FlawedIntellect wrote:Right and wrong based on objective standards that are static, and unchanging, and undefined by man.
There are no moral standards that weren't defined by man.
FlawedIntellect wrote:You need standards to determine that something is right or wrong, and well, subjective values just means that another culture's subjective values can call your culture right or wrong on anything.
Different cultures have different standards and even standards change with time.
FlawedIntellect wrote:So, you think that just because an entire region approves of sexual immorality (prostitution) that we should condone it too? Hell no! Never! I don't want people degrading their bodies to be used as pleasure objects! That's just sick and dehumanizing.
So you want to make choices for others? Sorry, but I don't think that the people working as prostitutes agree with you. I think they want to make their own choices.
FlawedIntellect wrote:They basically do harm to both themselves and those around them, rather than fessing up and being honest with themselves.
Gay people do not inflict harm on themselves and those around them. I don't know what you are talking about. And they are honest with themselves.
FlawedIntellect wrote:You might as well say that they can't discriminate against rapists and pedophiles, since you're justifying one sexual immorality with another.
Dude, please... Don't compare criminals with gay people. I have seen jlay offering this comparison as well. You know what consent means right?
FlawedIntellect wrote:Sexual preference resulting from self-distorted views on sexuality. A choice. A choice proven to be unhealthy.
Proven to be what? Who proved what? Really now...
But let me ask you the following question: What do you know about the subject of SEXUALITY? How documented are you on this subject? Have you read the website I provided you with? It seems not.
Here's the CDC again:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909
Do you see HIV in the top 10?
FlawedIntellect wrote:Also, the argument isn't so much about ability to procreate as much as the general nature of procreation itself. Homosexuals can't naturally procreate.
Of course they can naturally procreate:)) Lesbians can do that rather easily. They just go to an artificial insemination clinic. For men it's a little bit harder, but they can find a 'carrier mother'.
FlawedIntellect wrote:That isn't to say that they shouldn't care about the parents, but that their priorities are on the well-being of the child.
Of course that the priority is the well being of a child. The issue is that they have no base to refuse gay couples as parents except the fact that they are gay.
***And please stop repeating that being gay is a poor lifestyle choice and proven to be unhealthy. You can't support that with facts.
FlawedIntellect wrote:So people not acting according to the rules automatically invalidates those rules. Okay. Then I guess we should free the serial killers from death row.
This is a biased topic. Let's press the skip button.
FlawedIntellect wrote:Hence why the system of objective standards needs a flawless origin.
First of all you need to establish the existence of such flawless origin.
FlawedIntellect wrote:Oh? By what standard do you make that judgment? Oh? And I should respect peoples' choices if it is self-destructive to them? I think not! Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice. Hence, "poor lifestyle choice." "Poor" does not refer to the wealth they possess. "Poor" rather refers to the low quality of such a lifestyle.
***And please stop repeating that being gay is a poor lifestyle choice and proven to be unhealthy. You can't support that with facts.
FlawedIntellect wrote:Oh? Explain what you mean by "you can't use one measure for them all."
I mean that OM doesn't have all the answers and it can't be used as a standard for determining moral laws in a society.
FlawedIntellect wrote: Problem is, people often would rather have subjective standards than a full set of objective ones, because it makes things more "convenient."
Subjective standards are objective to a certain point given the fact all people respect the same subjective standards. I don't think that all people agree with all the moral laws, but they need to respect them or face the consequences.
FlawedIntellect wrote:Subjective values are irrelevant, as they can change.
Really? I don't think so. I see subjective values relevant to members of a society. They can change, but then again you can't tell the future, can you? I've seen this comparison offered by jlay as well. Subjective values can change of course, but that doesn't mean that such a change happens in seconds. Just look at black people in America. The wounds of slavery have not healed until today. Things have changed of course, but it doesn't happen in a heart beat.
FlawedIntellect wrote:Um, even then, you need to account for other possible health problems, not just the ones that have HIV.
I think the main issue discussed here was their 'immoral dangerous" sexual behavior. As it seems, 93% of gay people know very well how to use protection and to stay on the safe side. That is a responsible course of action, wouldn't you say?
FlawedIntellect wrote:Why shouldn't prostitution be illegal? It's objectifying and degrading to women! It reduces the value of a woman down to a sex toy. Not to mention that prostitutes tend to be victims of domestic abuse, so making prostitution illegal PROTECTS the woman! Not to mention prostitution in and of itself is simply too reductive of the purpose of sex.
This can be the subject of another topic.
FlawedIntellect wrote:
Discrimination how? Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice. Why do so-called "psychologists" blame all the problems on the bullying rather than seeing that, in certain cases, it's an attitude problem?
Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice only in your head. If you would have read the page I provided you with, well, maybe you could understand some things differently. Psychologists say what they say because they have conducted studies and the studies prove that the prejudice that people display towards gay people is not supported by real life facts.
jlay wrote:Gay couples can adopt in certain states, and they are. I do not believe that Catholic Charities should be forced to facilitate adoptions to gay couples bases on their moral values.
You are arguing for CC to get special treatment. Well, you see, although subjective moral values are subjective in the sense that societies choose what is wrong and what is right, in terms of respecting those values, the society is objective: everybody must follow the rules including CC.
jlay wrote:The question is that DESIRE is not a validation of behavior. But what do you mean by social norm. Where does it exist? What is it's source?
Social norm is a set of both implicit and explicit rules validated by and within a social group. I think that covers all your questions.
jlay wrote:This isn't a condemnation. You asked for some stats, I provided. It shows that anyone who engages in this behavior is willfully ignoring the dangers they are putting themself in. Again, just try and donate blood. There are questions about homosexuality, and if you answer yes to any of them, you are automatically rejected. Discrimination? Heck yes. Against a person? No. Against BEHAVIOR.
No... The numbers on paper demonstrate that 7% of people who engage in such behavior are ignoring the dangers. The rest of 93% are healthy know how to use protection and how to stay on the safe side.
By the way, heterosexual people who also have unprotected sex will get infected as well. It's the same.
HIV is an STD. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. At least STDs don't discriminate.
Jeez dude. I mean, you are actually trying to explain me that gay people are retards. Really now?
jlay wrote:No. Against BEHAVIOR.
Are heterosexual people discriminated against?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm
1.2 million people in total suffer from HIV. 450,000 aprox are gay and the rest 750, 000 are hetero.
It's easier for a hetero to find a sexual partner because as facts say, 98% of the population is hetero.
So which style is more dangerous again? Which people can spread HIV more rapidly?
jlay wrote:There is behavior that no rational soceity or person would ever condone. Anyone who would advocate that prostitution is a valid career and not a stopper for being an adoptive parent is twisted.
Well, being a shop assistant at Walmart isn't a valid career, but it's a job. About the prostitute part I prefer not to comment any longer. It's clear that we judge persons in a very different way.
jlay wrote:Why should we care about your measure. It is arbirtrary and ever changing. If you claim that morality can change with a whim and that there is nothing objectively true regarding morals, then why in the world should we listen to anything you have to say about morals?
I have said this to FlawedIntellect as well. Step it down a notch with the arbitrary and ever changing. Although moral values are subjective given the fact that people decide them, they are still objective in the sense that everybody is bound to respect those rules. And I don't see moral values ever changing. I see them changing from time to time in regard to what a society has become.
jlay wrote:then why in the world should we listen to anything you have to say about morals?
Ask yourself the same question: Why should I listen to you?
How can I present my arguments if someone is not listening?
How can you present your arguments if someone is not listening?
I am not saying we have to agree. Not all moral laws suit every person, but consensus is required to function efficiently.
jlay wrote:Really, is that always the case?
Yep. Being moral means making the 'RIGHT' choice. Making a choice means having a context. You can't make a choice about nothing. Nothing is not bound by morality.
jlay wrote:Shouldn't? Ding, ding, ding. Here we go again. You are tresspassing again.
Of course they should. That is exactly what guidelines do. For example, do you think they have requirements regarding criminal record? Yep. It is perfectly valid to discriminate against BEHAVIOR. In fact, I'm sure they even rightly discriminate regarding economic status. Unless you think that an adoption agency shouldn't require that a family be able to provide for the needs of the child.
Those guidelines you are talking about are in place to safeguard the interests and well-being of the child. Psychological studies have proven that gay couples are good parents. Such a guideline shouldn't be there because it is not supported by facts.
jlay wrote:Well, as I've shown there are behaviors that we will all discriminate against.
Yes you have. For some of those behaviors we 'discriminate" against, we have valid reasons supported by facts. On the other side, you have no real facts to support discrimination against gay people.
jlay wrote:Example: Drinking. It is legal to drink. Why is it illegal for people under a certain age to drink? Because it leads to bad beahvior. Are people under 21 being discriminated against? You bet they are. Even though it is legal to drink, we still discriminate against the results of alcohol abuse. So, the fact that the state permits it, does not mean that it endorse the behaviors that result.
First of all, let's get something straight: DRINKING does NOT lead to bad behavior. EXCESSIVE and IRRATIONAL drinking does.
Gay people are not excessive and are not being irrational.
Secondly, gay people do not have negative effects on society. Alcoholics do.