CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Gay rights - Democracy or liberalistic dictatorship?
After observing the chick-fil-a fiasko, I'm left perplexed.
While I'm having difficult issues regarding where my views lie in the question of gay rights, I would discuss something else - rather it seems to me that the supporters of gay rights do not respect democracy.
I want people to discuss whether the structure, regulation and managment of a democratic society should be based on the power of the people or on the political ideology of liberalism?
If we accept the latter, then has democracy not lost its core meaning? That it's not about the power and the choice of the people, rather it's about bringing societal managment into a compatible relationship with a single political ideology - liberalism?
Personally I think that a democracy does not necessarily have to be liberalistic, because if this is the case, then the people have no way to actually choose their moral foundations and traditions for their society. It's been chosen for them and as such, democracy has lost its meaning.
The textbook definition of liberal describes someone who desires fast change within the society at large. You can pride yourself on your own ignorance and pretend that it's all a big game of us vs them, but you would still just be ignorant for it.
What's wrong with liberals exactly? Could you describe what's wrong with liberals without parroting what neo-nazis would say about Jews? I mean can you really make an objective argument for what you're saying?
It's not liberals per se..., it's the liberal ideology I have issues with. The liberal ideology is not rational. But I do have liberal friends. Lots of them. I can't walk out the door without bumping into a liberal ;)
Supporting homosexuality is supporting human nature. That's a liberal ideology. In what way does liberal ideology go against any human nature? I mean, unless you mean the human nature to continue to deny something after it's been proven to be true.
I support homosexuality. I think most people do. The way in which support is given, however, is the real issue. If you are married, you should understand that your wife expects love to be expressed a certain way. Even if you desire to express it differently. That is the real issue.
Personally, I do not like to be forced to express myself in certain ways. That's like someone telling me, "If you love me, you would..." I hate that. How about, "Here's who I am. Accept me, or not. I don't care. I'm not changing to please you. I'm willing to meet you half way. But that's about it." and then I smile ;)
Actually, I think it's a sort of hive mind behavior. As individuals we are like neurons or small network systems within the hive mind of society. When you are undecided on something, you look for some form of resolution from within, then whatever that resolution is, you might report it back to the group depending on what it is.
The six degrees of Bacon assures that your message has a great chance of reaching Kevin Bacon's ears and even if he doesn't know it was your idea, he can very well be convinced by it enough to report it back to the group and effect your opinion becoming the new social order of things.
It's natural democracy so to speak. People fight it out and try to squelch each other because cognitive dissonance hurts, even in the hive mind as a whole. We humans are obsessed with knowing things, and we will never stop attempting to know things. As soon as we know something, we move on to learn something else. Or else, when we become old dogs and are done with new tricks, we're left with trying to convince others that we already know things they are seeking.
Pure democracy is often called the 'tyranny of the majority', where 51% of any population can do whatever they want. This is hardly an ideal system for any society to be built in. Which is why almost all modern 'democracies' use a constitution, limiting the rights of the majority, and protecting the rights of minorities. For example, this is why, in America (a fitting example, as it's where the inspiration for the debate came from) you allow lobbying, you allow minority groups, you allow donations. Despite the fact that they go against democracy (where every single person gets one vote, one piece of influence, and that's it), they (are supposed to) protect minority rights + benefit society overall.
So, in a society based off of the idea of personal liberty, people should be able to do what they want. These liberties should only be limited where they influence others, and even then, only after careful consideration. Obviously, a society based off of liberty could go in many different directions (especially one which doesn't put liberty as its primary goal, such as the US), which is where democracy should be used, in order to decide what happens then.
By the way, that's far from a 'liberalistic dictatorship'. What you mean is a Republic, with personal liberty given a high priority in a constitution. Such as America.
TL;DR Democracy should not be abused to manipulate or mistreat minorities in society. Where someones actions have but a negligible effect on other people, they should be free to do what they want. Gay rights are just as important and deserved as straight rights.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by ''influence''? Influence as in a physical sense or in an emotional sense? What is the criteria by which you decide what people can do and what people can't do?
Also, given that you've implied that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't influence others - that raises quite a few ethical questions. By condoning and supporting gays and homosexuality, it would be outright hypocritical to condemn other minorities that can be defended with the same arguments:
Nudists - What reasonable argument could there be to disallow nudists to walk around naked? They're not physically harming anyone and people shouldn't be afraid to be who they are just because others take offense. If people have to tolerate and put up with homosexuality eventhough they consider it to be immoral and offensive, it inescapably follows that nudists should have the same privilege.
Necrophiliacs - suppose Jane has stated in her will that her body will be left in Jake's possession for him to use it for whatever purposes he wants. Should he be allowed to have sexual intercourse with the cadaver and engage in necrophiliac practices? Keep in mind, he's not harming nor influencing anyone, this is his own private matter. So given the principles of liberalism, should he be able to continue his relationship with the corpse and should the state guarantee that?
Drugs users - since this is again a private matter, all drugs should be legalized.
Cannibalism - again, a private matter that affects nobody else other than the parties involved. If someone decides to give his/her body for someone else's consumption after he/she ever dies, what justification do we have to deny this occurence in a liberal society? The fact that people are offended by this is not enough as people are already offended by homosexuals, yet we expect them to put up with it.
To this list, we can add zoophiliacs, alchoholics etc etc.
By supporting gays, we must inescapably support all other minorities which can be defended by the same arguments.
I believe I've taken the implications of tolerating gay marriage to its logical conclusions. Whether this is the kind of society we want is up to the people I suppose.
I'm not completely arguing from Ben's argument, but I feel I can answer the ethical concerns that you made here.
Nudists - There actually isn't any harm nor anything wrong that's done by nudists. There is however harm done to the society at large for holding on to these irrational taboos against sex, sexuality, and human genitalia. People deny their human nature and refuse to explore their bodies or even sometimes masturbate simply because of this taboo. Did you know that scientists have even revealed third trimester fetus's to masturbate?
Necrophiliacs - Here there is a harm that is done by the necrophiliac. Even if you would say that no harm is done to the deceased owner of the dead body, it can then be looked at as a form of damaging property which belongs to the next of kin or plot holders who agreed to keep the body in the ground for one reason or another. The point is that ethically, even in a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective, it amounts to having sex with someone else's property.
Drug users - Depending on the drug and the motivations, drug users can be seen as acting with suicidal behavior and in most cases they are not in their right minds. I would be for helping people commit suicide in a peaceful manner if they were honestly making the decision themselves, but there is also a relative line where a person cannot be seen as being in their right mind enough to not be stopped from self destructive behavior. Such issues can be dealt with in a matter that concerns that line in the same way that such is decided in hospitals for medical decisions.
Cannibalism - There are ethical cases where with or without permission, cannibalism was a person's only chance to survive. In those cases, as well as voluntary cases, the same argument for drug users can be made. Someone should just verify that decisions were made by people who were not losing their minds before allowing such things to take place.
The argument that you are making can easily be used on any and all behavior. That if you can't come up with ethical problems for all behaviors then you can't support (insert questionable behavior of choice). For example, we could say the same about heterosexual behavior.
It's an argument from ignorance. We don't know how to ethically condemn all questionable behaviors, therefore homosexuality must be wrong. Homosexuality only has to answer to the consequences of homosexuality. If you think it's bad, then the burden of proof is on you to explain what makes it bad.
Nudists - as I understand, you support nudism then? That societal norms and ettiquette should not constrain the individual and that the individual should be allowed to walk around naked given the fact that he isn't harming anyone, he's just being faithful to his nature.
Necrophiliacs - But you are ignoring my example - in my example person A bequathed the corpse legally as the deceased explained in his will that person A should get owership of her body after her death. If this is the case, then I don't see why it should be disallowed. A liberal can't say that we have sexual autonomy... except for that... and that... and that.. and that.
Since you accept the premise that the corpse can belong to an owner, should the owner be able to have sex with the corpse and should the state guarantee the possibility for him to do so?
Drug users - I really don't see how suicidal tendencies are relevant, given that suicide is a personal matter. You may argue that the suicidal person may have people to take care of - but this is a subjective value judgement. The suicidal person might think that his body autonomy outweighs his responsibility to other people.
Alchohol is also an extreme drug that causes judgement errors, violent behavior and even suicidal tendencies. Heck alchohol could get you killed merely because you accidently stumble off a bridge. Regardless of all these possibilites, alchohol is legal - that's because we assume that people are rational enough to understand the risks involved, so if we are consistent - drugs should be allowed as people are rational enough to know the risks and be prepared for certain consequences.
But as whole, if it's just thrill-seeking, then you would be fine with it?
Cannibalism - I find it very humorous when you claim that people should first be verified whether their judgemental capacity is intact before they engage in cannibalism. Why? Because this implies that there might be something wrong with cannibalists.
You make it sound like no sane person would generally advocate cannibalism, but this is a subjective moral judgment based on a societal taboo. If you support liberalism, then the implication that there is something wrong with drug users and cannibals is inherently hypocritical if you, at the same time, condemn people who think gay behavior is immoral.
You see, people who support family values and are against gay marriage - they too operate from the standpoint of a societal taboo. How can you condemn them when you, at the same time, imply that there is something wrong with cannibals and drug users and that they need to be mentally verified to be sane. A liberalist should say that there is nothing wrong with cannibals and drug users, they are just people who hold different views on morality and societal norms.
It would be a tremendous scandal, if the legislation in the US passed a law where every homosexual needs to be mentally evaluated before they can commit to a same sex marriage. Why? Because this implies that non-rational homosexuality is wrong.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough - my whole criticism is exaclty about the moral inconsistency of liberalism. If everything is truly allowed as long as it doesn't harm other people or society as whole, then one needs to defend this intellectual position. You can't say that all is allowed and then start telling people off, because you don't like their views and ideas.
The principle - People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm the people around them - yeah, that does actually justify any conceivable behavior. That's my whole point, that there cannot be any real moral and societal foundations in a liberalistic society.
It's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument for consistency for the liberalist position.
Homosexuality is a societal taboo, but it should be allowed because of arguments A, B, C.
Nudism, Necros, drug use and cannibalism are also societal taboos, but can also be supported with arguments A, B, C.
Therefore nudism, necroism, drug use and cannibalism should be allowed in every situation where homosexuality is allowed.
I'm not saying that homosexuality is wrong. I'm just saying that if it's not wrong, then neither is nudism, necroism, drug use, cannibalism, bestiality, incest, polygamy etc etc.
Nudists - Yes I support them, but it as nothing to do with individualism. These particular societal taboos have been chosen and dictated by highly judgmental individuals who had no right to make such claims. If it wasn't vehemently fought by the offended to the point of throwing people in jail, I'm certain that an open vote would slowly but surly reveal the the majority is fine with nudity or doesn't care. Same goes for profanity. And it's not just a nudist's nature to be concerned with, it's everyone's nature. Taboos are an unhealthy part of human cultures.
Necrophiliacs - I caught that type of argument for cannibalism from you, but not for necrophiliacs. The same response from me applies. If the deceased offered their body it's fine, but I would add that someone should step in and stop the situation if there are serious health issues (necrophiliac and/or deceased weren't in their right minds when decision was made) with how long the necrophiliac is wanting to retain the body for sexual use or any other possible health issues that would result.
Should the state guarantee that people can perform such acts? No. But if you are comparing a guarantee to perform these acts with gay marriage then that would be a false analogy. Refusing to give homosexuals equal treatment under the law as it stands is not guaranteeing acts of homosexuality. The practice of homosexuality is already taken care of by the homosexuals themselves, not the state. Discrimination against them and shaming them through the law is what's in dispute. Also, you should try and be less offensive in your comparisons to homosexuals. It's obvious that you are associating an ick-factor to homosexuality by using examples which naturally (without any influence from culture) would engage a gag reflex in most human beings. This is not the case with Nudists and Homosexuals. All of your disgust towards those groups has been taught to you from an early age.
Drug Users - Yeah, they might "think that [their body's autonomy outweighs [their] responsibility to other people," but determining that is hardly a subjective value judgement. Doctors are capable of determining if a person is exhibiting a behavior out of personal choice or due to a symptom of a deeper issue.
For example, my girlfriend is bipolar, and when she's in a low state of mood she often wants to kill herself. I would never help her kill herself like that even though I know she's in a lot of mental pain. I always walk her through these episodes and I always help her get the treatment that she needs to get back to being stable and feeling that life is worth living. If there were no treatments available or reasonably possible, I would have to reconsider this stance and at least wait until a good stable mood before asking her seriously if she would want it all to end.
If she said 'no' in that state of mind, I'd continue to help her through the lows and not let her kill herself. Don't feel bad for me though, because it's actually pretty obvious when she's exhibiting symptoms, and she doesn't fight me much at all about wanting to kill herself. It's sad but it almost makes me laugh at how silly and childish her reasoning gets in that state of mind.
Alcohol isn't extreme, not by a long shot. Alcoholism is very real but rare amongst the general population. It's like driving, it's useful and safe enough for everyone to begin with a sort of earned right to it, but if they misbehave to a certain irresponsible extent with alcohol then they should be kept from it at all costs.
That's what good rehabilitation is for, and for certain drugs which are capable of being experienced without addiction and damage being inevitable, I would make the same argument. If we had descent rehabilitation programs (not 12 step) and descent health coverage for all who have mental health troubles, we could avoid nearly all of the problems that come with all recreational drug use and determine which recreational drugs are safe to use for fun and which drugs really take it too far. There is and will always be a rational line between the two.
Cannibalism - what I'm implying is wrong with cannibalism by that is that it's extremely unhealthy to the individual engaging in it and that it's potentially dangerous to others who come into contact with the cannibal. Look up how dead bodies effected the spread of the black plague. Again, please have the respect to stop comparing things to your ick-reaction to homosexuality. If you find something icky about homosexuality, let's zero in on that and why you feel that way.
"You make it sound like no sane person would generally advocate cannibalism, but this is a subjective moral judgment based on a societal taboo."
No, it's not. Or at least, only an idiot or a psychopath with a craving would make their decision based on taboo. We have a gag reflex that says "YOU WILL GET SICK IF YOU DO THIS!" which stops us, not a social taboo. The social taboo aspect of cannibalism only effects how harshly we are willing to punish someone for cannibalism. Ironically, our early instincts in this country were to sentence the individual to death. Why don't you see taboo as a sickness or at least a wrongful behavior?
I do not make judgments based on taboo. Taboo distracts us from the reality of the situation and makes us do worse things to justify why we think something is wrong. Cannibalism and drug use are dangerous for their own reasons, not because people feel like something is wrong with them. I accuse people who are against homosexuality of being unhealthy in their perspective of the matter.
Namely, there is a lot of information out there to show that it's healthier for homosexuals and homosexuality to be treated as a natural thing and that the taboo against homosexuality has done nothing but physical and emotional harm towards all people, even heterosexuals who have been forced to try too hard to convince others that they are in fact heterosexual.
There is no reason to evaluate if a a homosexual marriage is healthy and unharmful. Each one of the examples you've made have been false analogy, and I've already explained at length why they are false analogy. Please chose to either accept that they are false analogy or pick one and we'll deal with arguing about if it's a false analogy. I ask that you do this, because the length at which you are throwing fallacy after fallacy into your arguments is wasting both of our time. Just pick one and let's deal with that.
"That's my whole point, that there cannot be any real moral and societal foundations in a liberalistic society."
My counterpoint is that you can say the same of any claims to morality by the same argument. I don't think you've actually found a counterpoint to the liberal premise to morals that you are giving. But aside from that, to use that as justification for deontological claims to morality is an argument from ignorance, because by that argument your position is just as weak.
As an atheist, I can't reasonably make the argument that just because a God can't be proven to be consistent, therefore religious people get their morals from squirrels. That's an argument from ignorance. You should try reading The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris. In philosophy, ethics have been talked about to death, making many counterpoints to many logical premises of what various people claim to be true ethics. Just because we don't have a system of what ethics is that we can agree on doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage in ethical action and discussion of ethical behavior.
There are plenty of grounds where all theories of ethical truth converge, and those positions are where preservation of the individual also leads to preservation of the group. The liberal stance on homosexuality is for your benefit as well as for the benefit of the greater society. What we can't get past is the taboo that keeps people from seeing that it's better for them.
Your examples are false analogies with Homosexuality for the same reasons that they are false analogies for Heterosexuality. Only Heterosexuality would be a fair comparison to Homosexuality.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by ''influence''? Influence as in a physical sense or in an emotional sense? What is the criteria by which you decide what people can do and what people can't do?
In all senses, really. However, for a working society, a line does need to be drawn. Any 'negative' (quotation marks as I'm intentionally being somewhat ambiguous) physical influence should not be inflicted on others without due reason. And with emotional, I think it depends on the extent, and the rationability (lets pretend that's a word) of the emotion. For example, if someone says in the street 'I want to fuck you all in the bums & then rape your mothers', that's causing no physical harm, yet it could legitimately cause emotional harm. However, if someone shouted 'I like pasta!!!!', then anyone who gets angry is irrational.
Before you ask, yes that's a somewhat vague guide, but I just don't have specific answers. Maybe as time goes by, I'll develop a better understanding, who knows.
Nudists
As I've implied, if people have legitimate reason to be unhappy with people being nude in the street, then I would put the right of non-nudists first (only in regard to public nudity). I'd personally for it & would encourage a change in attitudes to try and allow it, but were there large scale protest, I may take a more utilitarian approach. I would note that this is a significantly different example, as everyone has the right to be nude, but being nude in front of other people is different. It would be like telling gays (& straight people also) that they couldn't kiss, fondle, finger, wank each other off, or whatever, in front of other people. All about where you draw a line, and most people would agree that a line must be drawn.
Necrophiliacs
If it takes place in private with two consenting parties (pre-death, that is), then that's fine by me. Perhaps the glorification of such acts may be banned, for similar reasons as I explained above, but the act itself should remain legal.
Drugs users
Legalized + regulated, I would say. I would probably implement a system like Germany uses for alcohol, so you have to be 16 for weed + 18 for harder drugs, for example. This is because children are immature, and often incapable of making what we consider to be a 'rational' decision.
Cannibalism
Same as necrophilia.
I believe I've taken the implications of tolerating gay marriage to its logical conclusions. Whether this is the kind of society we want is up to the people I suppose.
Although you're more looking at the slippery slope argument. I feel I could somewhat comfortably + mostly reasonably refute each of those behaviours without intellectual dishonesty, I don't feel that's what a) I believe b) what I was previously arguing, so I won't. Although I would definitely disagree that you cannot have support for minorities, as I previously argued + for the reasons I previously argued, without supporting the extremes that you put forth.
I would lean on something more humanist or progressivist as being more important than majority rule, but not so much liberalism, though in this society, I think liberalism is more needed than what people assume to be the majority.
That said, I'm observing that either a majority is liberal or that liberal views are taking over the majority. It's not just with politics but with all issues. Political vote rigging through voter ID laws and misinformation in the cable media has led to it seeming like the liberal perspective is small or declining, but it's not.
I trust that in a true democracy, humanist views would take hold and lead everything. The ability to communicate is key, and a lot of conservative positions remain in favor of taboo and censorship on the main points that we need to talk about. Like a real sex education for adolescents. It would do a load of good to teach the philosophy of physics vs metaphysics as well IMHO.
When I say uphold Liberalism, I do not mean the perverse version which is Neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism, while a noble cause, is the idea that government's role is to ENFORCE a specific set of moral standards onto the rest of the public. It's like neo-Conservatism in many ways, but based more on tolerance and empathy.
I support the merits of Classical Liberalism which is a collection of ideology influenced by our Founding Fathers, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Adam Smith. The notion is that government shall enforce no rule of morality except rationally based, such as respect for individual liberty. This is where our Constitution comes from, and this is why gay rights shouldn't be an issue. In a classically liberal country, government would have no power to discriminate against gays or any minority groups. All individuals would be equally protected by the law. Even though slavery was still legal under the Constitution, recognition of blacks as individuals instead of property would give them civil protection under the Fifth and 14th Amendments. The same goes with gays. Instead of the modern liberal and conservative conquest to make government large enough to support their personal views, the goal should instead be that government should override no one's personal views and instead serve to protect us instead of brainwash us.
Democracy is not ideal and this is why the Constitution was written. Democracy killed Socrates and banished Plato.
gay rights wouldn't infringe upon the right of 3rd party individuals or any other individuals for that matter. what 2 people decide to do together is their business and their business alone, people should force or tell them what to do. why illegalize something that doesn't affect anybody else but the person involved. there is a good rule of thumb to follow, one mans rights end where another mans rights begin, same with women. if nobody is being hindered or hurt, why make laws against it? it makes no logical sense...