JJ Abrams says gay characters will "of course" be included in future Star Wars movies...

This is not an insult, this is scientific fact.

http://discoverykids.com/articles/are-humans-considered-animals/

HumansAreAnimals wrote:

This is not an insult, this is scientific fact.

http://discoverykids.com/articles/are-humans-considered-animals/

ok.

Murders, pyromaniacs, and pedophiles have *victims*. When adults engage in homosexual activities that are consensual there are no victims if all parties consent. Do you see the huge, glaring, Mack Truck-sized difference? Luckily for us that proverbial Pandora's box will remain closed.

Boogeyman Agenda aside, your equivocation of pedophilia with homosexuality was insulting, and the slippery slope hyperbole is so ludicrous that it doesn't need to be dignified with a response.

As for the euthanasia scenario, I say go for it. No problem with that at all since both parties consent; technically it wouldn't be "murder" anyway, since euthanasia is a form of suicide.

According to YOUR morals.

There was no hyperbole, and I accounted for the Mac Truck sized difference. Do you care to respond to the pedophile question, or do you acknowledge that there is a huge problem with "they are born that way, so it is ok" stance?

thejeff wrote:

According to YOUR morals.

There was no hyperbole, and I accounted for the Mac Truck sized difference. Do you care to respond to the pedophile question, or do you acknowledge that there is a huge problem with "they are born that way, so it is ok" stance?

Sure, I'll give it a shot. I never said that every ingrained behavior was acceptable. I was merely pointing out the paradox in the religious belief that the creator gives people free will while at the same time creating them with defects that cause them to "sin." You can't have it both ways.

I'll stand by what I said. Equivocating two consenting adults with a sexual predator who preys upon the most vulnerable among us takes either delusion or some pretty far out rationalizing. I'm not sure which.

thejeff wrote:

You still don't understand moral relativism. I'll explain my position again. I'm pegging morality to a universal moral truth ( force is always wrong; consent is needed for any action, e.g. the non-aggression principle) therefore it cannot be relative. Just because you disagree with the consistent application of the objective truth I am claiming does not mean that my position is morally relative. If I were to make arguments for morality differing dependent upon culture or social constructs (i.e. *sometimes* force is justified, you don't always have to have consent to do something to someone) then my morality would be relative. Do you see the difference?

Then you do believe in a universal moral truth? Where does that truth come from? (I will help you out. If you say "your brain", that is relativism... but I bet you have a better answer than that.)

"To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times." R.W. Hepburn

I always though spock was gay.

Good for him.

Sorry, accidentally hit reply

^this is nonsense.

You don't get to define that my sexual organs were clearly intended by nature to do or not do. Or anyone else's.

But if this is truly how you feel, I guess you've never masturbated right? You're saying everytime you have sex it's with the goal of impregnating your partner? How many kids you got, Jeff?

Nature has some quirky designs .. why do you suppose prostate stimulation can make a man ejaculate? Why do you think women are often more likely to orgasm via anal sex than vaginal sex? You're opposed to oral sex, right?

Which is it "intended by nature"? or your god? Because you're always seemed to imply those are two very different things.

But this seems to be the crux of your argument in this thread (reading your "moral relativism" discussion with stagger lee).

Your moral threshold is no less arbitrary than stagger's is, and his is at least rationally supportable. Yours is simply something you made up - "nature intended"? One could just as easily argue on that principle that interracial relationships are immoral. For many years, many people did. It's simply an indefensible argument.

This isn't true at all. I'm not bigoted towards straight people. My best friend is straight. I work with straight people. I watch straight shows and movies, like Star Wars, for example.

Back on your silliness about "clear design of the human body. Not all human bodies are designed the same. if they were, I'd have dropped a 12:37 somewhere in my day. Or a 1:42 200m freestyle. And I'd be able to understand quantum theory. And algebra. And play polyrhythms. And we'd all like blue.

A democracy should be more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. - paraphrased, but the point is valid.

Fail.

You've made several assertions here and supported none of them. Because they're indefensible. Further it's not at all sensible to reduce ideologies so something so simplistic. Modern Liberalism (which you've failed to even define, but I'll take it as it reads) is not any one thing. your hyperbolic use of "tyranny" suggests you understand neither tyranny OR liberalism.

I think Stagger Lee's case that morals should be rooted on 'do no harm to others' is a valid one. And it's defensible. Simply stating the case that no one is born with any greater to right to this world or to respect and courtesy than any one else is a valid argument. Because to oppose it is impossible. Thats why royalty, for example, is so ridiculous, the idea that one is born of noble blood, for example, it's completely unsupportable. If we're all "created equal", for example (not the same, but of equal value), then we should all be accorded equal rights ... which is where the need to end suffrage and disenfranchisement stems from.

if you're going to say that gay people have some lesser value to this earth, or to our community, and should not be accorded the same rights and respect as everyone else, then the imperative is on you to show why.

And the fact that you find homosexuality icky doesn't count.

community support wrote:

As someone who works in public health I can assure you that homosexuality harms as well.

The statistics are quite staggering actually. Check CDC or any reliable health related statistics. Mental health disorders are significantly higher in those who have sex with the same sex. Depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, mood disorders etc. We see it all the time in homosexuals. Suicide, substance abuse, self harm, illegal drug use, homelessness. On & on. Not to mention higher rates of STDs.

How could anybody say that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone? Absolutely incredible.

Mental health disorders are also significantly higher in those who are routinely abused and marginalized and treated with no human dignity (not to digress, but if this isn't a clear indication that we are indeed social creatures, I don't know what else is).

You also see higher rates of things like serial killing among white people. We also see incredibly high rates of disorders, violence and abuse in this country than we see in many other countries.

We see significantly higher rates of mental health disorders in modern "civilized" industrial nations than has ever been observed in "primitive" indigenous people. Depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, mood disorders etc. We see it all the time in the US. Suicide, substance abuse, self harm, illegal drug use, homelessness. On & on. Not to mention higher rates of STDs.

We also see significantly higher rates of sexual predation by men than women.

How can you say being a male doesn't hurt anyone? Absolutely incredible.

Sexuality harms people. When I look around the world at starving people, orphan children, STDs, etc, I don't point my finger at sexuality and say heterosexuality is somehow offensive or harmful.

You're doing exactly that. And it's extremely childish of you.

thejeff wrote:

According to YOUR morals.

There was no hyperbole, and I accounted for the Mac Truck sized difference. Do you care to respond to the pedophile question, or do you acknowledge that there is a huge problem with "they are born that way, so it is ok" stance?

I think there ARE people who for one reason or another are uncontrollably sexually attracted to children. And while I find that disgusting, that alone isn't enough of a reason to criminalize it or dehumanize those people. A quick google search with a couple of juicy terms will find all kinds of things that plenty of people do and enjoy, things that you and I both might find equally repulsive and disgusting. And some of which excite and arouse you and repulse me. And vice versa.

The issue with attraction to children is, and you already know this, it's an abusive relationship. That's why we call it rape. Many men are very attracted to women but there has to be consent involved to make that relationship a sound one. If you're NOT saying this, you're saying it's OK to prowl the street and f*ck whoever you want to, so long as it's a female.

What I find dishonest in you jeff, is that you're smart enough to already know this. Don't pretend to be something you're not.

I can't tell you that a penis is designed to fit inside a vagina, but you get to tell me what my intentions are when I have sex with my wife? Have you absolutely lost your mind?

And, with regard to moral relativism, you are going to tell me that the function (and yes, the very shape) of sexual organs is somehow less concrete than someone else's arbitrary line in the sand? He could have chosen "love", "compassion", "safe", or any number of things. Instead, he chose "consent". HIS MORALS ARE RELATIVE TO HIS POINT OF VIEW, AS ARE YOURS. You two just happen to agree. That doesn't make it "valid", and it doesn't make "opposition impossible". It makes it yours.

thejeff wrote:

I can't tell you that a penis is designed to fit inside a vagina, but you get to tell me what my intentions are when I have sex with my wife? Have you absolutely lost your mind?

And, with regard to moral relativism, you are going to tell me that the function (and yes, the very shape) of sexual organs is somehow less concrete than someone else's arbitrary line in the sand? He could have chosen "love", "compassion", "safe", or any number of things. Instead, he chose "consent". HIS MORALS ARE RELATIVE TuO HIS POINT OF VIEW, AS ARE YOURS. You two just happen to agree. That doesn't make it "valid", and it doesn't make "opposition impossible". It makes it yours.

Any way you can restate this argument? I'm not sure I understand your viewpoint here, specifically everything above your first all caps.

If MY MORALS are relative to my point my view, are yours? Just because I've staked a claim for a moral system doesn't mean that I'm guilty of moral relativity. I'm still not sure that you understand what moral relativism is.

As an aside, I didn't just arbitrarily choose the concept of "consent." What I did was ask myself the hard questions and arrive at a conclusion about what I consider to be the most just way for us to deal with each other as people and then universalize that idea. If we take moral maxims and universalize them, then they cannot be relative. Yes, we are going to disagree on what is moral but that doesn't mean that I'm a moral relativist. If I take maxims and universalize them I am by definition the opposite of a relativist and that is an absolutist. Have you ever read Kant?

Actually, it's quite the opposite, jeff. You're telling everyone here that you think sex is purely a reproductive design. And that sex outside the procreative purpose is somehow against what you think "nature" designed. And somehow that makes it "bad". So, I'm asking, how many kids you got Jeff?

Or are you telling me that you and your wife have sex for myriad different reasons? Because, fwiw, that would seem to be pretty common.

A penis clearly has more purposes than it's relationship to a vagina. One could just as easily say it's shape fits ones hand all too well .. or one's mouth... or an anus. I don't see that as some concrete defining metric of it's sole purpose. Because it isn't.

Consent is a pretty reasoned "line" for mutual activity. In fact, I'd suggest it's an integral component. If it's missing, then it's rape. if consent is there, but "love" isn't, I think it's difficult to make a case against the sexual activity.

But the real point I was making is that your position is completely arbitrary. It's also extremely inconsistent. Sex should be heterosexual because thats the design for procreation, yet you're perfect OK with sex that has nothing to do with procreation at all.

As for "natural", coach gave the example of flying. I'd say a better one might be ED meds etc. You're of course completely opposed to this messing with nature's design, right? You think a man buying himself a few more years of hard on is some how immoral. Right?

I never said anything about only using sex for reproduction. I said that a penis and a vagina were made for each other. You hear what you want to hear.

If you want to go shove yours in every lubricated oblong orifice that you can find, be my guest. That doesn't mean that the orifice was designed for that purpose. If you think the anus was designed for that, then quit taking dumps.

Exactly. If the guy next to you did the same exercise, he might come up with something different. That is moral relativism.

And yes, I TEACH Kant... and he would say that if everyone resorted to homosexual activity, we would cease to exist as a species in roughly one generation. #categoricalimperative

Let's change direction. Let's say, for sake of argument, that "consent" is the best possible determiner of whether or not something is moral.

Is an 18 year old mentally, physically, and emotionally capable of consenting to a romantic relationship with someone 15 years older?

How about someone who is 17 years and 364 days old?

How about someone who is 17 years and 363 days old?

How about someone who is 17?

How about someone who is 16?

How about...

Are two adult siblings mentally, physically, and emotionally capable of consenting to a romantic relationship with each other?

At some point, if you keep asking these questions, your answer will be "no". And, at that point, wherever that point may be, someone who has looser morals than you will be able to rightfully call you a bigot, according to the standards I see on this thread.

I hate to be overly pedantic about it: obviously we can both look at something and arrive at different conclusions, but the way you are defining the term "moral relativism" is not the way it is commonly defined. I'm done belaboring the point.

What? I Kant understand you?

Bwa ha ha ha ha...

;-)