Lately the major issue to reduce the limitations on civil liberties facing homosexuals in this country has been gay marriage and civil unions, but we forget that there are other issues at stake, especially one that is infinitely more important. If we are living in a tolerant society in which everyone has equal rights, why is it that a gay soldier cannot make his or her orientation known? There are events in which spouses are invited to attend, as well as normal office conversations centered around husbands and wives. Why must homosexuals be excluded from these events and discussions? How does that show that we are one of the most tolerant nations in the world? More importantly, why can't gay and lesbian soldiers enjoy the same freedoms they are fighting for and may die defending?
At Harvard Medical School a group of students gathered to protest the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy of the United States Military. At the military school nearby, any student who engages in homosexual activity, no limited to the act of sex itself, is to be immediately dismissed. It is a major insult to be called gay. But yet, we continue to pretend that we live in a society where all Americans are treated equally.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
American attitude towards homosexuals is ridiculous. The Anti-Gay Marriage movement is a perfect example of the irrationality of attitude by the so-called "moral" citizens of this country. If their definition of morality includes excluding people because of their private behavior which affects no one else but consenting adults, then I guess I have no interest in being moral.
I think the definition of morality needs to be modernized. We have a lot of very old people running congress, on the courts, etc. Many people only look to religion to define morality knowing full well that religion has been doing immoral things for thousands of years.
I just have one thing...
I think one needs to be careful when saying that "religion has been doing immoral things for thousands of years" in this... it is a hasty generalization. There have been those who have done immoral things in the name of religion (normally just to gain power, not really caring about others or their spiritual well-being), but that doesn't mean that the religion itself legitimizes it. It's along the same lines of saying that since maybe one given teacher has had an affair with a student, all teachers have had affairs with students. It doesn't follow.
As to people looking to religion to define morality, there must be SOMETHING as a standard. It cannot be all relative.
UWL and Daveaway:
You have an interesting idea of morality. If a person is kicked out of the military for homosexual acts, you make it a personal attack. Would you make the same assertion if military personnel were into child porn?
Just because an action is morally reprehensible doesn't mean the person has no value. Yet it is quite understandable to be repulsed by certain behaviors. You come to these hasty conclusions about moralists since you find no problem with homosexuality. As to your system of morality Dave, you are not moral. And polanco, don't worry, morality has been modernized already. You have the vestiges of religious vermin still crawling around the planet. Your solution would require the elimination of the vermin. Relativism is alive and well. Perhaps the revolution you talk about joining should eliminate Christians. Then you'll have total peace of mind.
Have a nice day.
Innocent,
It is NOT a hasty generalization. It is the simple truth. Religion, all religion, has done immoral things for thousands of years. I can even make a list for you if you like. Your analogy is bad. Not all teachers have had affairs with students, but all religions have done things that are immoral.
UL<
Child Porn is illegal. Being gay is not. Another awful analogy. Morality has not been modernized. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't want to eliminate anyone, I just don't want them governing based on religious beliefs that are not held by everyone.
Picking up where UL left off... to answer Polanco:
At one time homosexuality was illegal. Someday child porn may be legal. The question is not one of legality, but of morality. We need to decide if it is wrong or right to be homosexual in society. To complicate, or perhaps free-up, matters we need to leave religion out of the equation.
(Incidentally, even using religion as a measuring stick is dangerous when it comes to evaluating child molesting, because in other times, girls of 13 or even younger were often married off to older men.)
I think the standard rule applies: if it isn't hurting others...
However, how do you define hurting children? What if an argument is made that marrying a 13 year old girl isn't hurting her, but helping her instead?
The same can be said for homosexuals. Are they really leaving society unscathed in their pursuit of same sex partners?
But more importantly, when we discuss the military, we are discussing an entirely different microcosm. It's not a country, and it's not a business. But it's run like a little of both.
The number one reason it's always been considered dangerous to have homosexuals in the military is the same reason that relationships are discouraged: they become a distraction. If John and Ted are lovers who are fighting side-by-side, how distracted will they be in life-and-death situations?
Right-wing Bystander: you give humans too much benefit of the doubt, plenty people have done terrible things with their faith filling their headas with the power to do the acts of terror.
UL: brilliant, once again exposing your homophobia by comparing child pr0n with being gay.
Daniel,
Not so brilliant. If I'm against child porn, does that make me child pornophobic?
The child porn/ homosexuality anology is absurd. Child porn will neverbe legal because it involves people who are not of consenting age. Homosexuality has been illegal, but only due to religious reasons. Homosexuality was accepted and common in ancient times, has been present in all cultures, and is part of our biological make-up. If two people are of consenting age, it is no ones business what they do, so STOP REFERRING TO CHILDREN. It doesn't strengthen your argument. It makes you look stupid.
Relationships are NOT discouraged in the military. In fact, most units have an event twice a year for families and another even twice a year for the soldier and his or her spouse. There are pleanty of married couples who are in the military together and they survive just fine. They are put in seperate units. I should know, my parents met, got married, and had me while they were in the military.
UWL:
yes, it IS indeed a hasty generalization because you are saying that because there are those that follow a particular religion who do immoral things that the religion they follow is therefore immoral. This would be true if, and only if, this religion applauded their immoral actions, but I would venture that more times than not, this is not the case, at least in the case of Christianity. Therefore, you cannot say ALL. That's the kicker.
Besides, it is not "Religion" that does these things, but those who supposedly follow it.
Hmmm... this list would be a nice thing to discuss. I leave it up to you. :)
No, what I'm saying is that convincing people to believe something that isn't true and teaching them to mold their lives around it is immoral. The people who follow religions also do immoral things, but religion itself is immoral.
What do you mean when you say immoral? What standard do you judge this by?
I think it's pretty easy to agree that lying is immoral. Religion is based on a lie. Therefore, religion is immoral.
OOOOO, I love syllogisms, UWL!!!
1. Lying is immoral.
2. Religion is based on a lie.
3. Therefore, religion is immoral.
Your argument suffers from a material "fallacy of four terms." Syllogisms can only have three terms to be valid. "Lying" and "Based on a lie" are two different things. The first implies intent to tell falsehoods; the second just states the information is false, with the intent being uncertain. For the second term, people can state with good will something that isn't true. They don't know it's a lie, so they couldn't be accused of lying. As you have it, your conclusion isn't certain;; therefore, your argument isn't sound.
I would alter your argument to make it more valid in one of two ways. First:
1. All liars are immoral.
2. Religious people are liars.
3. Therefore, all religious people are immoral.
Valid argument, but, is it true? No doubt all liars are immoral. But are all religious people liars? Your burden of proof rests on whether or not all religious people lie. Good luck.
Second:
1. All things based on falsehoods are immoral.
2. All religions are things based on falsehoods.
3. Therefore, all religions are immoral.
Is this closer to what you think? Now, the burden of proof rests on religions themselves being false. Plus, in your first premise, things or beliefs that are based on falsehood cannot be immoral. Only people can be immoral. Things or beliefs that are based on falsehoods are...FALSE.
If you want to make statements like these, that's up to you. However, when you trespass in logic-land as you have, the burden of proof rests on you, UWL. If you don't want to take on the burden of proof, then stay in la-la land. We'll just take this then, as your opinion. But, it will have no grounds for truth.
Lying is fine.
Religion is for the weak.
UL loves UWL.
I wouldn't alter my argument at all. It has nothing to do with religious people, it has to do with the creators of religions. Lying is immoral, religion is a lie, religion is immoral. It doesn't get simpler than that. Just because you want to try and complicate it doesn't mean you can. It's not that complicated. By using the word "religio" in the first place, I was referring to all types of religion, which is fairly obvious based on previous statements I've made. I don't have to prove it, it's already proven itself over thousands of years. And as if your position has more truth than mine. How arrogant. You just have a different opinion.
Besides all that, we're getting away from the original argument, which is that any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult they choose. It's no one else's business.
Post a Comment