WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

I think this is a nice example of the whole freedom of speech issue and how we respond to people who voice unpopular opinions.

AmEv is entitled to his opinion and the (civil) expression of it. Others are entitled to (equally civilly) challenge it. In SD, because of the nature and purpose of that forum, you have to be prepared to get your opinion challenged in rational debate, and to defend it. If you post here there is an implied obligation to actually do so, too.

To call someone homophobic is arguably not a rational challenge unless you explain the rational basis for that opinion. In that respect AmEv's opinion may be irrational (I think it is), but whether it is extreme depends on how he behaves as a result. If he commits to a life of heterosexuality and lets other people live their gay or straight lives, his attitude is not extreme. If he joins Rev. Phelps' merry little band, he arguably is. The danger with labelling people is that it sidesteps rational examination of their statements.

Of course, if AmEv expressed his opinion he does not really have a choice to follow it up with "Bit I don't want to discuss that here". Sorry dude, but this is Sparta Serious Discussion (thehippoz' posts notwithstanding). You say, you play. No play, no say.

 

What on Earth is rational about thinking it is wrong it?

 

That belief has no rational basis, so it's irrational.

 

Oh I agree and I had the irrational aversion in mind not the hatred, I guess that is the problem with quoting without an explanation!

I don't believe anyone here hates gay people and I am sorry that I implied it.

 

That's cool; I know you didn't mean to imply that. I'm just saying that sticking labels/attributes on things (or people) without qualifying them can lead to misunderstandings. We all do it; we must just be mindful to reflect on what we (think we) mean by a label/attribute.

 

Despite the fact that I find your position to be ridiculous, I do agree with your point.

It's common these days to conflate tolerance and enthusiasm. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to be enthusiastic and like something, it means affording a person or people the minimum amount of respect required. People used to be allowed their beliefs, and should be. Social tolerance shouldn't mean we force the racist or the anti-gay person or whatever to not be that, social tolerance means we should allow those who they are against to live in peace, and so should they.

 

Again I agree spec that people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe but they should at least be able to admit that it is an irrational belief.

 

As long as they don't make an adverse impact on other people's lives, why should people have to defend or qualify their beliefs?

 

True, they shouldn't have to defend them if their beliefs have no impact on others. But while some may think it is wrong yet can accept that some people are gay only gives credence to those who have firmer beliefs about homosexuals. Wouldn't you agree?

 

I do find it odd how obsessed religion seems to be with sex and people's sexual activities. Does sexual repression by the church manifest itself in more extreme sexual behaviour? Would there be less child abuse in the Catholic church if clergy where allowed to be openly gay and there was no requirement to be celibate? This is just not aimed at religion as we seem to see extremes in sexual desires and behaviors in sexually repressed cultures like Japan too.

 

That belief can have many different groundings, but not all of them are irrational.

Incidentally, what is the rational basis for believing that homosexuality is right?

 

It may not be right in terms of natural procreation but that doesn't mean that it is wrong on a human level as genetics are ambivalent and don not infer right or wrong in the way that we understand it.

I can understand your point that there is nothing to say that homosexuality is inherently right but I guess it depends on how you want to define right, genetically? Morally? Religiously?

 

Cross-reference Marx's commentary on the means of production with religion's interest in reproduction and you'll get it

Who said it had to be right or wrong? Maybe it's just none of your goddamn business...

Thinking of it in terms of right and wrong is like asking - What is the most rightest, most correctest, most brilliantest sexual position ever? Answer - Whatever turns you on...

 

I say, people are free to do or say what they want providing it doesn't damage their peers.

 

In your opinion perhaps. In mine I believe I am being totally rational. I'm not a hater, I just don't agree. I have been brought up as a roman catholic, therefore I have been brought up to accept that gay relationships are wrong. Have I been brainwashed? Perhaps. But does that make my opinions irrational? If you believe so, what make the opposite rational?

 

It is rational to have those beliefs if that was your upbringing but they are based on irrational documents that contain no facts which makes them illogical.

You should base your opinions on the facts that are available to you and be able to change them when new information is available. Keeping an opinion from childhood isn't very open minded.

 

A phobia is something you are afraid of not something you should call someone because have a different opinion on the matter. Where do you draw the line?

 

Well, that's a matter for debate.

I argue that imposing concepts of "right" or "wrong" on a particular gender combination of two people who are in a personal, intimate relationship is illogical. Their relationship harms nobody, and benefits them. It is a matter personal to them and their norms, values, meanings, concepts and lives. To think that we can impose our norms, values, meanings and concepts on their personal lives that do not affect anybody else, and consider them more "right" than theirs is pure conceit.

Homosexuality has been documented in 4500 vertebrate species and researched in about 2500 of them. In all cases it has been found to convey a survival advantage to the group or (adopted) offspring, or at least to convey no disadvantage. Basically homosexuality is a natural and functional permutation in nature.

That's the rational argument. In contrast you argue an arbitrary cultural norm. What I respect about your opinion however is the recognition that you should not impose your personal norms on others.

 

Right and wrong are moral qualifiers, so they have to be defined as part of a moral framework. Nexxo makes the logically sound point that if we subscribe to a subjective moral framework we have no right to impose our definitions of right and wrong upon other people. If you want to take it further, it is impossible for something to be inherently right (or wrong) because subjective morality is not intrinsic to a person or action - it is attributed.

Actually phobia can mean many things, including aversion and hatred of something, which is what it usually means in the context of homophobia: unreasoned hatred of homosexuals.

 

You're deriving meaning from etymology there, a dangerous tactic with the English language. Homophobia doesn't mean "fear of the same" now does it? It refers to people who are anti-gay, to use a simple but clear term.