Pastor’s Speech Against Equal Rights (surprise ending)

[BryanH]

Bryan, the fact that you don't agree with a position, shouldn't be a reason that you can't understand the reasoning of others who don't hold your views. The fact that you can't is a huge problem in discussing anything with you on this forum. And since you are a moral relativist you have major problems in making such declarations.

You are taking this discussion into a direction that I wasn't heading for. I am not talking about moral relativity and stuff like that. I am talking about science which has proven time and time again that gay couples are fitting parents. Period. No morals involved. Just facts.

You are creating a strawman. The issue with homsexual couples is that the very foundation of their union is contrary to the moral ethics of Christianity. That is a fact. You may not agree with Christian ethics, but surely you can understand WHY a Christian organization would NOT permit this.

Their union is against one of the many moral ethics of Christianity. Who are they to say that this moral dilemma is far more worse than others? Then again I think that the Christian dogma clearly states that only God can judge. Who gave them the right to judge those people as being unfit parents? Again, you are talking about gay couples and I am talking about gay parenthood. Although these 2 subjects are interconnected that doesn't mean that you can use the union as a premise for refusing someone to be a parent. You are just categorizing saying that one sin is more sinful than another. Where is your objectivity?

It's like I would refuse a Christian couple because they teach kids hate/tolerance against homosexual couples. As I said it many times here on this forum and it's quite very surprising for me to see how many of you here ignore the fact that gay couples are HUMAN BEINGS like you and me. They have the same feelings like you and me. They have a cultural background like you and me. Some of them have a higher educational standard just like you and me. You can't treat them DIFFERENTLY based on your PREJUDICE.

The fact that they have broken a RULE related to SEXUALITY doesn't mean that they are immoral people and can't be parents.

What such institution did was just blatant discrimination without actually trying to understand the people who came at their doors. They refused to see anything past the word GAY.

THAT INSTITUTION CHOSE TO LEAVE A CHILD WITHOUT A HOME. Do you know the psychological effects of such a decision on children? Have you read any psychological studies about orphan children that didn't find have a family?

According to what? You? Who are you to impose your subjective morals onto us or any organization? You are a moral relativist.

As I said in my first sentence here. I am not talking about morals directly, but about psychological facts.

But being prejudice against things that are a danger to the moral fabric and foundations of family are certainly justified.

I agree with you, BUT first prove that gay couples are a danger to the moral fabric and foundations of family.
When you try to prove that please use facts so we don't get entangled in another endless discussion about morality.
Good luck proving that gay people are a danger to the moral fabric and normal people aren't.

[jlay]

You are taking this discussion into a direction that I wasn't heading for. I am not talking about moral relativity and stuff like that. I am talking about science which has proven time and time again that gay couples are fitting parents. Period. No morals involved. Just facts.

Bryan,

First of all, science doesn't PROVE anything. And to think that science can test for social issues in the way you are stating has to be the most preposterous notion I've heard in a while.

Their union is against one of the many moral ethics of Christianity. Who are they to say that this moral dilemma is far more worse than others?

They are the one's who have invested millions of dollars, time, research, etc., in placing children into adoptive homes. I would imagine there are several conditions that would also exclude potential candidates. What's your expertise?

It's like I would refuse a Christian couple because they teach kids hate/tolerance against homosexual couples.

Again, ridiculous.

They have a cultural background like you and me. Some of them have a higher educational standard just like you and me. You can't treat them DIFFERENTLY based on your PREJUDICE.

According to what standard? You are a hypocrite. You say your moral ethic doesn't matter. but it does matter when you speak in complete contradiction to what you claim to believe. Should, can't, etc. These are all terms that appeal to some moral ethic. Why is it OK for you to force your moral ethic on us? (accepting homosexual adoption) At least we hold that morals are objectively sourced. You don't. So, it's just your own selfish opinion, which is arrogant, condescending nonsense. You have said over and over that morality is based on what the majority in a society decide. Well, for the better part of man's existence, homosexuality has been considered an abnormal, immoral lifestyle. And I would say even today, in this country that the majority are against gay marriage and adoption. So, why don't you comply?

The fact that they have broken a RULE related to SEXUALITY doesn't mean that they are immoral people and can't be parents.

They are advocating and overtly living in an immoral sexual union. Since adoption and family are dependent, can you not see how this issue would take precedent? A homosexual union will never result in procreation. If we just follow nature then we see it requires a man and woman to start and establish a family. I'd say the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on you.

THAT INSTITUTION CHOSE TO LEAVE A CHILD WITHOUT A HOME. Do you know the psychological effects of such a decision on children? Have you read any psychological studies about orphan children that didn't find have a family?

I don't think you need to lecture me. Not only do I work with children from broken homes, I also have dear friends who have run an orphanage in Bolivia for the last 15 years, caring for hundreds of children at a time. I doubt you give a rip about any orphan, and I'd say your time and money goes nowhere near such causes. The fact that you would judge a charity committed to doing such is despicable. And when they stand upon a moral ethic and are forced to comply or shut down, you call it prejudice. This is Gestapo tactics, and you blame the victim and defend the perpetrator.

As I said in my first sentence here. I am not talking about morals directly, but about psychological facts.

What? All this is anything but factual. It is all disputed. How can you rightly measure outcome when you yourself believe that any outcome is relative and subjective. Of course it makes no difference to you, because who cares if the child grows up rejecting certain moral positions. Since you presuppose them to be invalid, how could we prove anything to you.

Good luck proving that gay people are a danger to the moral fabric and normal people aren't.

First of all I would say that gay people are victims of the same sin that corrupts all the moral fabric of society. I certainly think one can stand against gay adoption without being a bigot. But, how could the dangers be proven to you? The things I view as a danger to the moral fabric aren't a concern to you. You are a relativist, when it suits you.

[BryanH]

@jlay

1) You keep saying I am a relativist and that I change things to suit my view. What I am telling you is to open your eyes and look at the world around you. The world changed and it changes everyday. I am not saying things for the sake of suiting me.

2)I am not forcing any kind of moral values on you. I am just explaining you that the standard by which you judge people (OM) is not functional. More than that, OM exists only on paper. In real life there is no OM. You might say that's my opinion. Maybe... But take a look around you and tell me I am wrong. I can look around and tell you that you are wrong. You quote countless philosophy theories saying this and that. Ok so? A theory is a theory. Real life is real life. People don't live by theories. They live by breathing air into their lungs.

According to what standard? You are a hypocrite. You say your moral ethic doesn't matter. but it does matter when you speak in complete contradiction to what you claim to believe.

No. You are. I didn't say that moral ethic doesn't matter. I never ever said that. All I said that moral values change with time and upon societies shifting towards one path or another. That's not relativity. That's freedom of choice.

So, why don't you comply?

In the OM discussion that got locked I already explained this. Again and again you seem to have a problem with the concept of CHANGE.

Do you want me to repeat? All over history minorities have changed certain moral laws because those minorities were being treated in an unfair way. They fought for their rights.

You simply can't understand that gay couples are fighting for their rights. You have the OM on autorepeat and you don't care. Well, that's your problem. Gay people want to be treated in a fair manner compared to other members of society.

This is Gestapo tactics, and you blame the victim and defend the perpetrator.

Please spare me of such commentaries. I don't think I need to remind of times when people who didn't want to join Christianity were burnt, murdered, tortured etc etc.

I don't think you need to lecture me. Not only do I work with children from broken homes, I also have dear friends who have run an orphanage in Bolivia for the last 15 years, caring for hundreds of children at a time. I doubt you give a rip about any orphan, and I'd say your time and money goes nowhere near such causes.

You are wrong. Why do you think I studied psychology? Because I don't give a rip about people, right?

**Actually my money goes to such causes...

The fact that you would judge a charity committed to doing such is despicable.

Why despicable? Because I want all human beings to be treated in a fair manner, right? I apologize. My bad. What was I thinking?
I would like to change my opinion since I am relativist: I suggest killing all the gay people. Let's gather them all, put them in a big chamber and gas them to death. We can use a gas that inflicts no pain and which kills you very fast. We can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors, right?

P.S.: I don't know what you understand by moral subjectivity, but I don't think we are on the same page. You just take the concept of subjectivity to the extreme. Placing yourself on extremities can be very dangerous from a theoretical point of view.

[jlay]

1) You keep saying I am a relativist and that I change things to suit my view. What I am telling you is to open your eyes and look at the world around you. The world changed and it changes everyday. I am not saying things for the sake of suiting me.

Bryan, you are a relativist by your own admission. I have said to you ad naseum, that I don't dispute whether things change or whether subjective interpretations of morality change. They do. You have missed this point so many times, i can't for the life of me understand why. I've never said otherwise. I have said that subjective opinion is NOT an argument against OM.

2)I am not forcing any kind of moral values on you. I am just explaining you that the standard by which you judge people (OM) is not functional. More than that, OM exists only on paper. In real life there is no OM. You might say that's my opinion. Maybe... But take a look around you and tell me I am wrong. I can look around and tell you that you are wrong. You quote countless philosophy theories saying this and that. Ok so? A theory is a theory. Real life is real life. People don't live by theories. They live by breathing air into their lungs.

Bryan, You appeal to OM all the time without ralizing it. You do it several times in this thread. You are saying that YOUR opinion on morals is RIGHT and that we are WRONG for thinking otherwise. Of course I would ask right and wrong according to what? Not sure what breathing oxygen has to do with what is true or not.

No. You are. I didn't say that moral ethic doesn't matter. I never ever said that. All I said that moral values change with time and upon societies shifting towards one path or another. That's not relativity. That's freedom of choice.

Moral interpretations change with time. No argument. Then it is my CHOICE to say that homosexual adoption is wrong. It is Catholic charities choice. Well, according to you, it isn't.

All over history minorities have changed certain moral laws because those minorities were being treated in an unfair way. They fought for their rights.

Again you smuggle in OM when it suits you, and you don't even realize it. Unfair according to what? And what rights? Where are these rights?
I agree that human rights exist, but of course I believe that human life (including gays) has Objective, intirinsic value. You refuse to follow your own moral ethic to its logical conclusions and stand on OM without realizing you are trespassing.
Also, it is a mistake to equate rights with sexual orientation. Ethnicity is sacred. Behavior is not. All societies discriminate when it comes to behavior. The problem with gay rights is they are trying to claim behavior in the same category as ethnicity. No one chooses what color they are. People do choose what to do with their sexual organs. Homosexuality is a direct contradiction with what those organs were designed for. We have billions of case studies to show that. That is a fact. In fact, try to go donate blood and answer on the survey that you are homosexual. Guess what. YOU will rightfully be discriminated against. Why? Because of the statistical facts that this lifestyle DRAMATICALLY increases health risks. Do you think these restrictions should be removed, and millions of lives placed in danger. Afterall, they are just wanting to be treated fairly. The fact is that you do support discrimination against behavior. You don't mention those things because.....well.....you think you are right, and that society is right. Unfortuntately you have fallen for the liberal myth that sexual behavior deserves some sort of civil protection under that law.

Gay people want to be treated in a fair manner compared to other members of society.

No, they want special privelege and protection above what society offers. A Gay person has the same individual rights as anyone else.

I don't think I need to remind of times when people who didn't want to join Christianity were burnt, murdered, tortured etc etc.

Please do. Because I can say that these people were WRONG to do that. Objectively. How can you say they were WRONG? You can't. Again, you appeal to OM and don't even realize it. You sir are tresspassing.

Why despicable? Because I want all human beings to be treated in a fair manner, right? I apologize. My bad. What was I thinking?

You don't. I can promise that there are moral conditions, that if broken, you would absolutely NOT want someone to have the right to adopt. Do you think active prostitutes should be able to adopt? I expect you will ignore this question.
In this case, it isn't even a matter of having the right to adopt, as gay couples ARE already adopting. In fact, I know of two personally. The question is, should an independent agency be FORCED by the state to facilitate adoptions to people who live in opposition to their own moral ethic? By your own admission, you think the state should be able to force this. Is that FAIR? No. It is a Gestapo tactic. I think you have a confused idea of fair. And that is why I say Gestapo tactics. We aren't talking about something 700 years ago, but something today. If people were forced to join Christianity, was it wrong? I say yes. Do you, and if so, by what standard? I say by the same standard that it is wrong for the state to force a private organiziation to allow adoptions that directly violate their moral ethics.

Placing yourself on extremities can be very dangerous from a theoretical point of view.

Really, is that objectively true? You import and smuggle in OM without even realizing what you are doing. You also fail to recognize the many times I have acknowledged that people have subjective interpretations that change over time. So please be consistent and apply your criticisms to yourself.

I would like to change my opinion since I am relativist: I suggest killing all the gay people. Let's gather them all, put them in a big chamber and gas them to death. We can use a gas that inflicts no pain and which kills you very fast. We can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors, right?

Again, you are appealing to OM. And you only sound absurd.
I agree that people, regardless, of their sexual orientation, have intrinsic rights. You don't. So, I have a reason NOT to send them to the gas chamber. But I can also remain consistent with that view, and say that I do not think that private organizations should be forced to allow homosexuals to adopt from them.

No. You are. I didn't say that moral ethic doesn't matter. I never ever said that. All I said that moral values change with time and upon societies shifting towards one path or another. That's not relativity. That's freedom of choice.

If I'm being a hypocrite I need to be shown where. You don't mention ANYTHING I said, but only speak about what you stated, which does nothing but confirm why I made the allegation in the first place. So, are you saying that freedom of choice is RIGHT? In all times regardless of public opinion? Hint: your tresspassing again. For giggles, I say people shouldn't have the freedom to choose. Why are you right and I'm wrong? Again, I doubt you will answer as you know the consequences of answering. You can't without violating the law of non-contradiction. Oh, and let's not forget that Catholic charaties doesn't deserve this mysterious freedom to CHOOSE to whom they grant adoptions. Hypocritical.

[FlawedIntellect]

@jlay

1) You keep saying I am a relativist and that I change things to suit my view. What I am telling you is to open your eyes and look at the world around you. The world changed and it changes everyday. I am not saying things for the sake of suiting me.

2)I am not forcing any kind of moral values on you. I am just explaining you that the standard by which you judge people (OM) is not functional. More than that, OM exists only on paper. In real life there is no OM. You might say that's my opinion. Maybe... But take a look around you and tell me I am wrong. I can look around and tell you that you are wrong. You quote countless philosophy theories saying this and that. Ok so? A theory is a theory. Real life is real life. People don't live by theories. They live by breathing air into their lungs.

Ahem, in case you haven't noticed, while some things change, there are many things that don't change. Second, considering that you're accusing people of doing something that's wrong, then you're making a moral call and judgment. As per objective morality, there's no grounds to dismiss its existence in real life. When society defines morals, those morals tend to be subjective and incomplete, often with subjective terms such as "worse than" or "better than", of which is necessary for forming a legal system with consequences for actions, but... a government can only do so much to protect its people. From there, the limits of enforcement, comes the need for self-enforcement and self-restraint. This is the purpose of objective morals. Standards for overall behavior for a peaceful and healthy coexistence.

According to what standard? You are a hypocrite. You say your moral ethic doesn't matter. but it does matter when you speak in complete contradiction to what you claim to believe.

No. You are. I didn't say that moral ethic doesn't matter. I never ever said that. All I said that moral values change with time and upon societies shifting towards one path or another. That's not relativity. That's freedom of choice.

Moral values that change aren't objective moral values. And yes, that is relativity, as it is relative to what's deemed necessary for a society, by the members of said society. Regardless of what you may think, a rigid, unchanging set of standards to live by isn't necessarily a bad thing.

So, why don't you comply?

In the OM discussion that got locked I already explained this. Again and again you seem to have a problem with the concept of CHANGE.

ERROR ERROR ERROR! The problem isn't with change itself, it is with what is being changed. A specific set of change.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, as the expression goes. (Areas where this is applicable: communications, transport, social interaction, needs, desires, environments. etc...) Even while many things change, there is still a core element that remains.

Do you want me to repeat? All over history minorities have changed certain moral laws because those minorities were being treated in an unfair way. They fought for their rights.

You simply can't understand that gay couples are fighting for their rights. You have the OM on autorepeat and you don't care. Well, that's your problem. Gay people want to be treated in a fair manner compared to other members of society.

Oh? And your point is? The ancient minority card? Us not caring? Objective Morality on auto-repeat? So? You won't listen. As per treatment of homosexuals, I agree that people have no right to bully and harass them. However, there's a difference between confronting them on a poor lifestyle choice and seeking to assault and harm these people. Additionally, some of these people are ridiculously apathetic to themselves, and hence need to be protected from themselves, not just bullies. What are you doing to stop the bullying? Bashing those that oppose homosexuality? Why not confront those that actually mistreat the homosexuals instead, huh? Are you saying we don't care about minorities? What evidence do you have? As per "fair treatment", then fair treatment best needs to be defined. Sure, they are to be respected as fellow human beings on principle, but their choices aren't worth respect. Even so, it's not a reason to attack them, but rather to confront them. Plus, countering those that attack them is perhaps a good move as well. The problem of mistreatment doesn't stem from the legal system but from the hearts of people that look for something to hate. Confront the violence and show that it's possible to civilly disagree and confront problems without needing to be hateful or cold-hearted.

You do realize that some Christians are victims of harassment and bullying by homosexuals at the same time, right? So homosexuals aren't the only victims here. It's pretty clear that one problem is bullying, and trying to discern what counts as bullying VS genuine heartfelt concern.

This is Gestapo tactics, and you blame the victim and defend the perpetrator.

Please spare me of such commentaries. I don't think I need to remind of times when people who didn't want to join Christianity were burnt, murdered, tortured etc etc.

And does THE BIBLE condone any of these acts? DEFINITELY NOT! And if you're looking for somewhere to point the finger for that, Islam is a much better direction. Judge belief systems by their content, and judge people as individuals by their actions.

I don't think you need to lecture me. Not only do I work with children from broken homes, I also have dear friends who have run an orphanage in Bolivia for the last 15 years, caring for hundreds of children at a time. I doubt you give a rip about any orphan, and I'd say your time and money goes nowhere near such causes.

You are wrong. Why do you think I studied psychology? Because I don't give a rip about people, right?

**Actually my money goes to such causes...

Okay then. As a psychologist, why don't you pay attention and use your psychological understanding to recognize that you're making accusations against a person rather than judging the person as an individual?

The fact that you would judge a charity committed to doing such is despicable.

Why despicable? Because I want all human beings to be treated in a fair manner, right? I apologize. My bad. What was I thinking?
I would like to change my opinion since I am relativist: I suggest killing all the gay people. Let's gather them all, put them in a big chamber and gas them to death. We can use a gas that inflicts no pain and which kills you very fast. We can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors, right?

P.S.: I don't know what you understand by moral subjectivity, but I don't think we are on the same page. You just take the concept of subjectivity to the extreme. Placing yourself on extremities can be very dangerous from a theoretical point of view.

Subjective morals means that morals are subject to change as an effort to justify actions on whim. Even society can do that. Look at the history of wars! People presuppose their values as a whole and consider themselves morally superior to others, failing to see their own faults, and seeking to bring wrath and destruction from emotionally clouded judgment. (I often find myself having a very hard time with my temper. Regardless of my actual physical actions, the destruction that occurs in my mind is, sadly, far worse. >_< In any case, I'm making some progress and have been praying, and it's helped with my temper as well.)

The point of rigid standards is to prevent changes that lead to justification of actions and atrocities. When society as a whole defines their values, society as a whole changes them to fit their needs. For better or for worse. Timeless standards provide grounding and a static system to prevent this.

Edit: Wow, your sarcasm basically reflects the point on how subjectivity of an individual can be dangerous. If that choice were to end up surpassing the individual scale and were to flood a large portion of society, well... that would basically emulate the point.

On another note, neglect to consider extremities can be dangerous, while focusing too much on extremities can lead to lower-scale problems slipping right under one's nose. In short, one shouldn't dismiss something just because it's an extreme case. (Extreme cases do happen, like one particular thing you've brought up before.) By the same token, one shouldn't focus solely on the extreme case.

[BryanH]

Bryan, You appeal to OM all the time without ralizing it. You do it several times in this thread. You are saying that YOUR opinion on morals is RIGHT and that we are WRONG for thinking otherwise. Of course I would ask right and wrong according to what? Not sure what breathing oxygen has to do with what is true or not.

Right or wrong based on what? Based on what people do, based on history, based on facts (new and old). OM is based on what people ought to do based on air. OM doesn't have any facts.

The OM doesn't allow you to change RIGHT and WRONG. Imagine the following scenario: tomorrow scientists prove that being gay is natural occurring phenomenon. Just imagine that and tell me how would you be able to use OM again? As I said, be very careful with extremities. It takes just one push and you are off the cliff.

Please do. Because I can say that these people were WRONG to do that. Objectively. How can you say they were WRONG? You can't. Again, you appeal to OM and don't even realize it. You sir are tresspassing.

No, I am not. Of course I can say they were wrong. I have what to compare with. Do we do that today? No. Did people at that time fight to change such actions? Yes. So there was a collective force trying to change what was wrong and it succeeded. Again, that's how change happens. Someone has to do it!!

Again you smuggle in OM when it suits you, and you don't even realize it. Unfair according to what? And what rights? Where are these rights?
I agree that human rights exist, but of course I believe that human life (including gays) has Objective, intirinsic value. You refuse to follow your own moral ethic to its logical conclusions and stand on OM without realizing you are trespassing.
Also, it is a mistake to equate rights with sexual orientation.

I have explained countless times. This is not smuggling OM.
Normal couples are allowed to adopt. Gay people have been given the right to become couples. So they should be also able to adopt as other couples can. Period. There is no OM involved, but actually previous rights that have already been decided by a collective and which are thought to be on the RIGHT side.

Because of the statistical facts that this lifestyle DRAMATICALLY increases health risks. Do you think these restrictions should be removed, and millions of lives placed in danger. Afterall, they are just wanting to be treated fairly.

How much do you know about statistics? Did you read my comment here on this topic where I proved how same numbers on paper can be interpreted in more than one way? I don't know the study you are talking about and how it was done, but to be honest, I think it's bull unless they conducted such a study recently.

Do you think active prostitutes should be able to adopt?

Jeez... Of course they should be allowed to adopt if they can meet the requirements for an adoption. This is very funny because in many countries in Europe, prostitution is a legal job. Now you want to discriminate people based on their job. Nice...

The question is, should an independent agency be FORCED by the state to facilitate adoptions to people who live in opposition to their own moral ethic? By your own admission, you think the state should be able to force this. Is that FAIR? No.

Don't get me wrong jlay. I do understand your point of view, but when you talk about an independent institution, you also talk about a legal frame they have to respect. The institution in case was based in America. I think you are American if I remember correctly. That institution tried to put God before the Legal System. First of all, America wasn't built on God. I think the Constitution clearly states that. Second and most important, God didn't make any laws in regard to children adoption, but we people did.

So trying to invoke their moral ethic code in this case is pointless and illogical at the same time. They don't have any point of reference. They created one themselves. As you tell me, they tried to smuggle something and they got told off.

The fact that the institution has a religious background doesn't mean that what they do - children adoption - is based on the same principles. I don't know if you understand this jlay, but RELIGION can't be used as a criteria to discriminate against selecting people for adoption. That is in the Constitution of America.

I think that's the whole issue in this case: the wrong CRITERIA.

Unfortuntately you have fallen for the liberal myth that sexual behavior deserves some sort of civil protection under that law.

Actually you are on the side of the myth. I don't think that sexual behavior deserves any special protection. I think that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on sexual preference. That institution did that.

Since adoption and family are dependent, can you not see how this issue would take precedent? A homosexual union will never result in procreation.If we just follow nature then we see it requires a man and woman to start and establish a family.

Mate I don't want to poke you in the eye, but I think you need it. Based on your statement here, parents who can't procreate shouldn't adopt. You can't use the procreation criteria for adoption. Jeez mate.

If we just follow nature then we see it requires a man and woman to start and establish a family.

Nope. Family is more like a human social concept so let us leave nature out of it. Family is a complex social interaction.

So, are you saying that freedom of choice is RIGHT? In all times regardless of public opinion?

Don't mix individual freedom choice and collective freedom of choice. Those are two different things although they do function in a similar manner.

It's funny you mention public opinion. Where are you heading with that?

Oh, and let's not forget that Catholic charities doesn't deserve this mysterious freedom to CHOOSE to whom they grant adoptions. Hypocritical.

Already answered this one and I stand by my statement. Those charities broke the law and besides that, they CHOSE to close their doors although they were proven to be outside of the law. They preferred that. Ok...

freedom to CHOOSE to whom they grant adoptions.

Really? You have a cruel sense of humor mate.

There is no freedom of choice to whom you grant adoptions. If you have that, well, let's sell children for organs. Hope you get the point mate. Jeez.

That is why we have a LEGAL FRAME for adoptions so institutions don't have a freedom of choice to whom they give children to or anyways, the process tries to prevent that.

Ahem, in case you haven't noticed, while some things change, there are many things that don't change. Second, considering that you're accusing people of doing something that's wrong, then you're making a moral call and judgment. As per objective morality, there's no grounds to dismiss its existence in real life. When society defines morals, those morals tend to be subjective and incomplete, often with subjective terms such as "worse than" or "better than", of which is necessary for forming a legal system with consequences for actions, but... a government can only do so much to protect its people. From there, the limits of enforcement, comes the need for self-enforcement and self-restraint. This is the purpose of objective morals. Standards for overall behavior for a peaceful and healthy coexistence.

I do get your point and I do agree to a certain point. But the problem is that morals aren't objective as people use them. As I said in my second statement: OM is quite a nice theory, but it exists only on paper. People do not act that way.

And at some point I was explaining that moral rules are split into explicit and implicit rules.

The explicit ones refer to the rules that if broken, you will get punished ( jail time etc etc).
The implicit ones are the ones that you don't get punished "officially". One good example is common sense.

But then again, no matter which category you choose, these moral values are subjective and differ from one group to another, from area to area, culture to culture.

Regardless of what you may think, a rigid, unchanging set of standards to live by isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Every system has advantages and disadvantages.

However, there's a difference between confronting them on a poor lifestyle choice and seeking to assault and harm these people.

What poor lifestyle? What are you talking about?

Sure, they are to be respected as fellow human beings on principle, but their choices aren't worth respect.

I can say the same thing to you. Your choices aren't worth respect. A choice is a choice and it should be respected as long as it doesn't inflict damage on others.

You do realize that some Christians are victims of harassment and bullying by homosexuals at the same time, right? So homosexuals aren't the only victims here.

Bullying is a problem, but we are not discussing that here. And I do realize it, but it isn't directly connected to the discussion here: are gay couples good parents?

The point of rigid standards is to prevent changes that lead to justification of actions and atrocities. When society as a whole defines their values, society as a whole changes them to fit their needs. For better or for worse. Timeless standards provide grounding and a static system to prevent this.

Totally true. I can't disagree with what you say here, but you can't use one measure for them all. That's the problem.
I was saying this on the OM topic: morality comes with a context. If there is no context, you can't make a moral judgement/call. The moment you have a context, you can no longer be objective although you might have an objective frame as a root.

Edit: Wow, your sarcasm basically reflects the point on how subjectivity of an individual can be dangerous. If that choice were to end up surpassing the individual scale and were to flood a large portion of society, well... that would basically emulate the point.

On another note, neglect to consider extremities can be dangerous, while focusing too much on extremities can lead to lower-scale problems slipping right under one's nose. In short, one shouldn't dismiss something just because it's an extreme case. (Extreme cases do happen, like one particular thing you've brought up before.) By the same token, one shouldn't focus solely on the extreme case.

Every choice/path/way/method has advantages and disadvantages.

[PaulSacramento]

Objective means that X is Y.
Subjective means that X can be Y
OM is a moral that is what it is regardless of anything else and humans, because we are relational and subjective creatures, can't make the call on what is OM in the truest sense of the word, the best we can do is make a call on what is OM based on what we THINK or FEEL is right and wrong at any given time.
That said, humans have an almost universal sense of right and wrong or perhaps, what we ought to do as opposed to should.

In regards to homosexuality, OM means that, regadless of what we know of HS or ever find it, it is either wrong or right.
People being born homosexual makes no difference to whether it is Moral or not, some people are born with violent even homicidal tendencies, some with no "moral compass", that doesn't make it ok.

[jlay]

Right or wrong based on what? Based on what people do, based on history, based on facts (new and old). OM is based on what people ought to do based on air. OM doesn't have any facts.

The OM doesn't allow you to change RIGHT and WRONG. Imagine the following scenario: tomorrow scientists prove that being gay is natural occurring phenomenon. Just imagine that and tell me how would you be able to use OM again? As I said, be very careful with extremities. It takes just one push and you are off the cliff.

You make so many errors Bryan. You are just lighting the fuse that blows up your own argument. Half of his makes zero sense, so I can't even repsond to it. But let me address your statement about gay being natural. We already KNOW for a fact that a small percentage of the population is attracted to the same sex. Why would we need to prove something that is already fact? I'm not sure at all what you are arguing here.

The question is, does a natural desire justify behavior and does that behavior deserve special priveleges? Or, is it OK to discriminate against certain behaviors even if they are "natural?"
For example, I could ask. Should heterosexual boys act on every natural desire they have? You would have to say, no. You see, the desires that heterosexual's feel is NOT why it is right. Otherwise, we'd have to normalize all kinds of deviant fettishes and behaviors, which apparently you seem OK with.
It just so happens that we are designed for the opposite sex. The fact that some people (for whatever reason) are attracted to the same sex, and their desires do not follow how their bodies were designed, doesn't mean the desire should be given equal consideration, or that acting on said desire is good.

I don't know the study you are talking about and how it was done, but to be honest, I think it's bull unless they conducted such a study recently.

If you are in to stats, then put this in your pipe and smoke it. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
According to the CDC, MSMs represent about 2% of the population, but account for 61% of new HIV cases. Are you saying we should discard these FACTS and let their blood into the general supply? Please do tell. The lifestyle is dangerous. That is a fact. So, it is absurd to say that Catholic Charities should be forced by the state to allow adoptions by gay couples.

Jeez... Of course they should be allowed to adopt if they can meet the requirements for an adoption. This is very funny because in many countries in Europe, prostitution is a legal job. Now you want to discriminate people based on their job. Nice...

I don't know of any adoption agency, faith based or otherwise, that would agree with you. So, selling one's body for sex is just another job? Why are you here Bryan? I really feel sorry for you. You have a twisted worldview. You constantly contradict yourself, smuggle in OM, and I honestly think that you are completely oblivious to the fact that you are doing it. Honestly dude, I'm embarrassed for you.

Don't get me wrong jlay. I do understand your point of view, but when you talk about an independent institution, you also talk about a legal frame they have to respect. The institution in case was based in America. I think you are American if I remember correctly. That institution tried to put God before the Legal System. First of all, America wasn't built on God. I think the Constitution clearly states that. Second and most important, God didn't make any laws in regard to children adoption, but we people did.

How are they not respecting the legal frame? (whatever that means) I don't know how familiar you are with Constitution law, but I question if you are at all.
Where did anyone claim the Constitution was built on God? And no, it doesn't say that it is or isn't. If states vote to allow Gay adoption that is one thing. The question still remains. Should an independent organization be forced to allow adoptions? I say no. And, since they were, they moved out of that state. That doesn't mean children won't be adopted. It means that organization won't be party to it, or they will simply divert children to homes in other states that respect their moral values.

Mate I don't want to poke you in the eye, but I think you need it. Based on your statement here, parents who can't procreate shouldn't adopt. You can't use the procreation criteria for adoption. Jeez mate.

That is an absurd analysis.

Those charities broke the law and besides that, they CHOSE to close their doors although they were proven to be outside of the law. They preferred that. Ok...

Show me the law? This isn't an issue of a law being broken. This is an example of activist judges and courts. Again, show me the law.

That is why we have a LEGAL FRAME for adoptions so institutions don't have a freedom of choice to whom they give children to or anyways, the process tries to prevent that.

Well, since I have dear friends who have gone through the adoption process, I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Adoption agencies ALL have guidelines by which they choose and eliminate candidates.

Really? You have a cruel sense of humor mate.

Cruel? From a person who would advocate a child being adopted by a working prostitute?
Not even sure what you mean, based on what you quoted from me. You are saying that adoption agencies do not have the rights to choose to whom they grant adoptions. Whatever.

I do get your point and I do agree to a certain point. But the problem is that morals aren't objective as people use them. As I said in my second statement: OM is quite a nice theory, but it exists only on paper. People do not act that way.

Sure they do. You smuggle in OM all the time. People may subjectively vary in what they approve of and disapprove, but they will always appeal that things really are RIGHT and WRONG. For example, you really beleive that it is wrong for CCs to deny adoption to gays. For example, there are states, right now where CCs are peforming adoptions and NOT allowing gays to adopt. It is within the legal rights of that state.
So, answer me, since it is legal, is it RIGHT for CCs to not allow gays to adopt?

[BryanH]

The question is, does a natural desire justify behavior and does that behavior deserve special priveleges? Or, is it OK to discriminate against certain behaviors even if they are "natural?"

So heterosexual couples can adopt children, but gay couples can't. Who has the privileges here?

For example, I could ask. Should heterosexual boys act on every natural desire they have? You would have to say, no. You see, the desires that heterosexual's feel is NOT why it is right. Otherwise, we'd have to normalize all kinds of deviant fettishes and behaviors, which apparently you seem OK with.

Your argument is illogical. We have a social norm that say that you can't act on every natural desire you have. I don't get your question.

If you are in to stats, then put this in your pipe and smoke it. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
According to the CDC, MSMs represent about 2% of the population, but account for 61% of new HIV cases

2% of 312 million= 6 240 000 gay men
There are also women which I don't have the number for.

"At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU."

441,669 is aprox 7% of the entire population of gay men.

Now you are telling me that because 7% of gay men have a dangerous lifestyle, we should condemn the rest of the 93% and put them in same pot.

So basically 93% of gay men are healthy.

Why are you saying that being gay is a dangerous lifestyle choice? The facts don't support it.

I think the numbers are pretty clear.

I don't know of any adoption agency, faith based or otherwise, that would agree with you. So, selling one's body for sex is just another job? Why are you here Bryan? I really feel sorry for you. You have a twisted worldview. You constantly contradict yourself, smuggle in OM, and I honestly think that you are completely oblivious to the fact that you are doing it. Honestly dude, I'm embarrassed for you.

You should be embarrassed about yourself. What is twisted about my worldview? The fact that I don't judge people so fast as you do? The fact that I don't have one measure for everything? Well, I 'prefer' looking at people and trying to understand them. I don't judge them with a book in my hand. I've mentioned this a few times. Morals are within a context and sometimes that context can be unique.

You are right about one thing: in America they can't let a prostitute adopt children because she is considered to be a criminal and of course we don't allow criminals to adopt. That's common sense. I don't agree with prostitution being illegal, but that's my personal 'twisted" view of the world so let's leave that aside.

If states vote to allow Gay adoption that is one thing. The question still remains. Should an independent organization be forced to allow adoptions? I say no.

That organization must respect the law of the country where it has its activity.

That is an absurd analysis.

I am not the one who said that two men can't procreate and that is why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because it's not natural. You said it. And they can by the way, procreate with a 'carrier' mother. Just saying...

Well, since I have dear friends who have gone through the adoption process, I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Adoption agencies ALL have guidelines by which they choose and eliminate candidates.

Of course they have guidelines. But the guidelines shouldn't promote discrimination.
Did the guidelines of that specific state mention something about gay couples?

Cruel? From a person who would advocate a child being adopted by a working prostitute?
Not even sure what you mean, based on what you quoted from me. You are saying that adoption agencies do not have the rights to choose to whom they grant adoptions. Whatever.

All I was saying that the guidelines they follow should be transparent and of course discrimination free.

So, answer me, since it is legal, is it RIGHT for CCs to not allow gays to adopt?

And there you have my point: moral subjectivity. Some states say yes and some say no.
This is a period in which more and more states will have to change to YES. It is a transitory period.Like any change, there must be a period when you get accustomed to the new.

Obama already promised support to gay communities just to get elected again. Let's see how that goes, shall we?

[PaulSacramento]

Your argument is illogical. We have a social norm that say that you can't act on every natural desire you have. I don't get your question.

Social "norm" is highly subjective.
One society can view certain behavior as normal while another doesn't.

[FlawedIntellect]

Bryan, You appeal to OM all the time without ralizing it. You do it several times in this thread. You are saying that YOUR opinion on morals is RIGHT and that we are WRONG for thinking otherwise. Of course I would ask right and wrong according to what? Not sure what breathing oxygen has to do with what is true or not.

Right or wrong based on what? Based on what people do, based on history, based on facts (new and old). OM is based on what people ought to do based on air. OM doesn't have any facts.

The OM doesn't allow you to change RIGHT and WRONG. Imagine the following scenario: tomorrow scientists prove that being gay is natural occurring phenomenon. Just imagine that and tell me how would you be able to use OM again? As I said, be very careful with extremities. It takes just one push and you are off the cliff.

Right and wrong based on objective standards that are static, and unchanging, and undefined by man.

Please do. Because I can say that these people were WRONG to do that. Objectively. How can you say they were WRONG? You can't. Again, you appeal to OM and don't even realize it. You sir are tresspassing.

No, I am not. Of course I can say they were wrong. I have what to compare with. Do we do that today? No. Did people at that time fight to change such actions? Yes. So there was a collective force trying to change what was wrong and it succeeded. Again, that's how change happens. Someone has to do it!!

You need standards to determine that something is right or wrong, and well, subjective values just means that another culture's subjective values can call your culture right or wrong on anything.

Again you smuggle in OM when it suits you, and you don't even realize it. Unfair according to what? And what rights? Where are these rights?
I agree that human rights exist, but of course I believe that human life (including gays) has Objective, intirinsic value. You refuse to follow your own moral ethic to its logical conclusions and stand on OM without realizing you are trespassing.
Also, it is a mistake to equate rights with sexual orientation.

I have explained countless times. This is not smuggling OM.
Normal couples are allowed to adopt. Gay people have been given the right to become couples. So they should be also able to adopt as other couples can. Period. There is no OM involved, but actually previous rights that have already been decided by a collective and which are thought to be on the RIGHT side.

Ahem, are you sure? You say that there's a standard here for determining things, and then deny the source, run off with it and twist things to suit your own views. Sure sounds like smuggling to me.

Do you think active prostitutes should be able to adopt?

Jeez... Of course they should be allowed to adopt if they can meet the requirements for an adoption. This is very funny because in many countries in Europe, prostitution is a legal job. Now you want to discriminate people based on their job. Nice...

So, you think that just because an entire region approves of sexual immorality (prostitution) that we should condone it too? Hell no! Never! I don't want people degrading their bodies to be used as pleasure objects! That's just sick and dehumanizing.

The question is, should an independent agency be FORCED by the state to facilitate adoptions to people who live in opposition to their own moral ethic? By your own admission, you think the state should be able to force this. Is that FAIR? No.

Don't get me wrong jlay. I do understand your point of view, but when you talk about an independent institution, you also talk about a legal frame they have to respect. The institution in case was based in America. I think you are American if I remember correctly. That institution tried to put God before the Legal System. First of all, America wasn't built on God. I think the Constitution clearly states that. Second and most important, God didn't make any laws in regard to children adoption, but we people did.

God's standards for behavior are a lot stricter than that of the Legal System's, let's face it.
Honestly all I see here is ruthless dogma of forcing homosexual adoption onto an adoption agency. And in case you haven't noticed, there's a difference between the sinner who does wrong from time to time though regrets these actions and cleans up his or her own act, and those who deliberately and continuously in a sinful lifestyle and rebelliously refuse to change their ways. Sounds an awful lot like alcoholics, drug addicts, domestic abusers, masochists... They basically do harm to both themselves and those around them, rather than fessing up and being honest with themselves.

So trying to invoke their moral ethic code in this case is pointless and illogical at the same time. They don't have any point of reference. They created one themselves. As you tell me, they tried to smuggle something and they got told off.

On what basis do you make this claim? You try to tell people first to allow homosexual adoption and try to use another unhealthy lifestyle to justify this reason. Is this satire? Or are you deliberately making yourself look ignorant here?

The fact that the institution has a religious background doesn't mean that what they do - children adoption - is based on the same principles. I don't know if you understand this jlay, but RELIGION can't be used as a criteria to discriminate against selecting people for adoption. That is in the Constitution of America.

I think that's the whole issue in this case: the wrong CRITERIA.

Strange, they're smuggling in Objective Morality that they inherited from their beliefs that they're putting into practice? Bullocks. They're not smuggling in their values. They're demonstrating them on the surface. Living them out. Putting it into practice. Doesn't sound so wrong to me. And I don't see how this is the same thing as discriminating against someone of another religion. You might as well say that they can't discriminate against rapists and pedophiles, since you're justifying one sexual immorality with another.

Unfortuntately you have fallen for the liberal myth that sexual behavior deserves some sort of civil protection under that law.

Actually you are on the side of the myth. I don't think that sexual behavior deserves any special protection. I think that people shouldn't be discriminated against based on sexual preference. That institution did that.

Sexual preference resulting from self-distorted views on sexuality. A choice. A choice proven to be unhealthy.

Since adoption and family are dependent, can you not see how this issue would take precedent? A homosexual union will never result in procreation.If we just follow nature then we see it requires a man and woman to start and establish a family.

Mate I don't want to poke you in the eye, but I think you need it. Based on your statement here, parents who can't procreate shouldn't adopt. You can't use the procreation criteria for adoption. Jeez mate.

If we just follow nature then we see it requires a man and woman to start and establish a family.

Nope. Family is more like a human social concept so let us leave nature out of it. Family is a complex social interaction.

Oh, so first you joke about smuggling in nature as an argument for homosexuality and then you discard nature?

Nature is the first half, then social interaction is the second. A child's gotta come from somewhere, right? Does someone need to have human sexual reproduction again?

Also, the argument isn't so much about ability to procreate as much as the general nature of procreation itself. Homosexuals can't naturally procreate. Even if in a heterosexual married couple that the male and/or the female may be infertile, they still represent the nature of procreation even though they are incapable of reproduction (by some sort of defect in the reproductive facilities that neither of them can help.).

As per social interaction, family is indeed that, for interdependence, though granted there's even social reasons for homosexuality being wrong. (As said before, one sin doesn't validate the other. Homosexuality does not validate bullying just as being bullied does not validate homosexuality.) Then there's the matter of sexism that can be perpetuated by homosexuality.

So, are you saying that freedom of choice is RIGHT? In all times regardless of public opinion?

Don't mix individual freedom choice and collective freedom of choice. Those are two different things although they do function in a similar manner.

It's funny you mention public opinion. Where are you heading with that?

Certain choices are legally restricted, like choosing to take certain drugs is forbidden due to mental and physical health problems that can result. In the same way, laws discourage being drunk in the first place, though condemn driving a vehicle while drunk. If anything, "freedom of choice" is restricted so as to preserve the health of the community as well as the individuals. Basically, freedom of choice exists with certain criteria for limitations. Independent organizations are allowed to set their own criteria rather than depend on the criteria of government organizations, but they still need to follow certain laws. (which are for the benefit of the children, not the would-be parents. ¬_¬ Not all potential parents are equal in their capacity to care for a child as well as the heart and motivation to do so. This is why criteria are set up.)

Oh, and let's not forget that Catholic charities doesn't deserve this mysterious freedom to CHOOSE to whom they grant adoptions. Hypocritical.

Already answered this one and I stand by my statement. Those charities broke the law and besides that, they CHOSE to close their doors although they were proven to be outside of the law. They preferred that. Ok...

What laws were broken? And what exactly validated your statement? Nothing.

freedom to CHOOSE to whom they grant adoptions.

Really? You have a cruel sense of humor mate.

There is no freedom of choice to whom you grant adoptions. If you have that, well, let's sell children for organs. Hope you get the point mate. Jeez.

Oh, so now you want to sell children for organs? What twisted mockery of objective moral standards is this? Jlay a cruel sense of humor?

That is why we have a LEGAL FRAME for adoptions so institutions don't have a freedom of choice to whom they give children to or anyways, the process tries to prevent that.

I thought the point of the law was to prevent potential victims. Shouldn't an adoption organization care more about the children than the parents? That isn't to say that they shouldn't care about the parents, but that their priorities are on the well-being of the child.

Ahem, in case you haven't noticed, while some things change, there are many things that don't change. Second, considering that you're accusing people of doing something that's wrong, then you're making a moral call and judgment. As per objective morality, there's no grounds to dismiss its existence in real life. When society defines morals, those morals tend to be subjective and incomplete, often with subjective terms such as "worse than" or "better than", of which is necessary for forming a legal system with consequences for actions, but... a government can only do so much to protect its people. From there, the limits of enforcement, comes the need for self-enforcement and self-restraint. This is the purpose of objective morals. Standards for overall behavior for a peaceful and healthy coexistence.

I do get your point and I do agree to a certain point. But the problem is that morals aren't objective as people use them. As I said in my second statement: OM is quite a nice theory, but it exists only on paper. People do not act that way.

So people not acting according to the rules automatically invalidates those rules. Okay. Then I guess we should free the serial killers from death row.

And at some point I was explaining that moral rules are split into explicit and implicit rules.

The explicit ones refer to the rules that if broken, you will get punished ( jail time etc etc).
The implicit ones are the ones that you don't get punished "officially". One good example is common sense.

But then again, no matter which category you choose, these moral values are subjective and differ from one group to another, from area to area, culture to culture.

Because people would rather approach values subjectively (out of selfishness) than out of humility and honesty. And I wasn't denying that morals are treated subjectively, but rather that in doing so it tends to undermine the overall function.

Regardless of what you may think, a rigid, unchanging set of standards to live by isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Every system has advantages and disadvantages.

Hence why the system of objective standards needs a flawless origin.

However, there's a difference between confronting them on a poor lifestyle choice and seeking to assault and harm these people.

What poor lifestyle? What are you talking about?

The phrase was "Poor lifestyle choice." Take a guess what I meant. You and taking this sentence out of context.

Sure, they are to be respected as fellow human beings on principle, but their choices aren't worth respect.

I can say the same thing to you. Your choices aren't worth respect. A choice is a choice and it should be respected as long as it doesn't inflict damage on others.

Oh? By what standard do you make that judgment? Oh? And I should respect peoples' choices if it is self-destructive to them? I think not! Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice. Hence, "poor lifestyle choice." "Poor" does not refer to the wealth they possess. "Poor" rather refers to the low quality of such a lifestyle.

You do realize that some Christians are victims of harassment and bullying by homosexuals at the same time, right? So homosexuals aren't the only victims here.

Bullying is a problem, but we are not discussing that here. And I do realize it, but it isn't directly connected to the discussion here: are gay couples good parents?

I apologize for straying off topic. Regardless, wouldn't you think that the same prejudice the homosexual parents have may be taught to their children?

The point of rigid standards is to prevent changes that lead to justification of actions and atrocities. When society as a whole defines their values, society as a whole changes them to fit their needs. For better or for worse. Timeless standards provide grounding and a static system to prevent this.

Totally true. I can't disagree with what you say here, but you can't use one measure for them all. That's the problem.

Oh? Explain what you mean by "you can't use one measure for them all."

I was saying this on the OM topic: morality comes with a context. If there is no context, you can't make a moral judgement/call. The moment you have a context, you can no longer be objective although you might have an objective frame as a root.

Oh, so context automatically makes something subjective? No, it simply allows for there to be comprehensibility to the standards. Context is to act a certain way out of love and kindness, and also setting up these standards to be held by others. All standards are serious, though some may need to be directly addressed by a legal system while others can be dealt with on a personal social climate scale. Objective moral standards make for practical wisdom. Problem is, people often would rather have subjective standards than a full set of objective ones, because it makes things more "convenient."

Edit: Wow, your sarcasm basically reflects the point on how subjectivity of an individual can be dangerous. If that choice were to end up surpassing the individual scale and were to flood a large portion of society, well... that would basically emulate the point.

On another note, neglect to consider extremities can be dangerous, while focusing too much on extremities can lead to lower-scale problems slipping right under one's nose. In short, one shouldn't dismiss something just because it's an extreme case. (Extreme cases do happen, like one particular thing you've brought up before.) By the same token, one shouldn't focus solely on the extreme case.

Every choice/path/way/method has advantages and disadvantages.

Was I ever denying that? Such isn't really the case with God (seeing as he can see when people try to exploit or work around the rules...) But that's a different subject matter.

[FlawedIntellect]

The question is, does a natural desire justify behavior and does that behavior deserve special priveleges? Or, is it OK to discriminate against certain behaviors even if they are "natural?"

So heterosexual couples can adopt children, but gay couples can't. Who has the privileges here?

For example, I could ask. Should heterosexual boys act on every natural desire they have? You would have to say, no. You see, the desires that heterosexual's feel is NOT why it is right. Otherwise, we'd have to normalize all kinds of deviant fettishes and behaviors, which apparently you seem OK with.

Your argument is illogical. We have a social norm that say that you can't act on every natural desire you have. I don't get your question.

Your response is illogical. You argue against objectivity with subjective values. Subjective values are irrelevant, as they can change. And change for the worse, which is what they're doing.

"Social norm" is too flexible. No rigid counterbalance.

If you are in to stats, then put this in your pipe and smoke it. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm
According to the CDC, MSMs represent about 2% of the population, but account for 61% of new HIV cases

2% of 312 million= 6 240 000 gay men
There are also women which I don't have the number for.

"At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU."

441,669 is aprox 7% of the entire population of gay men.

Now you are telling me that because 7% of gay men have a dangerous lifestyle, we should condemn the rest of the 93% and put them in same pot.

So basically 93% of gay men are healthy.

Why are you saying that being gay is a dangerous lifestyle choice? The facts don't support it.

I think the numbers are pretty clear.

Um, even then, you need to account for other possible health problems, not just the ones that have HIV.

I don't know of any adoption agency, faith based or otherwise, that would agree with you. So, selling one's body for sex is just another job? Why are you here Bryan? I really feel sorry for you. You have a twisted worldview. You constantly contradict yourself, smuggle in OM, and I honestly think that you are completely oblivious to the fact that you are doing it. Honestly dude, I'm embarrassed for you.

You should be embarrassed about yourself. What is twisted about my worldview? The fact that I don't judge people so fast as you do? The fact that I don't have one measure for everything? Well, I 'prefer' looking at people and trying to understand them. I don't judge them with a book in my hand. I've mentioned this a few times. Morals are within a context and sometimes that context can be unique.

The judgment isn't on the hearts of people. It's on the seriousness of the action and how it can be passed down for generations.

You are right about one thing: in America they can't let a prostitute adopt children because she is considered to be a criminal and of course we don't allow criminals to adopt. That's common sense. I don't agree with prostitution being illegal, but that's my personal 'twisted" view of the world so let's leave that aside.

Why shouldn't prostitution be illegal? It's objectifying and degrading to women! It reduces the value of a woman down to a sex toy. Not to mention that prostitutes tend to be victims of domestic abuse, so making prostitution illegal PROTECTS the woman! Not to mention prostitution in and of itself is simply too reductive of the purpose of sex.

If states vote to allow Gay adoption that is one thing. The question still remains. Should an independent organization be forced to allow adoptions? I say no.

That organization must respect the law of the country where it has its activity.

Up to a point. Independent would mean that they can set their own criteria. I don't see how preventing homosexuals from having kids equates to prejudice. All it sounds like is grown adults throwing temper tantrums that they can't have what they want. If they wanna argue that it's unfair, well...

That is an absurd analysis.

I am not the one who said that two men can't procreate and that is why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because it's not natural. You said it. And they can by the way, procreate with a 'carrier' mother. Just saying...

They still require a woman for the baby to come about. Blatant hypocrisy.

Well, since I have dear friends who have gone through the adoption process, I think you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Adoption agencies ALL have guidelines by which they choose and eliminate candidates.

Of course they have guidelines. But the guidelines shouldn't promote discrimination.
Did the guidelines of that specific state mention something about gay couples?

Discrimination how? Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice. Why do so-called "psychologists" blame all the problems on the bullying rather than seeing that, in certain cases, it's an attitude problem?

Cruel? From a person who would advocate a child being adopted by a working prostitute?
Not even sure what you mean, based on what you quoted from me. You are saying that adoption agencies do not have the rights to choose to whom they grant adoptions. Whatever.

All I was saying that the guidelines they follow should be transparent and of course discrimination free.

Again, how is it discrimination? Because they're gay? Oh? How and why are they gay? They're certainly NOT born that way.

So, answer me, since it is legal, is it RIGHT for CCs to not allow gays to adopt?

And there you have my point: moral subjectivity. Some states say yes and some say no.
This is a period in which more and more states will have to change to YES. It is a transitory period.Like any change, there must be a period when you get accustomed to the new.

Your point is moral subjectivity. Subjective morals are meaningless. And there's nothing new about homosexuality. Argue "discrimination" all you want, it's not going to change that it isn't "discrimination" in the same context of what it was for black people here in the States.

Obama already promised support to gay communities just to get elected again. Let's see how that goes, shall we?

I'm not a big Obama fan. Skin color does not determine whether or not one is right. Nor does being the president doesn't make one right. It just means that the person holds temporary limited authority over the nation.

[jlay]

So heterosexual couples can adopt children, but gay couples can't. Who has the privileges here?

Gay couples can adopt in certain states, and they are. I do not believe that Catholic Charities should be forced to facilitate adoptions to gay couples bases on their moral values.

Your argument is illogical. We have a social norm that say that you can't act on every natural desire you have. I don't get your question.

The question is that DESIRE is not a validation of behavior. But what do you mean by social norm. Where does it exist? What is it's source?

we should condemn the rest of the 93% and put them in same pot.

This isn't a condemnation. You asked for some stats, I provided. It shows that anyone who engages in this behavior is willfully ignoring the dangers they are putting themself in. Again, just try and donate blood. There are questions about homosexuality, and if you answer yes to any of them, you are automatically rejected. Discrimination? Heck yes. Against a person? No. Against BEHAVIOR.

You should be embarrassed about yourself. What is twisted about my worldview?

There is behavior that no rational soceity or person would ever condone. Anyone who would advocate that prostitution is a valid career and not a stopper for being an adoptive parent is twisted.

The fact that I don't judge people so fast as you do? The fact that I don't have one measure for everything? Well, I 'prefer' looking at people and trying to understand them. I don't judge them with a book in my hand. I've mentioned this a few times.

Sure you do. This entire post is a judgment about us. You are in fact judging me for making judgments. You don't have a problem with your judgments because you think you are right. Further, you are unwilling to follow your morality claims to their logical conclusions. Why should we care about your measure. It is arbirtrary and ever changing. If you claim that morality can change with a whim and that there is nothing objectively true regarding morals, then why in the world should we listen to anything you have to say about morals?

Morals are within a context and sometimes that context can be unique

Really, is that always the case? (Again, you don't even know when you are being contradictory.)

That organization must respect the law of the country where it has its activity.

Must? Why? Let's see, there's one of those "ought" words again. Were abolitionist during the 1800s supposed to respect the law of the country? Were they WRONG to rise up against the law? You see, you once again appeal to OM (wrongly interpreted of course) and yet fail to realize what you are doing. Over and over, and over.

Of course they have guidelines. But the guidelines shouldn't promote discrimination

Shouldn't? Ding, ding, ding. Here we go again. You are tresspassing again.
Of course they should. That is exactly what guidelines do. For example, do you think they have requirements regarding criminal record? Yep. It is perfectly valid to discriminate against BEHAVIOR. In fact, I'm sure they even rightly discriminate regarding economic status. Unless you think that an adoption agency shouldn't require that a family be able to provide for the needs of the child.

All I was saying that the guidelines they follow should be transparent and of course discrimination free.

Ding, ding, ding. Once again, you are appealing to some objective standard over us all, and you don't even realize it. Otherwise, what to you mean by should? Remember earlier when you were mocking the notion of OM based on "ought." Well sir, should and must are just other words for ought. You are living in contradiction and refuse to acknowledge it. Your like the Knight on Monty Python who has had his limbs cut off and refuses to see it.

This is a period in which more and more states will have to change to YES. It is a transitory period.Like any change, there must be a period when you get accustomed to the new.

What? Listen to yourself. Have to? Again, appealing to an OUGHT. According to what? Is that objectively true?
I have already shown that the word discrimiation is not inherently bad. We all discriminate. But when is it wrong, and why is it wrong? Well, as I've shown there are behaviors that we will all discriminate against.
"This is what public policy is all about: using good judgment to distinguish those behaviors that are worthy of public approval from those behaviors which ought to receive public disapproval. We should not therefore discriminate against a man for his sexual inclinations, only for his sexual conduct. This entirely appropriate discrimination can take a number of different forms, ranging all the way from a simple refusal to provide societal endorsement for such behavior, to refusing to subsidize it, to refusing to give it special protections in law."
Example: Drinking. It is legal to drink. Why is it illegal for people under a certain age to drink? Because it leads to bad beahvior. Are people under 21 being discriminated against? You bet they are. Even though it is legal to drink, we still discriminate against the results of alcohol abuse. So, the fact that the state permits it, does not mean that it endorse the behaviors that result.

[BryanH]

Right and wrong based on objective standards that are static, and unchanging, and undefined by man.

There are no moral standards that weren't defined by man.

You need standards to determine that something is right or wrong, and well, subjective values just means that another culture's subjective values can call your culture right or wrong on anything.

Different cultures have different standards and even standards change with time.

So, you think that just because an entire region approves of sexual immorality (prostitution) that we should condone it too? Hell no! Never! I don't want people degrading their bodies to be used as pleasure objects! That's just sick and dehumanizing.

So you want to make choices for others? Sorry, but I don't think that the people working as prostitutes agree with you. I think they want to make their own choices.

They basically do harm to both themselves and those around them, rather than fessing up and being honest with themselves.

Gay people do not inflict harm on themselves and those around them. I don't know what you are talking about. And they are honest with themselves.

You might as well say that they can't discriminate against rapists and pedophiles, since you're justifying one sexual immorality with another.

Dude, please... Don't compare criminals with gay people. I have seen jlay offering this comparison as well. You know what consent means right?

Sexual preference resulting from self-distorted views on sexuality. A choice. A choice proven to be unhealthy.

Proven to be what? Who proved what? Really now...

But let me ask you the following question: What do you know about the subject of SEXUALITY? How documented are you on this subject? Have you read the website I provided you with? It seems not.

Here's the CDC again: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm


Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Do you see HIV in the top 10?

Also, the argument isn't so much about ability to procreate as much as the general nature of procreation itself. Homosexuals can't naturally procreate.

Of course they can naturally procreate:)) Lesbians can do that rather easily. They just go to an artificial insemination clinic. For men it's a little bit harder, but they can find a 'carrier mother'.

That isn't to say that they shouldn't care about the parents, but that their priorities are on the well-being of the child.

Of course that the priority is the well being of a child. The issue is that they have no base to refuse gay couples as parents except the fact that they are gay.

***And please stop repeating that being gay is a poor lifestyle choice and proven to be unhealthy. You can't support that with facts.

So people not acting according to the rules automatically invalidates those rules. Okay. Then I guess we should free the serial killers from death row.

This is a biased topic. Let's press the skip button.

Hence why the system of objective standards needs a flawless origin.

First of all you need to establish the existence of such flawless origin.

Oh? By what standard do you make that judgment? Oh? And I should respect peoples' choices if it is self-destructive to them? I think not! Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice. Hence, "poor lifestyle choice." "Poor" does not refer to the wealth they possess. "Poor" rather refers to the low quality of such a lifestyle.

***And please stop repeating that being gay is a poor lifestyle choice and proven to be unhealthy. You can't support that with facts.

Oh? Explain what you mean by "you can't use one measure for them all."

I mean that OM doesn't have all the answers and it can't be used as a standard for determining moral laws in a society.

Problem is, people often would rather have subjective standards than a full set of objective ones, because it makes things more "convenient."

Subjective standards are objective to a certain point given the fact all people respect the same subjective standards. I don't think that all people agree with all the moral laws, but they need to respect them or face the consequences.

Subjective values are irrelevant, as they can change.

Really? I don't think so. I see subjective values relevant to members of a society. They can change, but then again you can't tell the future, can you? I've seen this comparison offered by jlay as well. Subjective values can change of course, but that doesn't mean that such a change happens in seconds. Just look at black people in America. The wounds of slavery have not healed until today. Things have changed of course, but it doesn't happen in a heart beat.

Um, even then, you need to account for other possible health problems, not just the ones that have HIV.

I think the main issue discussed here was their 'immoral dangerous" sexual behavior. As it seems, 93% of gay people know very well how to use protection and to stay on the safe side. That is a responsible course of action, wouldn't you say?

Why shouldn't prostitution be illegal? It's objectifying and degrading to women! It reduces the value of a woman down to a sex toy. Not to mention that prostitutes tend to be victims of domestic abuse, so making prostitution illegal PROTECTS the woman! Not to mention prostitution in and of itself is simply too reductive of the purpose of sex.

This can be the subject of another topic.

Discrimination how? Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice. Why do so-called "psychologists" blame all the problems on the bullying rather than seeing that, in certain cases, it's an attitude problem?

Homosexuality is a detrimental lifestyle choice only in your head. If you would have read the page I provided you with, well, maybe you could understand some things differently. Psychologists say what they say because they have conducted studies and the studies prove that the prejudice that people display towards gay people is not supported by real life facts.

Gay couples can adopt in certain states, and they are. I do not believe that Catholic Charities should be forced to facilitate adoptions to gay couples bases on their moral values.

You are arguing for CC to get special treatment. Well, you see, although subjective moral values are subjective in the sense that societies choose what is wrong and what is right, in terms of respecting those values, the society is objective: everybody must follow the rules including CC.

The question is that DESIRE is not a validation of behavior. But what do you mean by social norm. Where does it exist? What is it's source?

Social norm is a set of both implicit and explicit rules validated by and within a social group. I think that covers all your questions.

This isn't a condemnation. You asked for some stats, I provided. It shows that anyone who engages in this behavior is willfully ignoring the dangers they are putting themself in. Again, just try and donate blood. There are questions about homosexuality, and if you answer yes to any of them, you are automatically rejected. Discrimination? Heck yes. Against a person? No. Against BEHAVIOR.

No... The numbers on paper demonstrate that 7% of people who engage in such behavior are ignoring the dangers. The rest of 93% are healthy know how to use protection and how to stay on the safe side.

By the way, heterosexual people who also have unprotected sex will get infected as well. It's the same.

HIV is an STD. It doesn't matter if you are gay or not. At least STDs don't discriminate.

Jeez dude. I mean, you are actually trying to explain me that gay people are retards. Really now?

No. Against BEHAVIOR.

Are heterosexual people discriminated against?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm

1.2 million people in total suffer from HIV. 450,000 aprox are gay and the rest 750, 000 are hetero.
It's easier for a hetero to find a sexual partner because as facts say, 98% of the population is hetero.
So which style is more dangerous again? Which people can spread HIV more rapidly?

There is behavior that no rational soceity or person would ever condone. Anyone who would advocate that prostitution is a valid career and not a stopper for being an adoptive parent is twisted.

Well, being a shop assistant at Walmart isn't a valid career, but it's a job. About the prostitute part I prefer not to comment any longer. It's clear that we judge persons in a very different way.

Why should we care about your measure. It is arbirtrary and ever changing. If you claim that morality can change with a whim and that there is nothing objectively true regarding morals, then why in the world should we listen to anything you have to say about morals?

I have said this to FlawedIntellect as well. Step it down a notch with the arbitrary and ever changing. Although moral values are subjective given the fact that people decide them, they are still objective in the sense that everybody is bound to respect those rules. And I don't see moral values ever changing. I see them changing from time to time in regard to what a society has become.

then why in the world should we listen to anything you have to say about morals?

Ask yourself the same question: Why should I listen to you?

How can I present my arguments if someone is not listening?
How can you present your arguments if someone is not listening?

I am not saying we have to agree. Not all moral laws suit every person, but consensus is required to function efficiently.

Really, is that always the case?

Yep. Being moral means making the 'RIGHT' choice. Making a choice means having a context. You can't make a choice about nothing. Nothing is not bound by morality.

Shouldn't? Ding, ding, ding. Here we go again. You are tresspassing again.
Of course they should. That is exactly what guidelines do. For example, do you think they have requirements regarding criminal record? Yep. It is perfectly valid to discriminate against BEHAVIOR. In fact, I'm sure they even rightly discriminate regarding economic status. Unless you think that an adoption agency shouldn't require that a family be able to provide for the needs of the child.

Those guidelines you are talking about are in place to safeguard the interests and well-being of the child. Psychological studies have proven that gay couples are good parents. Such a guideline shouldn't be there because it is not supported by facts.

Well, as I've shown there are behaviors that we will all discriminate against.

Yes you have. For some of those behaviors we 'discriminate" against, we have valid reasons supported by facts. On the other side, you have no real facts to support discrimination against gay people.

Example: Drinking. It is legal to drink. Why is it illegal for people under a certain age to drink? Because it leads to bad beahvior. Are people under 21 being discriminated against? You bet they are. Even though it is legal to drink, we still discriminate against the results of alcohol abuse. So, the fact that the state permits it, does not mean that it endorse the behaviors that result.

First of all, let's get something straight: DRINKING does NOT lead to bad behavior. EXCESSIVE and IRRATIONAL drinking does.

Gay people are not excessive and are not being irrational.

Secondly, gay people do not have negative effects on society. Alcoholics do.

[jlay]

There are no moral standards that weren't defined by man.

You are making a fundemental error. The same one where you keep assuming that subjective moral interpretations and OM exclude one another.

Yes you have. For some of those behaviors we 'discriminate" against, we have valid reasons supported by facts. On the other side, you have no real facts to support discrimination against gay people.

It is a fact that homosexual unions are in conflict with many value systems. It is a fact that homosexual behavior is in conflict with how the human body was designed. There are a lot of facts. You just don't care about those facts. And as I will address in a moment, it really doesn't matter. It all has to do with the lens through which you view the facts.

You are arguing for CC to get special treatment

Oh brother.

Social norm is a set of both implicit and explicit rules validated by and within a social group. I think that covers all your questions.

so if the social norm says it's OK to presecute people for being gay, then it is morally ok??? For the umpteenth time Bryan, you need to be willing to follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't intellectually honest.

By the way, heterosexual people who also have unprotected sex will get infected as well. It's the same.

Actually, this is misleading. You are obviously ignoring the stats. Among new cases, gay men are 10% more likely to contract than intraveinous drug users. Homosexuals are 40% + more likely to get HIV than straight men having unprotected sex.

1.2 million people in total suffer from HIV. 450,000 aprox are gay and the rest 750, 000 are hetero.
It's easier for a hetero to find a sexual partner because as facts say, 98% of the population is hetero.
So which style is more dangerous again? Which people can spread HIV more rapidly?

Gays represent 2%. The CDC says that gays account for 61% of new HIV cases. 2% accounts for 61%. what's the argument?

Well, being a shop assistant at Walmart isn't a valid career, but it's a job. About the prostitute part I prefer not to comment any longer. It's clear that we judge persons in a very different way

I judge behavior.

Ask yourself the same question: Why should I listen to you?

You are not obligated to. But, one reason you should is that I have clearly shown how your moral logic is contradictory and self-defeating. Whether you agree with my opinion on gays doesn't matter. Because if your basic worldview is built on logical fallacy then all your other beliefs are viewed through a dostorted lens. We can argue stats and such, but it is futile. I've taken the time to show you over and over how your thinking is logically flawed. The right thing to do is to change your way of thinking. You see, there is a right way to think. This is an objective fact. This also explains why you see different moral interpretations over time. People get it wrong. They start with a distorted lens and they make grave errors. Once you've liberated your mind with sound logical methods, then we can view all these social questions through the right lens.

Yep. Being moral means making the 'RIGHT' choice. Making a choice means having a context.

Sure. but what do you mean by right. You need to understand that again, you are smuggling in OM. In what context is it OK to torture babies for fun?
No, wonder you smuggle in OM. You do believe in it. Now, you just need to learn to rightly interpret it and you'll be just fine.

I have said this to FlawedIntellect as well. Step it down a notch with the arbitrary and ever changing. Although moral values are subjective given the fact that people decide them, they are still objective in the sense that everybody is bound to respect those rules. And I don't see moral values ever changing. I see them changing from time to time in regard to what a society has become.

Bryan, I've shown with your own words how you have not been consistent. If you are going to claim that there is no OM, then it is all arbitrary. Saying someone SHOULD or MUST is arbitrary, unless there is some objective source by which to measure whether it really is IGHT.
You said,

OM is based on what people ought to do based on air. OM doesn't have any facts.

And then you spend much of your post stating what ought, should and must be. If morals are objective (and you REALLY do believe they are), then there is a way we ought to live. We can look at a society, regardless of the laws and popular opinion, and ask, "Is this really the way it OUGHT to be."

Different cultures have different standards and even standards change with time.

This is a hasty generalization. For example, let's take an extreme, like cultures who believed in human sacrifice. It is very easy to look back and say, "see how different." But the reality is that we can look back and say, objectively, "they got it wrong." It would be assinine to say that what they did was morally acceptable simply because it was accepted by the culture. Because that means if the culture swayed back that way, then we'd have to comply.
But we can also look back and say, "you know what, they really did believe they were doing good." They really believed that the gods had to be appeased. It wasn't that they simply had a different morality. They made bad interpretations because they had a faulty ruler. (Idol worship) Another example is the Salem Witch trials. People look back and say, "see how different." Actually no. If (and that is a big if) the people accused of witchcraft were actually guilty, then the reactions were morally consistent with the same we have today. They really did believe there were witches performing all kinds of atrocities. The problem was they had a lens distorted by superstition.

Bryan, one of the great and misunderstood things about God's mercy is that he refuses to identify with our wrong thinking. If we choose to walk that path, He will leave us to our own ways. This is evidenced by how foreign this is to your mind, and by how you repeatedly appeal to OM while denying it in the same breath. You can type what ever you want, but I know that in your inner man you know this is true. God does truly desire for you to repent. That is abandon a futile way of thinking and embrace a new one. I hope you do.