Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why do you get to define ethics and morality, as opposed to inked? "because you say so"?

he's just defining his own morality... admitting that morality is relative as opposed to absolute... a point inked seems unable to grasp, and a few others

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why do you get to define ethics and morality, as opposed to inked? "because you say so"?

Because I have a moral sentiment, and (from what I read in inked's own posts) his needs some tune up.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

he's just defining his own morality... admitting that morality is relative as opposed to absolute... a point inked seems unable to grasp, and a few others

Excellent point. Indeed, moralism has nothing to do with ethics. Two entirely different things. And "morality" (shudder) IS relative as opposed to absolute.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Because I have a moral sentiment, and (from what I read in inked's own posts) his needs some tune up.

he thinks YOURS needs a tune-up, I imagine - so who's to judge? Is there an absolute standard anywhere, IYO?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

he's just defining his own morality... admitting that morality is relative as opposed to absolute... a point inked seems unable to grasp, and a few others

well then why doesn't he let inked define HIS own morality? And if it's relative, will his be wrong in a few years? Why or why not?

[Lotesse]

Oh please. Can someone start a new thread called "The Definition of Morality and what it means to you?" Because discussing moralism has nothing to do with discussing the topic of this thread - "Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals." I get so incredibly sick and tired of moralists and anti-moralists going on and on tryna split hairs about moralism. It's incredibly tasteless and crass to be doing this in a thread NOT about moralism or morality.

[Nurvingiel]

That would be a cool thread alright, good idea Lotesse. [/not very subtle hinting] The morality discussion was relevant because there was a debate about the morality of homosexuality, but now it is definitely an off-shoot IMO.


You know who gets mentioned even less in this thread? Bisexual people. And poor ol' transgendered people aren't even in the title. It is the GLBT community after all.

This brings me to an apology of sorts. Inked, I was always getting after you about saying "the gay community", but it actually is a correct term. The catch is the gay community isn't a community in the traditional use of the word - as in people who live in the same area, or people who have similar ideals.
I think the reason I jumped on this term is because it implies there's some kind of gay hive mind; I still think we should be wary of the term for that reason.

[Insidious Rex]

But its a meaningless term. Gays occupy as wide a range of existance as heterosexuals do. And yet you dont hear the gays lumping all heterosexuals into one amorphous "hetersexual community" defined only by the kind of sex they have constantly.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But its a meaningless term. Gays occupy as wide a range of existance as heterosexuals do. And yet you dont hear the gays lumping all heterosexuals into one amorphous "hetersexual community" defined only by the kind of sex they have constantly.

Well, it is quite a vague term, and possibly devoid of meaning. But it didn't deserve the hatred I was piling on it before, that was my point.
Even Xtra West (Vancouver's Bi-Weekly Gay and Lesbian Newspaper) uses the term.

Speaking of the Xtra West, this article is pretty interesting, and it ties in to what I was saying before about gender roles.

edited to add: Who are these people that have sex constantly, and where do I sign up?

[Nurvingiel]

[post to update the thread]

I'll use this space for one of my favourite sayings... yay for gay, I say!

[Spock]

so much for "don't ask don't tell". This forum is perfect for all things and you could always have the forum starter modify the title to inclue trans/bi/les/gay/ etc. Clogging up another thread which will undoubtely split again may not be the best way to go.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

he thinks YOURS needs a tune-up, I imagine - so who's to judge? Is there an absolute standard anywhere, IYO?

Of couse the impius thinks that the pius is in the wrong. But there is no symmetry between my position had his. I am a person of the highest moral fiber, who has done what is right at great personal cost the whole of my life. As far as he, read his posts; they speak for themselves. Don't limit yourself to reading his posts about LGBT, read his posts on his own patients with STD, or his own patients who have an undesired pregnancy. Appalling.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

You know who gets mentioned even less in this thread? Bisexual people. And poor ol' transgendered people aren't even in the title. It is the GLBT community after all.

yes, I agree...bisexual people often get overlooked or IMO persecuted more b/c not alot of people understand how they could be attracted to both sexes...again just my opinion

[Spock]

Woody Allens quote On bisexuality: It immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

well then why doesn't he let inked define HIS own morality? And if it's relative, will his be wrong in a few years? Why or why not?

it's really the crux of the debate... one side is live and let live, more or less... the other side is imposing their morality upon someone else... should you be allowed to tell someone they can't do something just because you don't like it, when in all other respects, the practice basically does not effect your own life?

this comment may bring up the usual, "homosexuality isn't harmless"... but let's put that aside for the moment... we've all read inked's statistics about homosexual lifestyles being more dangerous, and my rebuttals that that is still not true for all homosexuals and heterosexuality can also be very dangerous, yet we still allow them to marry

to get at the heart of the matter... comment on this hypothetical: if we lived in a society where no one had sex before getting married, and once two people decided to get married, they were always true to that bond for their entire lives, would anyone have any problem as to whether these marriages were heterosexual or homosexual? and if so why?

i realize this is a situation that will never exist, but there are both hetero and homosexual relationships like this in our real world (though definitely a minority on both sides)... i'd like to hear some thoughts on this hypothetical anyway

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, it is quite a vague term, and possibly devoid of meaning. But it didn't deserve the hatred I was piling on it before, that was my point.
Even Xtra West (Vancouver's Bi-Weekly Gay and Lesbian Newspaper) uses the term.

Well Xtra West certainly doesnt speak for millions and MILLIONS of homosexuals... Would you be ok with me saying the "moot community" is in full agreement that cutting back environmental standards so that big companies can polute more and make more money is a good idea? I dont think you would. But Im here by declaring it as the self apointed representative of the Moot Community! So there...

Always be super dubious of people who speak for entire groups of varied people. And be even more dubious of those outside these "groups" that want to lump them together under one term for political purposes and so they can declare them immoral hedonists all at once simply based on one small aspect of their being.

[Spock]

There are already threads to discuss marriage.

They are: marriage

Homosexual marriage

Women, last names and marriage...

Please post in these threads as the subject indicates.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Please post in these threads as the subject indicates.

it's next to impossible to discuss something like homosexuality without mentioning marriage

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Of couse the impius thinks that the pius is in the wrong. But there is no symmetry between my position had his. I am a person of the highest moral fiber, who has done what is right at great personal cost the whole of my life. As far as he, read his posts; they speak for themselves. Don't limit yourself to reading his posts about LGBT, read his posts on his own patients with STD, or his own patients who have an undesired pregnancy. Appalling.

Awww, TWFM, you didn't have to go and COMPLIMENT me like that! To have appalled you seems to be mark of great distinction. I suspect it's my consistency im maintaining there are absolute standards of morality which you find most offensive. That, and calling you on it when you assert your "moral sentiments" as the absolute by which all else must be judged. Finally some ture confessions: your morality is based on your sentiments, e.g., your feelings. Do they change when you have indigestion or a headache? Very much like Camus' character who just felt too hot on the beach as I have read your postings.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's next to impossible to discuss something like homosexuality without mentioning marriage

It seems, of late, some cannot talk about anything without talking about everything.

TRY to keep the reply posts on SUBJECT.

---------------------------------------------------
Illigitimi Non Carborundum