal. Of course it makes them not a target of hate, but it is a kind of illness, affliction. Their family line is doomed to end, they can't reproduct, because their will is overthrewn. Cure isn't known, and also this bizzare culture makes gays a new ethnic, instead of taking them back to normal life. I don't hate them - I love all mankind, and I like when people are trying to heal, not just freeze their affliction, to see it usual.

[quoudam72]

It is always going to be a problem with homosexual persons because it is contradictory even to itself. I will explain my statement about it being contradictory if you have a man who claims to not like intercourse with women (this is usually what it amounts to because they usually like the company of women just not in sexual terms) why imitate a woman? The same also goes for a woman who does not like intercourse with men. I know and understand that these persons have their own preferences but why imitate something that you do not like it makes no sense. When in fact this is really what you want to be. We all should know that all homosexuals do not act in this way but the ones we see most often do behave in this manner. In sends the message that this person may have a physiological need to be the opposite of their physical being.

[Caid Ivik]

They have more female than male hormones. See? Affliction. That's why they incline to be like an opposite gender. Most bizzare are those, who changes genders because of it in half of life. Many of them remain hermafrodits. There must be found a cure.

[Razorox]

Whoa! big big topic. can ya guys handle it? hehe :) So what do you guys think? No flaming or being mean to anybody here. Its my birthday and I order it to be so... granted this will run even after my birthday but still! follow the commands.lol :) What do you guys think? Please let this be an intelligent discussion and nobodies opinion is worse than any others. I believe personally that it is either a health problem from the past because most lesbians and homosexuals I know, which is surprisingly a lot, have had deep sexual problems at childhood. Also it could be a genetic flaw. Sometimes this happens and people do unnatural things because of genetics. That is my personal opinion. That it is not correct to do and therefore is immoral. Please p ost you guys' opinion on it and no flaming. I welcome all opinions. :)

Why don't we just start a new "philosophy" board just for you TMA ;)

[VigilVirus]

Lol.

[TMA_1]

Up till a few years ago homosexuality was looked upon as a disorder. Even now days transvestites and people like that are not looked upon as mentally disturbed. Now days certain hospitals in certain states preform sex change operations. Society see's nothing wrong mentally of men who think they are women, or women who think they are men. If you have a penis, you are a male, you can be efeminant but still a male. If you have a vagina but are butch, well you are still a female. Good gravy its all nuts.lol the world is getting weirder and weirder in a horribly bad way.

[SurlyPIG]

What you are proposing is "thought police". Guilty before a crime is committed. THis is a dangerous and abhorrent philosophy for anyone to have. You can dislike me for having warped views, but until i actually commit a crime, you have no basis upon which to criminalize me.

Actually I was proposing the control of the circulation of voilence, threats, terrorism, murder, etc. For example, if any religion wants to hold anti-homosexual sessions in their private establishment, fine! If a priest goes on TV and encourages Americans to shoot abortion doctors (happened before), THEN he should be silenced.

A how-to-manual on how to kill a jew is protected by free speech

This is where it gets funny to me...If you owned a bood that was solely about how to kill people of a minority, why would you own it if you didn't plan to use the information contained? It's a total threat, and it's publicly promoting violence. There is no denying that fact. You cannot call it "art" or something like that.

If you outlaw an anti-jew book, then you will need to outlaw an anti-(fill in the blank) book as well. People can be ANTI in this world. No big deal. You cannot arrest nor should you censor them unless they commit crime.

Not what I mean. An anti-distint group book or club is all right, but one that condones and advocates the use of violence and discrimination is not.

Its to protect MINORITY opinion from the tyrrany of the majority.

Exactly! That's exactly what I meant. Saying you don't believe in or even that you despise something is fine, but advocating discrimination and violence, whether in public or in private is wrong.

i partially agree. not all opinions are hateful. yet all hate is an opinion. yet you cannot outlaw someone from hating. it is NOT a crime.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert, but isn't hate supposed to be a sin? I've never seen discrimination of people who hate, but it's position from a biblical standpoint is no stronger than homosexuality, of which those who are homosexual ARE discriminated against.

honestly, if 5 guys and 4 women want to have a polygyandry gang-bang marriage, i really dont care. However such an arrangement should NOT be condoned by the state, meaning that marriage benefits normally granted to monogomous couples would not be extended to them.

My belief is that laws should never be drawn from religious texts like the bible, because there are a lot of stupid things in some religous texts (you would know this after reading the Qur'an) plus the fact that picking which religion you bias your laws on is elitist and rather dictatorial. I'm not fighting for bisexual rights or anything, but if monogomy is lawful, why not polygomy?

you teach kids not to beat ANYONE. You do not single out gays. I believe in teaching kids the LAWS. NOT right and wrong. YOu teach them what the LAW says : "Do not assault another person" And leave it right there!!! Do not start elaborating on the "morality" of homosexuality. You can teach the definition of homosexuality, but NO MORAL ELABORATION

I mostly concur. Teaching kids the letter of the law does no good if there's no punishment behind it. Kids learn about smoking and drugs and how they're illegal, but if you ask clean teens why they're drug free, almost all will tell you that it's because they know the harm they can cause because they were given facts about them in school...facts are what morals should be derived from.

that is unacceptable and not the place of any school to teach right and wrong. Doing so infringes upon other people's beliefs.

I don't see why it can't be done in a private school where what they teach is up-front in the school's policy, but I agree for public schools. Teaching it is a problem, but there's nothing wrong with debating morals, which is commonly practiced in the forms of papers, essays, in-class debates, etc.

A decent-sized chunk of hate crimes have been committed by people linked to racist organizations like the KKK. A couple years ago in Kentucky, there WAS a black man murdered by the KKK, with a rope around his neck dragged to his death by a white supremacist's pickup truck over 17 miles. Sick. Just sick. I doubt that he takes what he learned in the KKK as just an opinion.

Not all KKK members are murderers or even violent, but they all have jobs, some of them are bosses, supervisors, auditors, etc. and somehow I doubt that their hate will only be in their meetings. I reckognize their silly costumes as a sign of their hate, but what it saddens me when I see a little baby, fully clad in KKK garments. I always think to myself, "That poor kid stands no chance." Filling the heart of a child with so much hate is dispicable...

VigilVirus:

I agree with emprworm. If you forbid things for example discriminating jews, then you have to forbid things discriminating muslims for example. I mean you can't say that the jews are "better", because that would be an outright discrimination of the others.

All discrimination of any people based on trivial distinction should be completely forbidden. No distinction of any specific group or person should be made.

[VigilVirus]

All discrimination of any people based on trivial distinction should be completely forbidden. No distinction of any specific group or person should be made.

What you speak is impossible and quite horrible. Do you want to live in a world with no discrimination? I surely wouldn't. Because if there is no discrimination, there is no way to tell the difference between one person and the rest. The uniqueness of humans will forever be lost.

Thankfully, thsi is quite impossible, unless one plans to reeducate a world that has been struck by the apocalypse and start their memories anew.

Book "Anthem" by Ayn Rand describes that and in my opinion that society is horrible.

[Edric O]

Great topic. Personally, I don't place much importance on this subject, so you guys do a much better job at pointing out the different moral issues than I could.

There is just one thing I'd like to say: It is a good thing that no religion/philosophy/etc. gets preferential treatment in schools. I agree that we should either teach all, or none of them. However, it is horribly immoral to forbid students to express their opinions at school. I know of several public schools in the US (one of which is Ordos45's school) that ban their students from even mentioning among themselves simple things like Christmas, on grounds that it might offend someone! Something like that is absolutely insane! They should be allowed to voice their opinions on anything, be it religion, sexual orientation, etc., as long as they don't harass or physically hurt anyone. Anything less means opressing freedom of speech in a public building.

[emprworm]

If a priest goes on TV and encourages Americans to shoot abortion doctors (happened before), THEN he should be silenced.

well of course, i dont argue that. you cannot encourage illegal activity on PUBLIC airwaves. (radio and television are subject to decency laws as well). you CAN write a book.

If you are the KKK and you want to publish an add that says "Kill a black person today", this should not be allowed in a newspaper. if you are the KKK and you want to publish an add that says "Join the KKK today!" THIS **** SHOULD **** be allowed in the newspaper!!!!!!!!!

You cannot call it "art" or something like that

rediculous. of course you can. there are movies all the time about how to kill a certain type of people. killing other gang members, perhaps its lawyers, perhaps its drug dealers- maybe even people with brown hair. Big deal. Movies are FILLED with the encouragement of illegal activity. But they are privately funded. I can agree with you that use of publicly controlled resources (like air waves) disallow the encouragement of illegal activity, but not privately controlled one. If you want to make a PRO-NAZI movie, then go for it. No one should stop you. Theaters that play it should be boycotted by a morally upstanding general public. Furthermore you are using this premise "If you read it and believe it you will DO it" which is a good philosophy for an individual to have BUT NOT FOR A GOVERNMENT to have. This is thought police and is equal to slavery. Secondly it is not always true by any means. No individual--- NO ONE --- should be condemened for having thoughts. A man who has a library of how to rape children books cannot be convicted of anything (unless he has child pornography which is a crime unto itself). Such a man should be observed, I would agree, but there is no crime, therefore no justification to arresst. If he writes his opinion down on paper, there is no crime, and no justification to arrest. If he owns a printing press and starts making copies of his opinion on paper, no crime. No justification to arresst. If other people are dumb enough to buy it, same deal.

but advocating discrimination and violence, whether in public or in private is wrong.

morally wrong yes. but its not the goverments job to dictate morality. such a position for any government to take is unacceptable.

but if you ask clean teens why they're drug free, almost all will tell you that it's because they know the harm they can cause because they were given facts about them in school...facts are what morals should be derived from.

you teach children that drugs are illegal. show them statistics and the chemical/physical effects of these drugs. you are teaching them facts and allowing them to draw their conclusions together with their parents whether they are right or wrong. Some clean kids will believe taking drugs is wrong. OThers might believe that drugs should be legal, and they are clean simply because they dont want any for themselves. You will have multiple moral views on drugs from those clean teens.

Regarding homosexuality, the same thing should happen. And actually, if you restrict it to simply the facts, you could easilly conclude homosexuality is harmful (higher disease rate, lower average lifespan)

I always think to myself, "That poor kid stands no chance." Filling the heart of a child with so much hate is dispicable...

highly despicable, yes. Of that there is no doubt. yet its not your place or the governments place to decide what opinions and thoughts a parent feeds to their kids. you will end up with something much much worse in the end once you start doing that.

All discrimination of any people based on trivial distinction should be completely forbidden.

your terms are muddy here. having an opinion or writing a book about how people with brown hair are inferior is not discrimination. Illegal Discrimination is not giving someone a job, an education, etc. based upon prejudices. That is illegal already and should be. If I want to run a website or write a book about anti-brown haired people, you cannot and should not stop me- that is not discrimination until i refuse a brown haired person employment.

[Caid Ivik]

Today's society was last centuries influented by very bizzare mix of philosophies. Rosseau, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kinsey... These people eliminated word "sin" from our minds, all morale barriers in our souls. To make the world good again, we must return to morale way. This world isn't only - and we are responsible for our acts.

[VigilVirus]

To make the world good again, we must return to morale way.

What is the "good" of which you speak? Good as in obeying the laws and morals of God?

And be real - you cannot make humans "good" - it's impossible. Humans have fallen to evil according to Christianity.

[Caid Ivik]

Of course those moral laws, do you know about other, functional? Humans aren't evil, nor good in their core, it's on them what will they become. And there are still some good people, altough this culture is too hostile for them.

[VigilVirus]

And there are still some good people, altough this culture is too hostile for them.

Hehe, lol. Not a single person is truly good, because usually everyone sets himself above others.

[Caid Ivik]

Usually? Not exactly. But what other thinks you can't know. There are lowly people, which think most for others.