• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Thinking on a Vertical Perspective: Homosexuality



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Dark-Disciple

The 5th Apocalyptic Rider
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
2,278
Age
31
Location
Riding with Famine, Death, Pestilence and Destruct
~ The fact that we live in an open and “free” society should not be a shocker to anyone. Just look around you; it is the main archetype of thought upon which America was created. This, however, is the very premise that makes it hard to argue any given point that deals with how individuals behave in comparison to any scale of “Right” and “Wrong” behavior. Dealing with Homosexuality is the epitome of such struggle.

Since one can only be swayed one way or another in the argument, considering how these two different positions argue to be correct, it then becomes our responsibilities to be as well informed as possible on the matter. One must keep in mind, however, that when dealing with human beings, the main liability of anyone at hand is to take matters in a humble perspective filled with understanding and willful attention. Any point of violent and heinous treatment or misunderstanding coming from either side is not just beyond the wrong, but it is the GREATEST wrong, for it has led to the current hole upon which we now stand.

Before I begin to develop my last statement there are two of my initial points which must be addressed before moving further into the subject. Being an issue dealing mostly with tolerance, it is only prudent that we start this address by dealing with such.

So what exactly IS Tolerance?

Webster’s New World Dictionary (*fourth edition) defines it as the act of bearing, enduring or putting up with a set belief or idea which someone else holds. This is where the first misconception occurs. Almost immediately following someone’s position against Homosexuality does the victimization of the individual as being “intolerant” occur. And since tolerance is always juxtaposed with “goodness”, it is only clear that intolerance is a horrible thing which one should oppose. The problem here is whether or not the word is being used correctly, for just because we condone an action doesn’t give us grounds to say we are “tolerant” of it. If one agrees and supports what one is given, then there is nothing to tolerate in the first place. Instead, all there is to do is to merely live along with it, and even enjoy it. Tolerance comes only with disagreement in the same way as I must be tolerant of the piercing screech of my baby sister as I attempt to write this article. In this argument, to be tolerant, in essence, is to be willing to put up with something, understandably, until it is finally and passively dealt with. With that in mind, let us continue to the problem of Absolutism.

Absolutism

As I mentioned earlier, this is a matter ultimately dealing with right and wrong behavior. It is here where the existing opposition would argue against my seeming act of arrogance in trying to define what “Right” is in comparison to what is “Wrong”. To those who would wish to argue that point, I can only humbly ask that you lend me your attentive ears in allowing me a chance to prove my points before I come under opposition. Remember, I have yet to state any position or idea on this article.

I am only here to present an argument, of which I am able to do so according to the general absolutism that the faulty relativists of whom I’m opposing clearly have come to portray as well. What I mean by that is the following:

When it comes to the argument at hand, both sides believe their position to be the right one. If it weren’t so, there wouldn’t be an argument for or against Homosexuality in the first place. It is thus clear that none may hold the relativistic view of each individual’s “goodness” and perceived “rightness” to be the correct, because both opposing views are in disagreement to the point of contradiction. What one side believes to be right, the other sees as wrong in one way or another. It is because of this that only one view must be correct, because the alternative leads to a mere mélange of contradiction and impossibility. Both can’t possibly exist in a relativistic way. Thinking of it in this binomial perspective as a start is not just the simplest, but also the most efficient way to tackle this argument.

To further expand this idea, it is here that I bring into consideration my first point to be addressed: Hate Crimes.

–There is nothing more putrid, vile, deplorable or morbid in this world than to dehumanize, discriminate or injure the dignity of any human being anywhere. To tolerate an opposing ideology is noble and it thus demands that we act nobly in doing so. As history has proved to us time and time again, the pursuit of any good thing or idea through wicked ways merely prevents the goodness within the case itself, and thwarts it into something rather repulsive; anyone preaching such is thus, equally as disdainful.

Something we must understand is the fact that if a person acts wickedly claiming to follow a correct, good or pure belief, they themselves are the wicked ones. No dogma may claim to be right if it doesn’t follow a right path to acquire goodness.

Consider this: the perversion of everything good in this Earth is the invention of human error. It is thus that I say that to those who have given religion a bad name by acting violently within this argument, I spit upon, for they are the fiends who make quotidian life harder to follow for the rest of us, the faithful ones who wish to tackle this point as passively and as intelligently as possible.

(–It is important to note here, that no relativist may stand with me in condemning such creatures for this itself is absolutist ground. A relativist can do nothing to someone committing a crime of hate, for they who are acting, too believe they are acting correctly regardless of how wicked their methodology is. Only if you know there’s a “Right” can you come to revolt at anyone who has denied it in choosing to wrong you instead. My claims from here on become suitable under this logic)

It is thus here, that I am forced to digress from my main idea; for I am in the need to fixing the broken ties severed by my violent predecessors. This must be done before I am able to make any valid or understandable claim within the topic at hand for the sake of this article’s main purpose, which is to bring an understanding mediation between both perspectives.

–After much conversation with those afflicted, it has come to my attention that there seems to be an agreement in meaning that blames their suffering to religion’s hand, in providing meaning to those who act brutally in treacherous ways: Christianity being the biggest apparent perpetrator.

So IS Religion there to support these heinous crimes?

In the Bible, there are instances where Homosexuals were stoned and Slaves were kept and mistreated while Women too were detained the most basic of human rights. The Old Testament is full of occurrences portraying this. Does that mean that the God who is believed to have inspired the minds of those who wrote the Bible agrees and supports any of this? I’ll answer this as simply as I can:

The answer is quite notably NO, and anyone believing otherwise is sadly misinformed. These accounts of social stonings and mistreatments and discriminations were never acts inspired by any particular God. In the case of Christianity, it must be noted that if anyone were to truly commit to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, then it is clear that only the one with no sin in mind has any possibility of “tossing the first stone”.

Simply put, a Christian is he who follows the teachings of Christ. Those who don’t clearly aren’t. Jesus stood here on Earth to protect the afflicted and to bring peace and repentance to humanity. Anyone who stands against this fails miserably in keeping their faith. It’s as simple as this argument will ever get.

Pointless violence, unjust dealings, demeaning discrimination and everything in that spectrum stands as acts reviled by our basic sense of humanity. When anyone is victimized on this manner by some unchangeable aspect of their being, we have a clear course of action. There can’t possibly exist an argument there. Violent and discriminatory actions are wrong in every way shape or form.

Actions taken for the sake of social order, however, and which follow a noble, clean, and right course of action under it’s ideology, should be the main point of our argumentation. As it should be the main tactic to be used in gaining any prosperity in this problem. This is where the problem is currently rooted upon.

-------------

Now that a basic foundation for the development of this piece has been laid, it is here that the main ideas of the argument should start to unfold. It should go beyond saying that many, many misconceptions have plagued this argument back and forth, and it is only fair that some Light is sought in order to further move towards finding a fair resolution.

As I mentioned earlier, any action taken to dehumanize and discriminate against the personal dignity of any individual human being in this Earth is and will always be wrong in every single perspective possibly observed. I can’t stress this enough.

–Homosexuality entails the characteristic of having a general attraction to one’s own gender. That comes strictly from a simple epistemology of the word. Therefore, it should also follow that a homosexual is anyone who enacts this principle, just as how a worker is someone who works, or a liar is someone who lies.

Having homosexual tendencies doesn’t necessarily make a person homosexual up until they factually act upon them, just as how a person is not a liar, worker, or a robber up until the moment they choose to tell a lie, do some work, or steal an item. The underlying wish to steal or lie or work is not enough to prove someone is a robber or a liar or a worker simply because such are only affinities which rest within the infinite range of action. Simply put: within every single situation we are presented, there is an infinite amount of possible things we can do to deal with what we are given, and it is the action that is finally determined the one that most easily portrays the character of a person. What this merely follows is the premise that an instinct is not enough to shape the character of a person. It is the action which follows the instinct the one which matters most, for it portrays the overbearing capacity of an instinct in controlling the character, as it becomes a part of it. Instincts will always exist. What we choose to do with them is what makes us, not only human, but who we are overall.

Here’s another way to view it: when going through our daily routines, we are bombarded with a plethora of choices we can make regarding the way upon which we pass our time. Right now I could easily stop typing this statement and go outside, go fishing, call a friend or sit in a comatose state in front of a television set (as the rest of our beautiful generation is so fond of doing). These are all perfectly feasible things I could do. Just because such choices exist doesn’t mean that they all become the embodiment of who we are. But even deeper, neither does this mean that our choices at one particular point dictate who we ultimately are either. We can’t possibly arrive to that conclusion logically: For, just because I went fishing once doesn’t mean I am a fisherman. It only means I have the capacity of doing so.

–How exactly can we possibly tie this to our argument?–

Well, if you think about it, it becomes clear that it is not just particular choice, but rather the surely repeating choices we make in the majority of times we are given a similar scenario the ones which lead to a better portrayal of the character of a person. I am a writer, for example, because I write, and because every time I am given a choice to do something, most of the times I choose to spend my time either writing or doing things which ultimately relate to writing, such as reading, or attentively listening to philosophical presentations.

This model better explains why people are able to change their characters, and even why some aren’t capable of doing so. For, if we are ultimately in control of the decisions we make, and we have every capacity to change what we do, we equally have the capacity to change at any given point in time, both by will, and through the help of others. Instinct is always mediated by choice, because choice determines the course of actions which are taken to follow such urges. What we need to understand is that, in this argument, sexual impulse is the natural instinct, while homosexuality or heterosexuality deal with the ways upon we choose to satiate the urge.

After reading that last statement, I’m sure some of my readers may be thrown in a wild frenzy. As pleaded earlier, I only ask for attentive ears in allowing me a chance to develop my arguments fully before being assailed by all types of retorts. Do not fret, for I do intend to develop such seemingly behemoth claim.

I am well aware that there is a plethora of arguments that seek to support homosexuality as being a natural factor. It is here that I aim to tackle some of the most famous ones which have circulated and shaped mainstream thought for the last couple of generations:

The Animal Case

Its main premise is the following: “There are countless of species within the animal kingdom which portray homosexual relations on a daily basis. Since animals display it, it is deduced that homosexuality is caused by nature, because animals are guided by basic biological physiologies that guide their actions.”

Here are the two major fallacies within this argument:

–Although seemingly logical, what this argument essentially fails to do is to provide for any evidence to support its key underlying hidden premise of what exactly causes such behavior. The exact physiological factor that dictates whether one specific type of animal is created to be homosexual and another one isn’t is completely missing from their whole thesis. Within every observed species that does enact homosexuality, there is always a portion of them which also seek the heterosexual way of reproduction. What we are missing is any concrete evidence which dictates that ONE individual of that species shall strictly be homosexual while another shall be heterosexual in character. Most of the time, even the same creature that had been observed doing the initial homosexual act which created this claim will soon turn and pursue a heterosexual intercourse. This very observation supports the existence of a sexual drive/instinct. The way upon which such is satisfied in the natural kingdom however merely depends on availability. What differentiates us from those animals is simply the fact that within our humanity, we have the common decency of knowing that we shouldn’t necessarily have sex with anyone we personally desire.

–This leads to my second problem with this argument. When it comes to nature, every species which reproduces sexually is bound by a Darwinistic sense of natural selection to seek a heterosexual partnership. That is the natural way for sexual species to reproduce. It is thus contradictory of nature to have a physiological “switch” for homosexuality in a species that reproduces heterosexually because that would sadly doom the species. Ultimately, it isn’t natural at all for such drive to exist. It is therefore not out of nature, but out of a species’ wish to satisfy its sexual desire, that homosexuality comes into the picture; as I mentioned earlier, an animal’s sexual drive can still be satisfied both by homosexuality and heterosexuality.

(Don’t think here that I am an ignorant fool for not thinking of the types of animals which have the ability of interchangeable reproduction roles. I do acknowledge their existence, as portrayed by the whiptail lizard. For the sake of brevity, I failed to address these outliers because they fail to represent the human experience of sexuality. The second humans are able to reproduce though parthenogenesis though, I will happily accommodate these views)

This brings up the second most important point that should be addressed about this topic. Since we are dealing with human individuals, it is of higher reason to study human beings closely to seek any true information about the issue. Even though both biologically and anatomically speaking, man and women complement each other in every way shape or form, to further prove the natural aspect of homosexuality, three major scientific research projects stand as the true backbone of their point. These are what some believe to be scientific prove for the existence of that physiological ‘switch’ of which I mentioned earlier within the human persona. Talk to any homosexual activist, and you will receive these as the ultimate dogma of their case:

– Homosexuality has been ‘proven’ to have genetic ties through its representation via twin studies, hypothalamus size, and the x-chromosome research.

There is just a little problem with these points though. One way or another, they all have some key aspect about them which makes them deplorably inconclusive. A basic analysis of them can easily portray this:

Bailey and Pillard’s Famous Twin Studies

-Having asked a number of related and unrelated siblings, in their 1991 studies, Bailey and Pillard observed that: of a sample of individuals studied, 52% of the identical twins who answered their questionnaire happened to be homosexual, while 22% of fraternal twins shared this trait, and only 11% of adoptive siblings did. Since identical twins are known to have the same genetic and natural environment from birth along sides the same nurturing qualities, it was concluded that genetics served as a great factor towards homosexuality. Let us analyze this conclusion though.

The experiment was done through a questionnaire published in a certain amount of “gay newspapers”. The subjects studied were those who decided to answer to such surveys, throwing away the ‘simple random sample’ quality which would validate any statistical study. Another main problem with this research is that no key medical factors were observed throughout the course of the experiment (the questions only focused on sexual orientation). Since there were no “blinds” within the experiment, biased framing of the questions could’ve gravely over-inflated the results. And repetition is yet to occur.

Just a basic glimpse of the study will make anyone with a critical mind a little suspicious of its conclusion. What was found was a correlation between the homosexuality of one twin as compared to the sexual orientation of the other. Since a causal connection was found, the researchers thus tied in a hefty conclusion to base their observation. The data and experiments provided however have yet to prove a concrete causation to this characteristic, and rushing into such a realization was irresponsible at best.

–“If genes absolutely determined sexual orientation the concordance rate for monozygotic twins should be 100%”~ Dr. Simon LeVay.

Dr. LeVay’s Hypothalamus Experiment
(Actual Experiment Found: HERE)

Since the first experiment was criticized gravely for its lack of any true biological explanation for homosexuality, Dr. LeVay came to the stage to embark on such a journey.

In his experiment, Dr. Simon LeVay studied the cadavers of 41 individuals: 19 allegedly homosexual men, 16 allegedly heterosexual men, and 6 allegedly heterosexual women.

Experimenting upon such, he sought to see if there was a relation between the hypothalamus size of a homosexual and heterosexual men. Since the hypothalamus is known to be the control center of all hormonal activity, it was believed to be the crucial spot needed to be observed.

Being smaller than the hypothalamus of men, the hypothalamus of women is known to function slightly differently according to the hormones it has to deal with within female anatomy. Simply put, this experiment sought to see if such correlation existed between the hypothalamus of homosexual men and that of heterosexual men; and this is exactly the claim he concluded at the end of it.

Even though Dr. LeVay claimed that the results he gathered supported his claim, again, a close study of the data yields such conclusion to be gravely overstated:

–Having an incredibly small sample size, the representativeness of this study doesn’t add up to be able to hold much ground by any statistical understanding.

–Also, out of the 16 heterosexual cadavers used, 6 of them had died of AIDS, which gravely affects the brain structure and further increases the chances that their sexual histories may have been incompletely recorded. The only proving factors Dr. LeVay held towards “knowing” the sexual orientation of his patients was merely their medical case histories, which by no means guaranteed to provide accurate information dealing with the patient’s sexual practices or orientation for that matter.

–Something which Dr. LeVay also sadly failed to report was the fact that 3 of the cadavers of the homosexual sample actually had a larger INAH3 structure than that of heterosexuals. (The experiment also forgets the fact that there are still some homosexuals with a perfectly ‘normal’ INAH3 size.)

–Another criticism also comes from the fact that not even researchers are sure if one could conclusively prove the points Dr. LeVay wanted to prove by comparing the area and not volume or number of neuron connection within that area of the brain.

—- The MAIN criticism to this study however is the obvious degree of bias which came from Dr. Simon LeVay himself. Being an open homosexual, he once told ‘Newsweek’ that, after the death of his lover, he was determined to find a genetic cause for homosexuality, or else he would abandon science altogether. Even though this surely is a noble act, it makes us wonder whether or not he wished to interpret the data he gathered in whichever way he willed, leaving matters open to his personal self-serving bias.

–Again, this experiment is yet to be repeated.

Dr. Hamer’s X-chromosome Research

Within Biology, there are two different ways to pass down information genetically. One is the Mendelian form of inheritance and the other is Thomas Hunt Morgan’s Sex-linked inheritance. Taking a stab at the latter one, Dr. Dean H. Hamer sought to see if homosexuality and thus, sexual orientation, could be a genetic variation passed down through familial generations.

In his study, he sought to see if a variation within the only x-chromosome held within men could hold a translating factor that would determine one’s sexual orientation.

Since no conclusive link could possibly be made between women and this factor, Dr. Hamer sought to find if such could possibly exist within the male character.

The confusing factor of this experiment is the fact that homosexual men can’t possibly pass down their x-chromosomes to their resulting son because for a son to be male he would require a y-chromosome from his father. Therefore, only women can be carriers of this trait, and since it shows no predominant factor in determining the orientation of a female towards homosexuality, it can only be concluded that this, if it truly is a genetic train, is of recessive statue. The underlying premise of this experiment however is the fact that for it to truly happen, the homosexual male would have to mate in order to pass down his genetic variations to a resulting daughter who would then thus pass down the trait to her son. This fact rules out all the homosexual males in one’s family who are of relation because they have adopted a child, since such child does not share the genetic structure of his or her adoptive parents.

–Since conceiving a child via vitro fertilization, (which is the only possible way for this trait to be inherited) is a recent invention, this would not explain the fact that the existence of homosexuality has been evident since the thousands of generations before the time this was invented.

Hamer himself noted that “this variation is not nearly, at all, acting as some automatic switch that makes you one way or another”, which makes inheritance and nature’s role to be a relativistic factor instead of the acclaimed ultimatum that most of the homosexuals argue it to be.

Other Studies:

– Just because it has been observed that a homosexual male can be seen to be the youngest within a family of many males, the existence of more brothers by no means proves that it is a factor that determines one’s sexual orientation. This is merely an infinitesimal correlation found within a very small portion of the homosexual population, and it fails to serve as a factor affecting those who are only children.

This is also highly ignorant of the fact that within most big families, the younger siblings tend to be perfectly normal. No direct study has ever been made to truly support this hypothesis, and basing a major claim by using a hypothesis alone is not just ignorant but highly fallacious at best. Avoiding these type of positions is best for when approaching such an argument.

-------------

Nature vs. Nurture?

– Ultimately, there are certain types of experiences which are life-changing; where a person’s life is never able to be the same once they go through them. Acting upon one’s sexual curiosities has got to be one of the main shaping factors known to humanity.

Just like the introduction of drugs into one’s system, it is irrelevant if we have a tendency or a family history towards something unless we finally act upon it. Once certain experiences are gone through, it is impossible to erase the natural thirst people will have for more. An alcoholic anonymous program, for example, will never be able to take away a man’s craving for a beer after a hard-day’s work if they have experience it’s satisfaction before. It might be healthier for a man to live without beer, but the desire for it will never leave him. The same applies to sex.

The fulfillment of one’s sexual instinct can happen both through homosexual and heterosexual ways. Whichever is chosen in the act will change you no matter what.

Whatever one’s preference may be, going back to an innocent state is impossible from then. The sexual drive will haunt them forever.

If a man is welcomed by another man’s arms, or if a woman is welcomed by another woman’s, it is impossible to change the good sensation that will forever follow that action. One’s experiences still stand as the catalyzing factor towards the repetition of any given desire. When it comes to the genetic spectrum of things, it is important to stress the fact that the research is mostly inconclusive within the homosexual argument. Some homosexuals have the supposed traits while others don’t, and even some heterosexuals may hold the studied traits of which researchers have been trying to use in order to prove their conclusions. Since the female aspect of homosexuality has yet to be related, it appears as though the natural characteristics are standing upon an impasse.

*****

(NB. Whether or not a homosexual lifestyle decreases life expectancy or increases teen suicide rate, or increases one’s susceptibility and openness to disease highly depends on the individual in question. Even though these traits are fairly apparent within such communities, it all depends on the individual’s responsible, civilized and mature judgment. An ideology which advocates for promiscuity and unsafe practices is easily condemnable though. All I’ll say in accordance to this is the following: Thou reaps the fruits of thy work.)

*****

The Civil Debate

Job Discrimination:

–As mentioned very early on this address, discrimination of any type against any individual in any way shape or form is strictly deplorable. The law is there to protect and ensure that a just and decent procession of facts is followed in order to lead to the successful flourishing of a society. Therefore, it is beyond wrong to hinder the potential of any perfectly capable individual under the basis of personal preference.

If the behavior of an individual does not comply to the necessities of a certain job however, whoever is in charge has the duty of to do what he or she must to make sure that whoever is at fault knows such a fact, and that if they don’t come to comply, they risk the job in question.

Regardless of how brilliant someone is, if they are disrespectful or incompliant, then the job might not necessarily go to them.

If an individual portrays a certain characteristic behavior which is typical of the homosexual lifestyle (which really shouldn’t) that hinders the professional status of a specific organization or place of work, then the law can’t possibly do anything to protect or ensure his or her employment. Be it because of the flamboyant or promiscuous character of a person or whatever other characteristic it might be, it is the duty of the employer to inform the employee whether or not such is to be tolerated, and if it isn’t that the employee at least knows that there is a certain sense of self control that must occur in order to maintain or gain the given position. There are certain behaviors which are perfectly controllable; and someone’s sexual orientation does not nearly works to hinder the professional character of a person (or at least it shouldn’t). If it does, there are prices to pay, but if it doesn’t, then there is no reason behind why anyone should be denied to work in whatever field they happen to excel at.

“Constitutionally, there is an equality clause to all people. This however, does not entail lifestyles.”~ Adam Kolasinski.

Gay Marriage:

–When it comes to the marriage argument, we have to understand that homosexuals are NOT the only community of individuals who have been denied marriage in general. This has been so for as long as the institution of marriage has been around. Even looking back at one of the most liberal of all societies, which was the Roman Empire before the rise of Catholicism, marriage itself was still only considered between a man and a woman. Of course, relationships between man and man and beast and tree and rock and animal and any other possible thing known were still recorded, but the sanctity of marriage was always still reserved.

Humans by nature have an outstanding capacity to Love. If we are able to come to cope and understand the true implications and the meaning of such a word, it is undeniable that something beautiful lies within it. Being absolute sacrifice and dedication, and devotion and affection, Love brings within it a bond that forges two people together with a tie that is unbreakable, for it is stronger with the passing of time.

If sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage, however, how can a court or church deny such bond from a party of two, or five, or nine; or from a pair of siblings, or cousins or father and daughter?

Ultimately, homosexual marriage is denied under the critical basis that it would lead to the legalization of other, more deterring marital institutions that equally argue some of the same points. Marriage is not there to detract from the possible benefits a couple can share within a society. As written by Adam Kolasinski in his secular argument dealing with homosexuality, he states that “Advocates of gay marriage claim that homosexual couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with their roommates”

________________

Every human being deserves to be treated with respect, honor, acceptance, love and understanding. We are all human. We are all individuals with our needs and our opinions and our aspirations. When talking about this subject, a court’s decision must be crucially scrutinized. “If it seeks to gain neutrality by asserting that social autonomy is best, it fails miserably, considering how biased social autonomy (or the choice of a person to do as he deems best) is in relation to the argument at hand.”

Social Autonomy and Social Regulation are polar forms of idealisms. The only neutral road leads only to the ignoring of the problem altogether, and that is clearly far from reasonable. When dealing with the lives of human beings we must be careful not to lose humanity out of the picture. It is only responsible for us to take in the information we are presented and analyze it, to the best of our abilities, to see if we can possibly stand in acknowledgement of what is best to be done.
 
Last edited:

Pelafina

lately, lovely
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
4,002
Awards
6
That's the stupidest thing I've heard anyone ask all day.

Read it and judge it on its own merits, not what side it leans to.
 

Dark-Disciple

The 5th Apocalyptic Rider
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
2,278
Age
31
Location
Riding with Famine, Death, Pestilence and Destruct
Okay, to base my opinion on it, is it left-wing or right-wing? ^^
It is neither.
It is not based on either political perspective. Neither left nor right. Hence why it's called "Thinking on a Vertical Perspective"

That's the stupidest thing I've heard anyone ask all day.

Read it and judge it on its own merits, not what side it leans to.

Thank you for that.
 

Sharikka

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
102
That's the stupidest thing I've heard anyone ask all day.

Read it and judge it on its own merits, not what side it leans to.

Okay I should've made it more clear that I wasn't serious besides the "^^". Sorry it came out that way.

Political standpoints really have no side on subjects like this. I might end up reading it later.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
5,612
Awards
4
Location
∵Иೆ!?तっФ」
Didn't read it all, only the last section. Might read the rest another day.

If sexual love is the sole criterion for marriage, however, how can a court or church deny such bond from a party of two, or five, or nine; or from a pair of siblings, or cousins or father and daughter?

Ultimately, homosexual marriage is denied under the critical basis that it would lead to the legalization of other, more deterring marital institutions that equally argue some of the same points.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biggest load of horse shit.

We're not a polygamist society, and that fact has zero correlation to gay marriage.
Homosexuality doesn't have the negative psychological and physiological (in the case of offspring) impacts of an incestuous relation.

But that's neither here nor there. It's a matter of the evolution of our definition of "marriage," and to assume that including gay marriage would lead to these other more detritus examples is a slippery slope indeed.

“Advocates of gay marriage claim that homosexual couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with their roommates”
This logic works both ways, ie, "Straight couples could ideally have these benefits without marriage, so what's the point in them getting married in the first place."
It's about what marriage represents.
 

Dark-Disciple

The 5th Apocalyptic Rider
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
2,278
Age
31
Location
Riding with Famine, Death, Pestilence and Destruct
Didn't read it all, only the last section. Might read the rest another day.

I really think you should. I'm sure you'll find it quite interesting indeed.


We're not a polygamist society, and that fact has zero correlation to gay marriage.
Homosexuality doesn't have the negative psychological and physiological (in the case of offspring) impacts of an incestuous relation.

But that's neither here nor there. It's a matter of the evolution of our definition of "marriage," and to assume that including gay marriage would lead to these other more detritus examples is a slippery slope indeed.

Never in my claim did I say or hint to the fact that we were a polygamist society. I'm merely pointing out that the same exact claims apply on the following cases. Just because you pointed out the claim's similarity to an existing fallacy doesn't necessarily debunk the claim itself. To answer the fallacy accusation however, let me point out the fact that a correlation does in fact exist in the points provided because in all cases mentioned, the same exact modes of argumentation are used to support their claims. The mode being:
"Mutual Love should be the only criterion for Marriage"


--- Also, a huge criterion of the Slippery Slope fallacy is the ignoring of the possibility of middle ground. I addressed that both earlier in the article and in the following ending statement:
Social Autonomy and Social Regulation are polar forms of idealisms. The only neutral road leads only to the ignoring of the problem altogether, and that is clearly far from reasonable. When dealing with the lives of human beings we must be careful not to lose humanity out of the picture. It is only responsible for us to take in the information we are presented and analyze it, to the best of our abilities, to see if we can possibly stand in acknowledgement of what is best to be done.


This logic works both ways, ie, "Straight couples could ideally have these benefits without marriage, so what's the point in them getting married in the first place."
It's about what marriage represents.

We can return this question back and forth, but it would lead to a circular argument, of which I'm sure is in our best interest to avoid if we wish to get anywhere.
We're both already in agreement to what such bond represents.
You missed the fact that the only reason I included that statement was to debunk an argument that certain homosexual activists use which is that they NEED marriage to acquire those rights.
That was the only purpose of that statement.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
5,612
Awards
4
Location
∵Иೆ!?तっФ」
Never in my claim did I say or hint to the fact that we were a polygamist society.

I never claimed that you did either. Let me rephrase that.
There is no correlation between gay marriage and polygamy (going along with the slippery slope idea).

To answer the fallacy accusation however, let me point out the fact that a correlation does in fact exist in the points provided because in all cases mentioned, the same exact modes of argumentation are used to support their claims. The mode being:
"Mutual Love should be the only criterion for Marriage"
No, the difference is the underlying principle for each example.

In the case of gay marriage, that underlying force is, obviously, homosexuality.
Homosexuality in itself is becoming socially acceptable.

Other means of sexuality, such as pedophilia and incest, are not. And with good reason due to their detritus effects, as I said. There's a reason why a man can have sex with another man, but a man cannot have sex with a boy, and a father cannot have sex with his son under the law.
I am of the mind that morals and values are constantly undergoing an evolution for humanity. At the very least they shift.
Yet allowing things like pedophilia and incest to be tolerable would be a step backward. Homosexuality, even if you don't agree with it, is definitely not in the same category as them.

If homosexuality is becoming more embraced as a sexual outlet, then recognizing it in the form of marriage, to me, doesn't seem like such a big deal.
 

Dark-Disciple

The 5th Apocalyptic Rider
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
2,278
Age
31
Location
Riding with Famine, Death, Pestilence and Destruct
In the case of gay marriage, that underlying force is, obviously, homosexuality.

--A point addressed above, earlier in my article.

Homosexuality in itself is becoming socially acceptable.

Other means of sexuality, such as pedophilia and incest, are not. And with good reason due to their detritus effects, as I said. There's a reason why a man can have sex with another man, but a man cannot have sex with a boy, and a father cannot have sex with his son under the law.
I am of the mind that morals and values are constantly undergoing an evolution for humanity. At the very least they shift.
Yet allowing things like pedophilia and incest to be tolerable would be a step backward. Homosexuality, even if you don't agree with it, is definitely not in the same category as them.

If homosexuality is becoming more embraced as a sexual outlet, then recognizing it in the form of marriage, to me, doesn't seem like such a big deal.

And that is exactly where we are in disagreement : )
Which is very good to know.
By saying that morals shift throughout the course of time, you are arguing a relativistic perspective.
I on the other hand am a moral absolutist, where a moral right stays a moral right, regardless of time's progression. Whether it's acceptable or not doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong.
These are two points again that I thoroughly touched earlier on.
Please do read the article. I assure you, it would help you debate with me even better.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
5,612
Awards
4
Location
∵Иೆ!?तっФ」
And that is exactly where we are in disagreement : )
Which is very good to know.
By saying that morals shift throughout the course of time, you are arguing a relativistic perspective.
I on the other hand am a moral absolutist, where a moral right stays a moral right, regardless of time's progression. Whether it's acceptable or not doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong.
These are two points again that I thoroughly touched earlier on.
Please do read the article. I assure you, it would help you debate with me even better.

This is starting to smell like a very non-secular argument against homosexual marriage.

So if morals don't shift, how do you account for, well, you know, the moral shift in history? For example, how human sacrifice was at one point acceptable?

To argue from an absolutist point of view is to surmise that there is a superordinate source of morality. That is, morality must exist outside the mind in order to be absolute, which brings up religious connotations of the word (that source being God).

You're ultimately applying religious views to the legality of gay marriage here.

Separation of church and state---> Secularity of government---> religious views should not influence law.
 
Last edited:

Masamune-Kakashi

New member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
34
Location
In Your Shadow.... And Corn Fields!
Before I begin, One: no I did not read your whole post. I will print it out and read it in full when i get the chance. Two: Are you EMO? Now that is out of my system, Three: Are You a Homosexual (Am not against you if you are just wondering why you might have wrote this.)?

There will always be people who do not share the same ideas as far as right and wrong go. Many cultures have aspects that are correct for them but is taboo for our own, for example the Swastika. An ancient symbol that carries a different meaning for many different peoples is condemned in the United States. While Buddhist wear it to bring good fortune, anything/anyone seen in the U.S with it is deemed racist.

This is why our government is democratic and ruled by the majority vote. This allows for the common idea of what is right and wrong to become our law, and guide our behavior. This requires tolerance and conformity from the minority party. While they may disagree with it, they are not except from following it. Luckily the ideas of people change over time and the minority party can become the majority party and the law becomes amended. This is now correct and what remains of the opposing party must now tolerate and conform. This process continues until one side becomes the thought of the whole nation and there is no opposition.

What this means in terms of homosexuality is that while it is currently believed to be incorrect and we don’t acknowledge their rights as “Partners”, the idea can change to where they are viewed as a loving couple.
Yes I know that one of the ideas that our foundation as a country was set upon is freedom from religious tyranny, and that should truly be a strong enough reason for people to simply let them be, we are still ignorant and stubborn in our idea that it is incorrect, and simply a social uprising that has begun in order to break away from conformity. Until people can simply decide to stop worrying about what the Jones’ are doing and simply live their lives to their way, the situation will not change.

I do not support homosexuality it self but would simply rather let them find their happiness that they believe they will have. If we could all let go and see one another as free and different, then the world would be a much calmer place. Until then, we can only Tolerate, conform, vote, and seek our own inner peace.

Holy Nucken Futs Man. 12 PAGES!
 
Last edited:

Dark-Disciple

The 5th Apocalyptic Rider
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
2,278
Age
31
Location
Riding with Famine, Death, Pestilence and Destruct
This is starting to smell like a very non-secular argument against homosexual marriage.

It truly isn't at all. And I would like to ask you to at least give me enough merit on that. This is by far one of the most secular perspectives you'll ever receive on that matter.


So if morals don't shift, how do you account for, well, you know, the moral shift in history? For example, how human sacrifice was at one point acceptable?

Just because each society has different valued opinions doesn't necessarily mean that morality has changed. The example that you gave fails to support your claim because of the following reasons:

A) Human sacrifice was deem right at one point because people had a higher sense of spiritual worship than we do know. Its almost the same case as what happened in the times of the witch hunts.
We look down upon these things know because we believe we have transcended these believes.
However, if we did in fact believed that wicked women existed that spent their time doing harm to innocent beings in unspeakable manners, we would also agree that there is no one more worthy of execution than they did. If you disagree, you are acting upon a Genetic Fallacy
Equally, if we were to believe that a being so powerful existed that made us feel so insignificant in comparison, and equally we believed that the only way to please His (or Her, of course) needs was to sacrifice the blood of our most priced relations, then gladly we too would give up our lives for the benefit of the community.

There are some maxims however that have always been unwavering. Killing innocent people has always been frowned upon even in the earliest of civilizations. If you come to compare all of the societies that have existed upon this earth, you would be surprised rather by how similar they are instead of how different.
There has never been a society that has valued cheating or stealing or killing or dishonor in all of humanity because if it ever did, it would certainly destroy itself fairly quickly.

Morality is fairly self-evident.

We all seem to have a basic code of moral behavior by which we abide to every day.
You seem to think that everyone should be left to do as they please so long as they think they are correct.
This is irresponsible and impractical at best.
Hitler thought he was right in killing all the jews. All you can say to him and all of Nazi Germany is that there are different strokes for different artists, and you just happen to disagree with theirs.
As an Absolutist however, I can acknowledge the fact that the Nazis violated a basic rule of humanity and thus deserve to be punished severely for doing so.
You can't complain to someone about breaking a rule if there aren't any SET and UNCHANGEABLE rules by which we all must apply to. Next time someone cheats on you or lies to you or wrongs you in any way shape or form, you can't say they're wrong unless you acknowledge that they have chosen to ignore a certain maxim to wrong you blatantly in the process.


To argue from an absolutist point of view is to surmise that there is a superordinate source of morality. That is, morality must exist outside the mind in order to be absolute, which brings up religious connotations of the word (that source being God).

You're ultimately applying religious views to the legality of gay marriage here.

Separation of church and state---> Secularity of government---> religious views should not influence law.

You are committing another horrible error here:
You actually think I'm foolish enough to bring God into this.
I've seen how foolish it is for anyone to argue a point by imposing their faith into an opponent who doesn't share it at all.

If you read my article you will find that not once did I argue that homosexuality was wrong merely because "God said so". Yet you're accusing me of that because most of the people that argue against homosexuality do, and that is why they fail so miserably in doing so.

Just letting you know: I'm not just anybody.

________________________________________

Before I begin, One: no I did not read your whole post. I will print it out and read it in full when i get the chance. Two: Are you EMO? Now that is out of my system, Three: Are You a Homosexual (Am not against you if you are just wondering why you might have wrote this.)?

Here, I'll answer your questions in the order that you posted them:
1- I really do think you should read it. I worked very, VERY hard on it.
2- To answer your question, no, I am not "EMO". Not really sure where or how you came to that concussion. I'm very interested in learning why though.
3- No, I am not Homosexual. It would be a little ironic for me to argue against it if I openly was. I will however say this: I actually do have a lot of homosexual friends, and I have no problems with their friendship. Be it lesbian or gay, I'm not going to discriminate against one's abilities or dispositions because of their sexual orientation, a point I tried making quite evident throughout the course of my article. I argue against homosexuality merely because it isn't just a deplorably harsh lifestyle but it is also one that leads to the needless martyrdom of an individual. If they are willing to go through that, I have nothing to say but wish the fondest of lucks and acceptance.


What this means in terms of homosexuality is that while it is currently believed to be incorrect and we don’t acknowledge their rights as “Partners”, the idea can change to where they are viewed as a loving couple.
Yes I know that one of the ideas that our foundation as a country was set upon is freedom from religious tyranny, and that should truly be a strong enough reason for people to simply let them be, we are still ignorant and stubborn in our idea that it is incorrect, and simply a social uprising that has begun in order to break away from conformity. Until people can simply decide to stop worrying about what the Jones’ are doing and simply live their lives to their way, the situation will not change.

Every action anyone takes will always affect someone. A lot of people argue that if something isn't hurting anyone, why bother change it.
The problem here is the fact that whatever we do, we are always going to be affecting someone around us.

I do not support homosexuality itself

If you do not, I hope my article helped give you further insights on the argument at hand. We really can't afford to hold a position while being ignorant of why we are doing so.


Holy Nucken Futs Man. 12 PAGES!

Like I said, I worked very hard and extensively on it. The problem is really, REALLY deep and I had a lot to cover in order to have a strong standing position on the matter.
I really hope it gave it enough justice.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
5,612
Awards
4
Location
∵Иೆ!?तっФ」
It truly isn't at all. And I would like to ask you to at least give me enough merit on that. This is by far one of the most secular perspectives you'll ever receive on that matter.

Do you believe in God? The afterlife? Any sort of religious concept?

Just because each society has different valued opinions doesn't necessarily mean that morality has changed.

"Different valued opinions."
Semantics wise, you're saying:
"Just becayse each society has different morality doesn't necessarily mean that morality has changed."

A) Human sacrifice was deem right at one point because people had a higher sense of spiritual worship than we do know. Its almost the same case as what happened in the times of the witch hunts.
We look down upon these things know because we believe we have transcended these believes.
However, if we did in fact believed that wicked women existed that spent their time doing harm to innocent beings in unspeakable manners, we would also agree that there is no one more worthy of execution than they did. If you disagree, you are acting upon a Genetic Fallacy

Equally, if we were to believe that a being so powerful existed that made us feel so insignificant in comparison, and equally we believed that the only way to please His (or Her, of course) needs was to sacrifice the blood of our most priced relations, then gladly we too would give up our lives for the benefit of the community.

So in other words- Morality appears different because of the context, but is really the same.

This implies that there is an absolute morality. That is, you need to prove the existence of an absolute morality in order to support your claims since the very appearance of morality shifts over time.

On the contrary, I look at the example you gave and see that context dictates morals.
If I were to, say, be born in an earlier time, you can bet that I would probably be readjusted to fit that time's morals. But I don't see how that proves your point.

As a moral relativist, I don't believe that there's some transcendent, tangible morality in the universe. When I speak of morality in individual terms, I am, of course, talking about it in intellectual/emotional terms since, in the most literal sense, morality does not exist.

So saying that morality has evolved here isn't referring to actual "morality" (since it doesn't exist), nor even the mechanisms in our mind by which we discern morality. It's in reference to the context.
You could, as you do, argue that this implies an unchanging morality. That were the context never to change, we'd all have the same morality.

In fact, that's not far off. I at least admit that, yes, were all the context in history to be the same, we'd see that we have similar morality to any other society. Yet, I don't see how that suggests an absolute morality (see next response).

There are some maxims however that have always been unwavering. Killing innocent people has always been frowned upon even in the earliest of civilizations. If you come to compare all of the societies that have existed upon this earth, you would be surprised rather by how similar they are instead of how different.
There has never been a society that has valued cheating or stealing or killing or dishonor in all of humanity because if it ever did, it would certainly destroy itself fairly quickly.

I don't see how moral overlap necessitates the existence of an absolute morality. Were there none, it would be a useless function. The point in discerning between what is "right" and "wrong" is instinctive for the betterment of humanity. Were we to all have entirely different views on this, it would be, as I said, useless.


You seem to think that everyone should be left to do as they please so long as they think they are correct.
This is irresponsible and impractical at best.

Where did you pull this from?

You can't complain to someone about breaking a rule if there aren't any SET and UNCHANGEABLE rules by which we all must apply to. Next time someone cheats on you or lies to you or wrongs you in any way shape or form, you can't say they're wrong unless you acknowledge that they have chosen to ignore a certain maxim to wrong you blatantly in the process.

That's retarded logic. "You don't believe there is an absolute morality, you cannot say what is right or wrong."
It's the equivalent to saying:
"You don't believe in God/the afterlife/meaning in life, you should just give up."
"You only believe ideas like justice exist within the mind of man, you don't deserve to be a part of them."

You are committing another horrible error here:
You actually think I'm foolish enough to bring God into this.
I've seen how foolish it is for anyone to argue a point by imposing their faith into an opponent who doesn't share it at all.

I never said this has to be about God- just religion. God does not have to be involved for this to be a guise of secularity- intentionally or not.

Stop beating around the bush. Tell me how it is possible that an absolute morality exists. Through what means.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this little dissertation is supposed to be like a position paper. You pick a side, defend it, and convince others for why you chose that side in the process.
To dismiss my argument because of our different views on morality is asinine. It goes without saying that if you're going to base it on one view of morality, you need to defend that view and not simply assume it to be true in order to advance your idea. Otherwise, the only people who would agree with your idea are the ones who already believe what you believe- you're preaching to the choir.


Just letting you know: I'm not just anybody.
spongelawl.jpg
 

New2Ya

I'm lost...
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
5,531
Location
Europe
It's not getting out of control at all.

Ok, first off, that was a long read. And it's all very formally written. Kudos. :wink:

Now on to your post. First and foremost, homosexuality is not an ideology. So the fact that you're talking about opposing ideologies is wrong. Homosexuality can best be described as something inside of you that makes you feel attracted to the same sex, rather than the other. It's not as simple as an act that you decide to act upon. It is a way to reach your ultimate happiness: love.

(And no one would ever claim that love is an ideology. If you do, you look at it from a scientific point, and we can all agree here that we should be looking at this from a humane point of view.)

When we speak of a debate what is "Right" and what is "Wrong", we immediatly distance ourself from the essence of homosexuality. It's not right or wrong, because it is a natural phenonemon. When we look at the sun, are we going to debate if it's right or wrong? When we look at a dog peeing on a tree, are we going to discuss whether its right or wrong? No, we won't, because we realize that it's nature. It's a phenonemon that happens frequently.

Homosexuality is not any different.

On the animal discussion, it is important to see that in nature it happens too. Why? Because it shows us that homosexuality is not JUST a human disorder (as it is described by many people disagreeing with homosexuals). In a way, it helps some.

But with that, we fail to realize that we are human beings. We are not creatures that just act upon their instincts. We have the ability to love, to cherish. We have the ability to carefully decide whether or not we act upon something, based on whether it will have a positive effect on our life.

I place "love" above "instinct". Love can only be achieved when it's mutual. Instinct is a selfish individual act. Love is an act that both parties feel and act upon. And it makes them both happy, most of the times for a very long time (even till death do them part)

But all that needs to be said really, is that there shouldn't even have to be a debate about this. If you understand what love is, you know that sexuality is just a way to achieve this. It is a way to be happy, which is every human's right. And anyone that doesn't agree with someone's happiness has a weird and twisted ideology.
 

thisisthebeat

New member
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
56
Age
32
they're discussing the topic in a normal manner.
so stop trying to raise your post count with meaningless crap like this.


WTF.
I'm not accusing anybody of anything. I'm just saying this is a tough topic that gets people pretty emotional. Geez person.. :56:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top