토론 time! Is homosexuality moral 또는 immoral? Why? Explain

*
I'm not saying it immoral. I'm just going to give some logics. These are the logics that some people gave me. Okay, here : I will argue against homosexual acts on the basis of classical natural law. I will also attempt to preempt several common objections to natural law ethics. What Is Natural Law? According to natural law ethics, morality is grounded in natural facts about what constitutes proper functioning for rational agents. Hence when the natural law theorist speak of what is "natural," he refers to what is proper for a given organism. Similarly, "unnatural" refers to what is not proper for a given organism. The goal of a moral life is to live excellently. This is achieved when our acts align with how we ought to function given the kind of being we are. Consider a knife. Because it is the kind of thing whose proper function is cutting, we call it good if it cuts well and bad if it doesn't. The conditions for its flourishing are set 의해 its nature. Likewise, because the 심장 is a type of thing oriented toward pumping blood as its purpose, a 심장 which pumps blood well is a good heart, whereas one that is impaired is bad. We see from these examples that goodness and badness are attributive properties
Nick16 posted over a year ago
*
I can do that.
bri-marie posted over a year ago
*
link
bri-marie posted over a year ago
 Nick16 posted over a year ago
next question »

토론 답변

prophet69 said:
Morality is quite simply a 질문 of ethics . . . of right and wrong . . . of conscience and consequence.
The only time that morality should find itself concerned with sexuality, is when ethical, legal 또는 criminal issues are involved, such asconsent, coercion, abuse, etc.
Morally, I DON'T think that being sexually attracted to the same sex is a problem.
Morally, I DO believe that promiscuity, unsafe 또는 "at-risk" sexual behavior, infidelity, sex-addiction, relationship abuse, degradation and sexual violence ARE immoral.
Regardless of the gender a person is attracted to, EVERYBODY should be held to the same moral standards,and personally, I think those standards should be relatively high.
If people would only put sexuality in its proper context, and treat it with respect, dignity and self-control, then it wouldn't be a problem. The argument about homosexuality being bad cause it would stop the reproduction of the species isn't as ridiculous as the 20% guy tries to make it sound (I mean, 의해 the same principle if it's actually just a minor percentage of people who kill that means killing is OK),but both arguments start from a wrong approach: while homosexuality might (if universally practiced) lead to the extinction of the species (and this, supposing that people don't find ways to reproduce regardless of sexual preferences, which is also false since today reproduction doesn't require sexual activity, just a needle, some sperm and an ovary), it doesn't technically harm anyone around you, and therefore there's no moral issue here (just like there's no moral issue with impotence, which is also something people have to face without having chosen to). To put it in other words, swimming across the pacific isn't immoral , even if it would probably lead to the extinction of those who attempted it.
The 질문 is not about homosexuality being useful, 또는 productive, 또는 cool, 또는 aesthetically pleasant. It's about it being immoral . And 의해 the basic criterion for the distinction of all things between moral and immoral (does it harm anyone?), homosexuality (or homosexual acts ) isn't immoral , regardless of what a 3000 년 old book might say. Reproduction can't happen if one partner is infertile. I guess infertility is pretty immoral, 의해 the "logic" presented here. If we're only "meant to" use our sexual organs for reproduction, it's immoral to perform oral sex. It's immoral to masturbate. It's immoral to have a smear test, so it sucks to be all those women who'd like to avoid dying of cervical cancer.
There is absolutely no logical argument to suggest that homosexuality is immoral. At all.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
bri-marie said:
Neither. Sexualities are abstract concept and cannot be moral 또는 immoral. They're amoral. :D

There is no set definition of moral. There is no set definition of immoral. It varies from person to person, sate to state, country to country. For me, things that cause physical, mental, emotional, 또는 sexual harm are immoral.

Two consenting people partaking in a relationship (sexual 또는 otherwise) isn't causing any harm and, therefore, isn't immoral.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
You're right, a concept is not capable of being definied as moral 또는 immoral. It woudl be similar to defining an object as moral 또는 immoral - there's nothing implicit to a concept 또는 object that makes it moral 또는 immoral. Morality and immorality are how we define actions, not objects 또는 thougts.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
*
I also agree with this, Bri-marie. XD
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
whiteflame55 said:
It depends on how 당신 define morality, at least to a certain extent. In my view, morality is achieved 또는 로스트 based on actions, not states of being. Morality hinges on what we do, not on who 또는 what we are, on the basis that each and every one of us can be moral through our actions. If an inextricable part of us is immoral, then we can never truly act morally.

So if it comes down to action, some might say that the activities associated with homosexuality are immoral. But the sexual acts that homosexuals engage in are not demonstrably different from what heterosexuals engage in. Some might argue that the fact that those sexual acts are between two men 또는 women alone is enough to make it immoral, but since no harm is caused to others beyond that of perception, I would say that this isn't a moral harm on its face.

So that leaves only one possibility for moral harm, and that is what actions they are made likelier to engage in. This might sound strange, but there's a point to be made here that seems to make sense, which is that homosexuals tend to sleep with 더 많이 individuals on the whole than heterosexuals, increasing the spread of STDs. There is perceivable harm there, something tangible, even if its the result of consensual sex (since the person getting the STDs very likely doesn't know that their partner has them). But the problem there is one of blaming the victim. This tends to occur 더 많이 often for them because they cannot get married in most countries, and are ostracized 의해 their communities. It seems relatively likely that this behavior would disappear in societies where their marriages are completely accepted and treated equally, and where monogamous couples are encouraged.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
A good answer! I agree wholeheartedly.
blackpanther666 posted over a year ago
aholic said:
I'm shocked this is even a 질문 for debate. I know it's forbidden to be homosexual in many countries but in the western, civilized world there is no doubt that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual, and anybody who doubts it is very much comparable to Hitler.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
*
"Hitler" opens up a new hole of debate. There is no standard for good and bad. Hitler is a bad person to many of us. Hitler is a great person to some people too. It's a matter of opinion.
prophet69 posted over a year ago
*
Well, there actually is doubt about it in the western world too. And why shouldn't itbe in debate? There's a lot of controversy on this topic.
DramaQueen1020 posted over a year ago
*
Two things. One, merely feeling that homosexuality is immoral is hardly comparable to Hitler. There's a pretty solid line between feeling something is immoral and advocating to kill everyone who takes part in it. Throwing around the Hitler comparisons on topics like this only serves to water down the example provided 의해 Holocaust. Two, why the shock? It's an issue in the public eye, one where there's an awful lot of disagreement. The U.S. has 더 많이 states than not that don't allow gay marriage, and a lot of the reasons for that are based in moral concerns. So we should discuss it, and encourage the people who feel this way to explain themselves. If anything, the fact that 당신 feel such anger towards this perspective is all the 더 많이 reason to improve discourse. We will get no where if both sides just hate each other.
whiteflame55 posted over a year ago
*
@aholic: How wrong 당신 are! @whiteflame: Exactly.
Nick16 posted over a year ago
blackpanther666 said:
No. I'm not going to write an essay on it, plenty others have already done so. I'll explain it simply. Homosexuality is not a choice (which I wrongly commented that it was once and regret doing so), but something that just is. Moreover, it is not possible to ascribe a sense of morality 또는 immorality to, because it is an abstract concept, as has been said already. The fact remains, people try to justify their hatred 또는 intolerance to the concept 의해 thinking that morality, 또는 immorality should have a place within this concept. Homosexuality is okay, because people should be allowed to indulge in something instinctual and possibly hereditary like thus. To call homosexuality 'immoral' is to call heterosexuality 'immoral' because they are essentially the same base instinct, just modified/changed slightly.
select as best answer
posted over a year ago 
next question »