4th July 2003, 10:36 AM
I agree, Geno, under one condition: just as there are going to be homosexuals that take advantage of equal rights (no descrimination in employment), there are going to be bosses that really do descriminate. It would be unfair for the government to be looking out for one form of misconduct over another.
Weltall, I certainly don't understand your logic. First, you say it's okay for something to happen, but then say it's still not right to do it. All of your statements seem to indicate an assumption that not everyone here agrees with: homosexuality is inherently a negative thing, just like child molestation, murder, arson, and terrorism. Society decides that these things are bad, and so they are bad. I happen to disagree with this method. It has allowed the society-wide acceptance of slavery, which assumes that African Americans are inherently worth less. I prefer a more universal explanation of morals. You can dismiss it as relativism, but it has convinced me. Within relativism, I have found moral clarity.
This philosphy hinges on a nearly absolutist rule within relativism: The one and only morally wrong thing to do is to intrude upon a subject's right. Therefore, if there is no interference of rights, there is no moral wrongdoing. If subject A throws his hand through the air, his right to swing his hand does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. Meanwhile, subject B is standing, breathing in another room. Subject B's right to stand and breath does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. But when you put subject A and subject B together in the same room, there is an interference of rights. It is up to the society to decide which right has precedence: the right to physical integrity or the right to freedom of movement. Our law has decided that, when in conflict, the right to physical integrity has precendence over the right of free movement.
Many of society's moral standards can be explained in this manner. If you think this is absolutely ridiculous, point out why and I will try to defend it.
Weltall, I certainly don't understand your logic. First, you say it's okay for something to happen, but then say it's still not right to do it. All of your statements seem to indicate an assumption that not everyone here agrees with: homosexuality is inherently a negative thing, just like child molestation, murder, arson, and terrorism. Society decides that these things are bad, and so they are bad. I happen to disagree with this method. It has allowed the society-wide acceptance of slavery, which assumes that African Americans are inherently worth less. I prefer a more universal explanation of morals. You can dismiss it as relativism, but it has convinced me. Within relativism, I have found moral clarity.
This philosphy hinges on a nearly absolutist rule within relativism: The one and only morally wrong thing to do is to intrude upon a subject's right. Therefore, if there is no interference of rights, there is no moral wrongdoing. If subject A throws his hand through the air, his right to swing his hand does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. Meanwhile, subject B is standing, breathing in another room. Subject B's right to stand and breath does not interfere with any other subjects' rights. But when you put subject A and subject B together in the same room, there is an interference of rights. It is up to the society to decide which right has precedence: the right to physical integrity or the right to freedom of movement. Our law has decided that, when in conflict, the right to physical integrity has precendence over the right of free movement.
Many of society's moral standards can be explained in this manner. If you think this is absolutely ridiculous, point out why and I will try to defend it.