I am not playing with words.

You said "homosexuality is a moral issue" you also said that homosexuality is harmless because it doesn't harm anyone.

Wouldn't it be what I have been saying all along that certain moral issues do not require harm to be involved?

Are you trying to eat your own words here?

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

I'll take it on faith that you merely don't understand some of the words that are coming out of my mouth.

When something "is a moral issue" I am not saying that it is immoral. A moral issue is something that people will debate about and later on judge whether it is moral or not.

I hate it when it comes down to this kind of condesending tones.

1. Homosexuality is a moral issue.

2. Homosexuality is harmless.

3. Morals dictate a person's view on the right and wrong of moral issues.

Homosexuality causes no harm according to you. It is a moral issue. My (and many other people's) moral dictate that it is wrong.

Original point e. "Certain morals are defined outside of the actual quantification of harm done, in this case, homosexuality."

Who is not understanding who?
Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Next time, to avoid confusion, please specify whether you are saying what you think is right, or what I think is right, or what some people think is right, or what most people think is right, or this mysterious objective entity called objectively what is right, because I've read your post 3 times and I can't make a head or tail out of it.

It's ok. Let's leave it at that and stop wasting each other's time.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Let me refresh your memory

"It makes no sense to me whatsoever to stop a person from doing something that is harmless.

On the other hand, brand a harmless act as a harmful one is in itself causing harm to those doing that harmless act, and is therefore immoral."

It's obvious that you are referring to homosexuality as harmless right?

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

My criterion for moral or immoral behaviour, and this is something that I will apply to all situations, is that you have to quantify the harm done in a concrete way. To steal is wrong because somebody loses private property, to murder is wrong because somebody loses his life. Promiscuity is wrong because it invites jealousy, causes people to beat each other up, and knocks up women who might have to abort their babies.

By this yardstick it's very difficult for me to understand just exactly what is wrong with homosexuality per se. I'll grant that homosexuality is wrong if you can pass this test.

there's nothing wrong with promiscuity with other consensual promiscuous persons, providing everyone diligently practice safe sex. where is the harm? please do not discriminate against promiscious persons.

So why is it wrong because someone loses private property? Why is it wrong when somebody loses his life?

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Because it results in human suffering.

And why is human suffering wrong?

Get my drift yet? You just know that human suffering is wrong.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

In other words, human suffering is wrong because it feels like shit, and since you wouldn't want to feel it yourself, you shouldn't inflict it on others.

Hence, society chooses to punish those who inflicts suffering on others (without consent). Again I stress that consent is a very important point. Otherwise, alot of contact sports would not be legal at all, and no one would choose to participate in such sports.

I realise that Seth is very keen to disassociate morality with logic. I don't understand why. Why the insistence that morality is innate and needs no consideration, and no need to test and refine it with logic.

- Wannabe Lawyer

I will make an exception here.

Why is making someone else feeling like shit wrong? Why is making someone feel the way I wouldn't want to feel wrong?

Go on.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

You've already refused the harm test, and you're about to refuse the golden rule. If you refuse a third axiom of morality, there's really no point in arguing with you.

I did not refuse the harm test. I have already explained the result to you.

I am not refusing the golden rule, I am merely asking you why is it wrong to break the golden rule.

If you think there is no point answering the question, then go ahead a stop arguing with me.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Because you wouldn't want someone else to do it to you, hence you don't do it to others.

- Wannabe Lawyer

Some things are self evident, others are not.

I knew your questioning would lead to this. There is no 100% sure way of saying that human suffering is wrong, since it is in itself a subjective experiment. I can only invite you to do this experiment:

1. Put your hand into a kettle of boiling water.
2. Keep it there for half an hour.
3. Take note of your experiences and sensations while you are doing that.

After that, pls give me your honest comments about whether you think that human suffering is wrong.

Therefore it is not enough to just "know" that human suffering is wrong, I have devised a objective way of showing this beyond reasonable doubt. (If you're not fully convinced, try 1 hour in step 2.)

At the same time you may device an experiment that will show how acts that are not related to human suffering can be wrong.

Without doing the experiment, I can tell you it's going to hurt me a lot. So, what's that got to do with hurting someone else? You experiement only tells me that putting my hand on a kettle of boiling water is going to cause me a lot of pain. What am I supposed to derive from that? When parents tell their children not to touch boiling kettles, they probably mean the same thing.

I cannot devise an experiment that will show you how acts that are not related to human suffering are wrong. However, I can safely tell you that many people think that certain acts are wrong even though no harm is done. Laws forbidding prostitution, oral sex and porn clearly showed that whoever devised those laws considered those acts wrong.

Now can you tell me why prostitution, oral sex and porn are wrong even though they don't involve human suffering?

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

I think anyone can plainly see that your ability to reason is mostly circular and self referential. that your basis for "morally right" behaviour is entirely arbritary and personally subjective since its based on a sense of personal disgust.

in otherwords you have no moral consistency.

Now, to say that porn, prostitution and oral sex are wrong solely on the basis that they are against the law is already a contentious issue, so I will not agree that all are wrong just because the law says so.

I've explained elsewhere how porn and prostitution can be wrong using the harm rule. I cannot explain how oral sex is harmful and therefore it is not wrong.

There will always be people who think that oral sex is wrong, just like some ppl think that homosexuality is wrong. I don't agree with these people.

Let me clarify, I did not say that they are wrong. I said they are considered morally wrong by some people even though they are "harmless".

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

these some people are the lawmakers I presume, and you think the law is immune to religion and personal bias?

morality and legality are not equal. what is legal is may not be moral, what is illegal may not be immoral (in fact , most of the time, amoral).

eg: in singapore oral sex between a man and a woman (unless it leads to an act of vaginal intercourse) is illegal and subject to an unjustifiable (on the basis of causing harm principle) fine and prison term.

in malaysia, polygamy between muslims is legal.
in singapore, we have anti bigamy laws.

in iran, homosexuals caught having sex are killed letting a wall fall on them.

in singapore, prosititution is NOT illegal, only street soliciting is. does this mean on the basis of your arguement that prostitution is morally right?

in other countries like japan, taiwan, netherlands, us, pornography is not illegal.

(prostitution , pornography etc are to me amoral issues, only politicians and religious types want to turn it into a campaign platform).

even drug use, like how one can consume marijuana in holland from a coffeeshop legally, yet even committing a legal act on extraterritorial soil is illegal for singaporeans. singaporeans can be prosecuted for consuming marijuana and other drugs anywhere.

in some countries, you get your hands chopped off for stealing, where the punishment does not follow the crime.. so in this case, most people would say the law is not moral.

so these examples show very much that Legality too is subjective.

The way you frame your question presupposes that prostitution, oral sex and porn is wrong. Could you first explain why is it wrong?

Secondly, your assumption that it is wrong is based upon the fact that it is illegal in Singapore. I think you should remember that not all acts prohibited by law are wrong.

For example, the law in Singapore prohibits a public assembly of more than 4 people unless permission is obtained from the authorities. So does this mean it is wrong to call 4 of your friends to assemble with you in a public place?

I think its pretty obvious from the record of comments here that your reasoning is often circular and mostly based upon untenable assumptions.

- Wannabe Lawyer

Actually I'm pretty interested in why you think homosexuality is immoral. You mentioned that your "moral values are different from those that that embrace homosexuality". Your "moral values" are what I am interested in. What do you believe in? Religion related?

I think your feedback of your thoughts to us can help us understand what you believe in a greater detail, rather than just everyone that's pro-queer bombarding every word you say.

Though I'm gay, I'll like to stand on the neutral side. Tell us about what you think.

Cheers.

I can't really put my finger to it but it's akin to feeling disgusted by seeing something going against nature. I don't know about you but the image of two men loving each other in a physical way just generate this negative and immoral impression in my mind. It's sort of imbued since birth kind of thing you know? Like how I feel about other moral issues, or rather, how you feel about your own sexual orientation.

It's not entriely religion related, I consider homosexuality as immoral before I stepped into a church. However, after finding out where the word "Sodomy" originated from (City of Sodom), that sort of reinforced my impression.

Actually I am pretty curious as to why you think homosexuality is part of the norm and morally acceptable as well. The fact that male to male or female to female relationships are against our biological nature doesn't strike you as peculiar?

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

how do you feel about two woman getting together?? ooh,, maybe wrestling in a pool of oil, laughing and heaving bosoms around, as they playfully spank each other... and then some tongue action..

I'm quite disgusted at homophobes too, I'm also disgusted by certain faith practices, especially those who appears to be worshipping mammon than christ these days.

so on the basis of MY subjective perceptions, they are OBJECTIVELY immoral. yes, its OK and objectively moral to start burning protestants right or anyone who isn't blue eye blonde skinned aryan.

think about what your statement implies. I would think that the standard of personal disgust is not appropiate for deciding whether anything is objectively moral or not.

Like what I have said, homosexuality isn't a choice. The reason why it isn't a choice is because most of us realised it only during puberty. Many people that found out that they are gay and have same sex attractions did not even know exactly what is "being gay", considering their age.

As we only realise it during puberty, it's pretty obvious that homosexuality is something pre-programmed. I wouldnt say I'm born like that (though I firmly believe so), because there are arguments that enviornmental effects could turn a bisexual person gay (based on the argument that everyone is born bisexual).

And since it's something "pre-programmed" either before or after (in the early stages) of birth, shouldn't homosexuality be considered as something normal?

If your argument is still the same, that homosexuality is abnormal, I can only accept homosexuality "abnormal", if you view it as a birth defect, as "normal" heterosexuals are born to like the opposite sex. Just like people that are born crippled, blind or deaf, I don't believe homosexuality as a birth defect is very hard to accept.

I believe the reason why homosexuality is not accepted as a birth defect, is because it comes in contact with the sensitive issue of sex. Adult-child sex is immoral, family incest is immoral, man-animal sex is immoral, and so there goes same-sex intercourse immoral.

I personally see people having adult-child/family incest/man-animal sex as mentally unstable people. They usually possess mentally insane behaviours, or perverted mindsets. While we see them as that, homosexuals on the other hand, live like just any normal sane guy around. Many countries recently removed homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses. China, a still relatively reserved country, also recently accepted homosexuality as "normal", and hence removed homosexuality from it's list of mental illnesses.

While many scientists found that our sexual orientation is affected by our genetic makeup, I do not stand firm on that experimental argument. It has not reached any official conclusion yet.

I do believe that anyone would be able to understand that homosexuality means sexual and emotional attraction to the same sex. I personally found that I do not possess any emotional attraction to the opposite sex, and therefore I wouldn't even get aroused if a young pretty naked lady were to stand in front of me.

Well, I believe people that say "gays can change" or people in ex-gay ministries have a lot of explaining to do on the above "attractions" we have.

You know you gave the perfect example yourself. Adult-chide sex is immoral. Thus I suppose you mean that pedophiles are immoral?

Pedophiles are adults who are sexually attracted to kids. Do you suppose that they make a concious to go after children or were they "pre-programmed" to do so? If they were "pre-programmed" would you consider it as a birth defect?

My stand is pretty simple really. I just think it is illogical to blame whatever you do on the fact that you are "pre-programmed". Most men are born with the inclination to impregnate as man women as possible but I don't think they will use that exuse that they are "pre-programmed" to do so in the divorce court.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

Actually I'm not sure about pedophiles really, and sorry if I have made an invalid reference or example.

What I can really say about the case of a pedophile is that, based on modern scientific research, it's still largely unclear that it is normal or not.

Maybe it's because accepting a homosexual is easier than accepting a pedophile, that's why pedophiles are still being considered as a mental illness.

Imagine having sex to a child that don't even know what is "having sex". Even I cannot accept it.

Well, really I can force no one to believe if homosexality is right or wrong. Just like I believe adult to child sex is immoral, you may think both are immoral.

Truth will reveal itself one day.

No, it's ok. I think you gave a perfect reference and example. I didn't think of that myself.

You too mentioned that you disagree with the researches on homosexuality because they are not conclusive...

Any way, let's wait for the day that the truth is revealed.

Arguing in the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you are still retarded.

I agree with Han.

I think the word homophobia was used in the context of "behaviours based on the contempt and the fear of homosexuals". I think fear and contempt is acceptable as long as no acts are carried out against the homosexuals.

You know, I have always found this argument that "gays are born this way" argument facinating. I know people who have switched from being gay to straight after years being gay. It seems that the theory doesn't hold for all homosexuals. That also doesn't answer the question on whether homosexuality is right or "immoral". There are researches pointing out that certain people are supposedly born with anger/hate management issues. If the said individual commits acts of violence due to his nature (after all, being born with it is considered his nature right?), is he still guilty of the acts?

I am not equating homosexuality with acts of violence, I am just pointing out that being supposedly born with something doesn't excuse the acts. Unless, of course, one is born without any ability to control his behaviour (i.e. not in a state of sound mind).

I see stupid people everywhere, they don't even know that they are stupid.

It may be in your personal experience that you know people who have 'turned straight' after being gay. Good for them. But the ex-gay movement is a fundamentally flawed one. You change the behaviour of a person, not the innate orientation — read any objective study (read: non-religiously-affiliated) on the effects of ex-gays, and you will see that many report marrying women, having children, settling down, but ultimately always knowing their own attraction to the same gender has NEVER died or decreased. Except that they are making the active effort to repress that. That's their choice. Homophobia doesn't give you that choice.

Point 2 — you imply being born gay does not "excuse the acts" since people are able to control their behaviour. What standard do you suppose we all should control our behaviour towards? That gay people should control and alter their behaviour towards the ideal//natural state, the state of being heterosexual? I don't buy that. Whose standards are those? The standards of 'nature'? You mention how it's not possible to know if homosexuality is 'right' or 'moral'. It is not a prerequisite to know this, before knowing that discrimination, contempt, and fear of what one is not familiar with (and which doesn't harm one in any way), is wrong with no exceptions.

Point 3 — fear and contempt "as long as there are no acts of violence" is not acceptable. One can be ambivalent, but "fear and contempt"? These are harsh terms. Is it okay to harbour racist thoughts if you don't actively articulate it because it is socially reprehensible; is it okay to harbour racist thoughts if you don't go out and taunt that race? I would rather meet a drunk, white person who would call me a Chink, than work with one in university who thinks so, says so among his other white friends, but never says so directly in front of me. Surely we don't have to resort to 'violence' as the tipping point.

Great posting.

I think that in the society today, homophobia has turned into a "cult". It's something like if you do not think homosexuality is wrong then you are a homosexual.

I know being labelled as a homosexual is certainly not something anyone would like, and therefore this "cult" has somehow lead to narrow mindset people have these days.

While religious people can continue to debate if homosexuality is right or "immoral", I think it's time they realise that it is something out of our personal control. No one would choose to be something people discriminate against.

Stop hate. Stop homophobia. http://gaytothebone.blogspot.com

Homophobia is wrong. But is homosexuality right?

I see stupid people everywhere, they don't even know that they are stupid.

If A is false, B doesn't necessarily have to be true.
There are more than As and Bs in this equation.

Homophobia impinges on a minority; homosexuality barely does.

If A can only be true when B is false and vice versa, then only one can be true at any time.

Just like right and wrong.

I see stupid people everywhere, they don't even know that they are stupid.

Homosexuality is as right as heterosexuality, your race, your gender and your religion are. None of themare superior to any other.