Is homosexuality morally wrong?
No
Side Score: 11
|
Yes
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
This is a bit like asking is being blond or left handed morally wrong. People simply "are" somewhere on the spectrum from gay to straight. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about being gay or straight. As a gay man, I frequently get blamed for people like Sen. Larry Craig. I usually respond that sure, I'll take the blame, as long as the straight person asking the question takes the blame for strip clubs, night clubs, prostitution, cheating on their spouses, etc. I always get a surprised look, then blessed understanding. The mere sex act is neither right or wrong, nor is orientation. Having a deep, lasting, loving relationship with another human being is right, regardless of the particular plumbing involved. Cheating, dominating, and other soul destroying acts - straight or gay - is what is wrong. Side: No
1
point
After all the commotion in the last debate, about "sin" and it's context, the answer to this question is a clear and resounding NO. What consenting people do in private is no one's business but their own. Homosexuality does no harm to anyone and thus there is no reason for moral opposition. Side: No
|
How are we to quantify what is or isn't moral? For me, it's so woolly that my fairness reflex kicks in and appeals to a sense of democracy on the subject. I believe if everyone on the planet were polled for their opinion on the topic in order to firm-up what's right and wrong, it would be a resounding 'Yes' to the question. Side: Yes
0
points
At this point in time you're probably right, but in my opinion it is actually quite easy to quantify what is right and what is wrong: The right thing is always that which inflicts the least harm. Clearly oppressing homosexuality through whichever means causes more harm then to accept the fact that to consenting adults of the same sex are harming absolutely no one by living their sexuality. While theoretically your "ask the people" argument is not a bad idea, I don't think it can apply to questions of this nature. If it did, new and revolutionary ideas could never reform society. Overcoming suppression always starts with a small group of people, if the majority were always "right" simply because they are the majority humanity would be even worse off. Side: No
This argument seems awfully circular to me. The author first believes that democracy is what determines right and wrong, and thus he will rely on other people's sense of right and wrong. But, as democracy determines right and wrong, would the rest of the world not turn to everyone else? How would a decision be reachable? I'll also give a counter-example to show why direct democracy is still not able to determine right and wrong: Should there be a world of 10 people, and 7 of them decided it was okay to kill the 3 others with the aim of stealing their wealth, the act, we can probably agree, would be immoral despite the majority arguing it isn't. Side: No
|