Gota wrote:LoL...
I think you are too serious on the interwebs again...
BlaBlaBla gay power..Elkavis are you gay?
I am, although i think it is irrelevant in the context (See below). I only added the hint in to justify lobbing an insult.
Gota wrote:I liked how you wrote about the gorillas...so your saying it is ok to have sex with your kids?
Maybe that we should think about makign this acceptable?
Dads marrying their daughters mothers their sons...Sure why not..Live and let live,right?
Guess what,this is human society,we are not chimps or dolphins or guerrillas.
Sure we are a lot like them,but we are not them.
By your reasoning incest should be accepted and even people making kids with all sorts of defects cause of genetic similarity of the parents..
I mean,so what if the kids have high chances of being defected? who says we should not allow them to be as well?
Except the biological and genetic issues there is also the social aspect.
My argument is thus, and i forgive you for not picking it up I got very lost in that section.
Members of the Social right brand behavior that does not fit into their world view as unnatural. This is a flawed argument, just about no behavior is unnatural. I'm not suggesting that incest should be socially acceptable; not even once with a really really hot cousin when you were 14. Certain social constructs exist for a pretty good reason, and certain ones don't. The fact that smoking is acceptable is one that exists and probably shouldn't. I believe that homosexuality is something that should be made fully acceptable for the following reasons.
1: Its not a decision.
2: It cannot be changed.
4: It is a naturally occurring process.
3: There are no negative consequences for individuals.
4: There are no negative consequences for greater society.
5: It occurs in a relatively high proportion.
6: The only opposition is based around cultural norms developed during the dark ages (which are named thus for a good reason).
I think only the summation of those points gives weight to my point. Any one of them alone is not enough.
Gota wrote:This is how i see these issues:
Society accepts something but rejects other things.
For whatever reasons it make these choices there are no generally good or bad ones...
As far as i see it,it is a battle of wills.
Gay people fight to be recognized and to normalize their behavior while some religious groups(for example) fight against it.
What is the better position?there is none except,what you yourself decide is better(probably based on your own view of the world)..
If I do not think gay is ok than i will be against gay rights as i do not want to see the society i live in soaked in it.
My reasons would be a matter of habit,or religious issues or whatever else there is out there but it doesn't matter..I(for the sake of argument) want society in a certain state while gay people want it in another.Why should i succumb to their desire?it does not please me.why should i adopt to it?
How liberal should society be?Can you tell me if it is better for Society to be more liberal for the long run?why is that better for me if i am already considered normal?
As i said i see it as a battle of points of view.
At the end nothing is more right in some absolute way So the only reason for someone to be advocating gay rights is cause he is gay or someone he cares about is gay and wants gay rights.
There is no better or worse for society.
It just exists and whoever or whatever group has more influence or power to influence steers society to a certain direction...
I have 1 minor gripe.
You are asking to enforce your will, when the outcomes will have no actual impact on your life in any way. However, your will will reduce the quality of life for other people. The specific topic here is gay marriage, which sure is somewhat a little further down the chain of quality-of-life than dragging gays behind a ute. But the point stands; there is a fundamental difference between actively protecting your way of life and protecting your world-view.
Your argument could be successfully applied to slavery. And that's the problem, you have framework that you are trying to turn into a argument. But there is a gaping hole in the premises means your framework can only be applied selectively based on some unspoken other criteria.
And if you are asking if it alright to negatively impact on someone elses life based only on your emotional response, then no.
Gota wrote:IN these cases there is no absolute "better POV"only a personal "better" or "worse".
My View cannot be better than your view in an absolute manner only from my perspective and it is my job,if i care about my world view enough and oppose yours enough,for whatever reasons(which are all bogus from the point of view that is outside of humanity),to make sure i manage to come up with a good way of convincing everyone my view is best by making arguments based on "reason" or other "facts" and "evidance" which i can substantiate as such.
You are right, arguing over points of view is fruitless waste of time. This certainly stands true if you are arguing over which color jelly bean tastes the best. However, what we are talking about here is morals and legislative policy. What you should be constructing is not a 'point of view' or 'opinion'; this is a terribly way to think about either. It is the fundamental flaw in the practical implementation of democracy. This has to be a rational discussion using logical arguments, otherwise the winner is the one who can shout louder and not the argument that is 'right'. When you break it down to logic and rationalization; there is a better argument. I would not call it absolutes, i don't believe in that as a concept. But there will always be an argument that is more right.
If you try and enter a discussion like this will only a point-of-view, you should not be in the same room. you have already lost.
