Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Moral issues


CommunitarianKevin

Recommended Posts

Are there any moral issues that people think a logical argument cannot be made for?

Personally the only issue that I have not seen a good argument for is gay rights. I must point out that I am not asking for you to agree with the argument, only accept that it is a logical argument. For example, I have a stance on abortion but I can understand the argument made by the opposing side. So does anyone have one other than gay rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man sleeps with many women hes just a player or being a "guy", but if women do it they are whores or ****s. As a man I never heard a good argument for this. Even though I see it the same way, dont know why though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally the only issue that I have not seen a good argument for is gay rights.

Hi Hutton.

I don't understand this bit. Do you mean that there is no logical argument in favour of homosexual rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hutton.

I don't understand this bit. Do you mean that there is no logical argument in favour of homosexual rights?

Maybe he means against but worded it wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man sleeps with many women hes just a player or being a "guy", but if women do it they are whores or ****s. As a man I never heard a good argument for this. Even though I see it the same way, dont know why though.

Couldn't agree with you more, my own mother has been saying the same thing and I was never able to convince her that there is no difference between a guy and girl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Hutton.

I don't understand this bit. Do you mean that there is no logical argument in favour of homosexual rights?

Maybe he means against but worded it wrong?

Damn it guys. Yeah, sorry. I meant against gay rights. Too late to go back and correct it now. I mean there is not logical argument against the rights of gays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man sleeps with many women hes just a player or being a "guy", but if women do it they are whores or ****s. As a man I never heard a good argument for this. Even though I see it the same way, dont know why though.

The argument would be strictly scientific. It would be an argument in the evolution and development of sex. It would also be an argument in human nature. There are pretty good scientific arguments for it but that does not mean it should be culturally acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I've always had a bit of trouble understanding what "gay rights" are. You can't discriminate against people already, so why do gays get more or "super" rights?

Don't get me wrong, I know that gays have been discriminated against in the past. If you decided to "come out" as being gay fifty years ago, odds are you'd wind up being targeted for all sorts of things just because you were gay. However, you can't kill someone for being gay, burn their house down, beat them up, fire them for it and all that, so yeah I get a little confused by the term.

Personally, the one issue I don't get are the people who do extreme facial tattoos and piercings then demand that everyone accept them as "normal" or allow them to express themselves via body art. Not talking about the chick with a single nose piercing or something minor, I'm talking about the people who do the full blown stuff and look more like aliens than humans any more. Makes a gay person seem pretty normal really.

On the subject of "gay marriage", I don't think the government has any right to be telling anyone who can and cannot get married. I've always seem marriage as a religious rite, but it's one of those things that started out as a religious rite and then evolved into a legal term because it became necessary for people to prove, in legal terms, that they were legally married for the purpose of inheritance and succession. If you didn't have this then when Doris Duke died I could have simply claimed that she and I were married and I was therefore entitled to inherit her estate. Personally, I think the government should simple issue "matrimonial licenses" and if you want to get "married" then it's up to your church or religious organization to decide based on the cantons of that particular faith.......and yes, you could even get married outside the church same as people do now by a judge or magistrate. Everyone can get "married", the government is no longer deciding what people can and cannot do and the church is free to change or maintain their own religious cantons.

Licenses are a relatively "new" thing and when the various states began issuing such things they didn't imagine the possibility of gay men and women wanting to get married.....in public......where people could see them. Nor were they so concerned with the adoption of a religious term into the legal realm and they certainly didn't foresee the whole brouhaha this would turn into in our....more enlightened culture and time.

Who knows what the next big and devicive thing might be in the future, simply because of the way we see things now as opposed to then. Silly really when you stop and think about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I've always had a bit of trouble understanding what "gay rights" are. You can't discriminate against people already, so why do gays get more or "super" rights?

On the subject of "gay marriage", I don't think the government has any right to be telling anyone who can and cannot get married.

The issue that I am talking about specifically is gay marriage. You say you cannot discriminate against them but that is exactly what is happening by not letting them get married. They are not asking for more rights, just the same rights already granted to everyone else.

You say the government does not have any right to be telling anyone who can or cannot get married, and I agree, but the problem is they do. North Carolina just banned gay marriage. That is the government telling who can and cannot get married.

Edited by HuttonEtAl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound argumentative, but you only said, "gay rights" without specificity.

Seems to me the whole argument on both sides is over the single word, "marriage". Get rid of the word in legal terms and issue licenses.

North Carolina is only the latest state to impose that restriction. Various states over the years have excluded, inter-racial marriages, people with certain genetic defects, even inter-religions from marrying. And to be honest, it's a silly thing to squabble over, but between hard line right wingers and Gay activist and neither side backing down or seeking compromise then here comes the fecal matter being deposited onto the rotating air handling system. Most gay couples I know don't want to get married, however two of them do. Since I don't plan on marrying a same sex partner it's much ado about nothing to me really, so I can be detached and see the problem for what it is........trouble is no one seems to care that the answer is so bloody simple. Which is why it's going to wind up driving a wedge between groups, but that's pretty much how we do things any more as a society. Which is a really sad commentary on us as a whole.

Oh, one more thing to add. Please keep in mind that no one.......and I do mean, no one, has any "right" to be married in the first place. Gay, straight, lesbian and whatever else you might happen to be, so when you connect with someone on that level and you want to make it a "legal" thing, then why should you have to be on a state or Federal government's list of approved unions? No, the Feds don't grant marriage licenses, it up to the individual states to determine for themselves. Now yes, strictly speaking they denying one group a (thing?) that they grant another.......but you still don't have a right to be married in the first place. You see my point on that?

Edited by keninsc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to sound argumentative, but you only said, "gay rights" without specificity.

Ugh see that is the problem with assuming people might have a clue what you are talking about without explaining every little point. My bad though...I made the mistake of thinking someone reading this has the ability to understand what I am trying to say. Next time I will spell it out more exact...

Gay rights mean THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS. If the only right in question is marriage, that is obviously what is being talked about. I am clearly not talkin about voting, because they can do that. Can you please try and reason without me explaining every little point?

Edited by HuttonEtAl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, one more thing to add. Please keep in mind that no one.......and I do mean, no one, has any "right" to be married in the first place. Gay, straight, lesbian and whatever else you might happen to be, so when you connect with someone on that level and you want to make it a "legal" thing, then why should you have to be on a state or Federal government's list of approved unions? No, the Feds don't grant marriage licenses, it up to the individual states to determine for themselves. Now yes, strictly speaking they denying one group a (thing?) that they grant another.......but you still don't have a right to be married in the first place. You see my point on that?

No I do not see your point. Tax benifits and other benifits and rights are given to married couples. If taxes are involved it is a federal issue. It is quite simple...if it is a personal matter, do not outlaw it...See my point? The Constitution trumps the states. The Constitution grants equality for everyone. If you ban one from benifits or "things," you are going against the Consitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn it guys. Yeah, sorry. I meant against gay rights. Too late to go back and correct it now. I mean there is not logical argument against the rights of gays.

I've seen enough of your posts to have been able to assume what you meant - I just wanted to be sure, though.

I think you're probably right. I can't think of any other rights issue which is as irrational as this. But I think the reason for this has to do with the fact that gay rights is still a work in progress. With other issues (such as black and women's rights) it's pretty much settled. Gay rights vary wherever you go. Here in New Zealand homosexuals can marry, but can't adopt. In other countries they can adopt. In the US you see big differences depended on what state you live in - and some states have even gone backwards.

I was thinking about this and it brought to mind something I read about racism and black rights. In his book "The Better Angels Of Our Nature" Steven Pinker wrote about how the black rights movement had to overcome a deep seated racism that was prevalent in most societies. He cites studies done (can't remember whether it was using EEG or MRI) but these showed frequent impulsive negative reactions in people shown photos of different races. The conclusion being that xenophobia is, to some extent, hard-wired into us. Something that may have been useful in an evolutionary sense, and is still there. But we are able to trump that impulse with our ability to rationalise the argument and understand that there is no logic to it. But that didn't happen overnight.

Is it reasonable to presume that something similar is going on in our brains when confronted by homosexuality? Although the difference here is that those who would be against gay rights may feel that they have a rational argument. For instance, "if we were all gay, humans wouldn't be around for much longer", "it's not natural" and "God says it's a sin". For gay rights to achieve the same level as black rights, these arguments need to be eroded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I do not see your point. Tax benifits and other benifits and rights are given to married couples. If taxes are involved it is a federal issue. It is quite simple...if it is a personal matter, do not outlaw it...See my point? The Constitution trumps the states. The Constitution grants equality for everyone. If you ban one from benifits or "things," you are going against the Consitution.

Ok, just in case you haven't bothered to read the Constitution......which you obviously haven't, it says that states can't make any laws that abridges the rights of the people and then the founding fathers wrote down and named those rights. Marriage......gay or straight is not a Constitutional guarantee. If it is then please tell what agency I might go to an have my Constitutional wife assigned to me?

Fact is Gay "marriage" will most likely be a reality in the very near future, but it's based on a load of crap.......uhm.......sorry.....no pun intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some that claim the federal government should not recognize the issue of marriage seem to me to be sneakily finding a way to deny others the right to marriage.

It took a 1967 Supreme Court ruling to change the national climate when it came to interacial marriage. I suppose the federal government should have not gotten involved then? I believe it should get involved now.

This issue, like others, is simple. We either grant the right to all adults or we discriminate against certain adults and deny them the right to marriage. There are any number of points one could establish to counter my previous sentence, such as is marriage really a right? Well arguing the small points is still a way to deny. Some resort to subterfuge or obfuscation but their main point is to deny equal rights to all. Regardless, those who desire to continue discriminating are on the wrong side of history.

What about arguments against polygamy? Instead of a right it is an actual crime in some places.

Edited by Unseelie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my, what rubbish.

We, as both a society and individuals, discriminate on a frequent and regular basis. We discriminate on fat people, we discriminate on ugly people, smokers, foreigners, and freaks with tricked out facial tatts and piercings. Get over it, like we do with all these other groups.

Now I stated a very reasonable solution and why the government shouldn't be telling anyone who can and cannot get married. Now if you have a valid reason for holding an opposing belief, then by all means state it. I'd love to hear it, but all this horse poo about discrimination and it's the same as the civil rights movement is just that, horse poo.

Edited by keninsc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i cant think of a logical reason why two gay people cant get married.

another issue a logical reason cant really be made for, and most people have religion as the only argument for is contraception. i cant see why people have a problem with someone taking the pill or using a condom or something to prevent themselfes from having a baby. if people in africa had more access to condoms, less people would die of aids. there will also be less unwanted babies, as sexual urges are natural. even if you wait til marriage to have sex, that couple will still enjoy the pleasure of having sex with eachother and have the urge to do it, but what if they arent ready for a child yet because they do not have the money to raise a child or just dont really like kids that much. also what should a couple do if they already have kids, and couldnt afford or cope with another, yet still want to have sex. its not reasonable to suggest that they stop having sex for the rest of their life cause they dont want any more kids, or to suggest that they have loads and loads of children they cant cope with or have the money to care for properly. and getting pregnant with an unwanted baby and putting it up for adoption isnt really good for the kid as theres already far more kids that need homes than people who are willing to adopt a child. also teaching teenagers that they shouldnt have sex til marriage at all creates way more pregnant teenagers than teaching them about safe sex and making condoms available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As humans, we tend to over complicate things beyond what they need to be and what we call "social issues" are really nothing more than personal choices with everyone else trying to tell someone else what they should or shouldn't do.

With the whole Gay Marriage thing, I don't see any reason a government should be telling anyone they can or cannot get married. That whole idea is repugnant to me. I do see where you need a legal means of proving that a marriage or union in legal terms took place for the purpose of inheritance or estate settlement. However, as I stated earlier, I've always seem "marriage" as a religious rite, and some religions have modified their positions to include same sex marriage and, at least in my mind, that's ok. Since it's a religious rite then it should be left up to the religion to determine what is what according to their canton of beliefs.

Personally, I have no issue with same sex marriage or unions or whatever you want to call them.....I do have a seriuous problem with the government being involved in this issue at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't seem to even understand what marriage is for in the first place. So to the group I ask, why does marraige exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't seem to even understand what marriage is for in the first place. So to the group I ask, why does marraige exist?

True enough, seems people jump into marriage when they really don't need to be married......at least to the person they're marrying. Of course, some say it's "the right thing to do" and all that but any more it seems it's more of a social/peer pressure thing. I recall when I was a kid we used to be shocked at Hollywood types getting married and divorced like clockwork and no sooner was the ink dry on the divorce decree they were marrying someone else........wash, rinse, repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage exists so that I can wear a really expensive dress and everyone else can look at it in envy. Engagement ring is so I can show off my bling to the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello!

I'm new in this forum (don't know how i found it) and i only made an account just to post in this topic.

Someone before said that he couldn't think of a logical argument why gay people shouldn't get married, well...

I can't either. But at the same time, i do not approve gay marriages or gay culture. I DO approve gay people, i just don't like all these gay activists, but i have nothing against a person that is gay, because he has not done anything to me and he's just an average person who just likses the same sex. But the thing that really grinds my gears is that "Anti-Homosexual" activity has become a sin now. Everyone who says that "Gays shouldn't get married" or "I don't like people who like the same sex, they should get help" get bashed on the internet.

Someone before said that "gay people are not asking for more rights, just the same rights that has been granted to everyone else". Well... I can't agree with that. Everyone has the rights to marry the opposite sex. Or are rights made by the amount of people who want them? (I mean that "homosexual marriages should be legal because so many people are homosexual"). People also say that Homosexuality is right because both sides are fully (mentally) grown people and have the right to decide with who they want to be.

But... Let's imagine that at one time in the world there will be a massive amount of pedophiles and/or zoophiles. Lets also imagine that children and/or (in this hyphothetical future) would have the intelligence of a fully grown human being (but not the body of a fully grown human). Then there would be campaigns that would promote zoophilia and pedophilia, because so many people are zoophiles/pedophiles. Would it then be right to legalize a marriage with a child/animal if the animal/chils has the intelligence of a fully grown human being AND a huge amount of the human population were zoophiles/pedos?

Sorry for grammar errors (i'm not very good in writing (in english) and expressing myself, i'm not an adult etc), hope you understand what i mean. And i think i will stay here, because i like people who think like me :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets also imagine that children and/or (in this hyphothetical future) would have the intelligence of a fully grown human being (but not the body of a fully grown human).

If children actually had the intelligence, mental and emotional maturity, responsibility level etc. of a fully grown human, then they could knowingly consent to sex. However, that's not the case, and it is highly unlikely ever to be the case.

Equating homosexuals with people who abuse children or animals is disgusting.

To the OP...

Since marriage is a legally-binding contract that gives certain legal and financial rights, the only logical argument I could see against gay marriage is that it would somehow disrupt the economy and court systems (in the case of inheritance, etc.) in some horrendous way. However, this simply isn't true. Legally adult people, who are of sound mind, should be able to choose for themselves who they want to enter into contract with, no matter what their gender or orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If children actually had the intelligence, mental and emotional maturity, responsibility level etc. of a fully grown human, then they could knowingly consent to sex. However, that's not the case, and it is highly unlikely ever to be the case.

Equating homosexuals with people who abuse children or animals is disgusting.

To the OP...

Since marriage is a legally-binding contract that gives certain legal and financial rights, the only logical argument I could see against gay marriage is that it would somehow disrupt the economy and court systems (in the case of inheritance, etc.) in some horrendous way. However, this simply isn't true. Legally adult people, who are of sound mind, should be able to choose for themselves who they want to enter into contract with, no matter what their gender or orientation.

Sorry, wasn't trying to put gay's to the same group as pedophiles. (Although there is a difference between animal abusers / child molesters and zoophiles / pedophiles. Molesters are usually people who can't control their urges, while people with paraphillias are like people with... an addiciton? At leas that's what i've heard)

Oh, just wanted to ask... Why does our mind say that homosexuality is "disgusting". I mean... about ten years ago (when i was like 4-5 years old), i saw a TV show about homosexuality and even then it felt wrong. What part of our brain makes this "wrong"?

Edited by RandomLurker123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any moral issues that people think a logical argument cannot be made for?

Personally the only issue that I have not seen a good argument for is gay rights. I must point out that I am not asking for you to agree with the argument, only accept that it is a logical argument. For example, I have a stance on abortion but I can understand the argument made by the opposing side. So does anyone have one other than gay rights?

Genocide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.