Straight Pill

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is this any different that what Hitler tried to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
4. No one is treated as a second class citizen as a result of their enjoyment of other men's buttholes.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think #4 is not true, you're a [censored] [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people are disgusted by homosexuality. Others think it's abnormal. These people tend to look down on homosexual behavior. Many others have no problem with it.

But under the law, no one is treated as second class citizen because they're gay. You don't know the meaning of the term or have the faintest understanding of history if you think that's the case. Gays have equal protection and standing under the law. There is specific anti hate legislation to protect them.

[ QUOTE ]
And I was referring his drive to create a superior race. How is that any different then what you're doing?

[/ QUOTE ]
So if someone had a pill to remove down syndrome from fetuses, would that be Hitler's work too?

The issue is whether or not homosexuality (hypothetically resulting from genes) is a mental defect. I and others believe that it is, in the same way as a lot of fetishes are. Somewhere along the line, for whatever reason, the wiring in people's brains relating to sexuality gets [censored] up. But just because it's a defect doesn't mean gay people are any less than others, in the same way that people with depression or diabetes or Asperger's or 6 toes or bizarre sexual preferences are no less than any other person. And I wouldn't support the use of this, as I've stated in earlier posts in this thread.

[soon2bepro]

Whats the problem with people choosing their baby's genetic predispositions? They already pretty much choose their psychological profile...

[CommanderCorm]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the problem with people choosing their baby's genetic predispositions? They already pretty much choose their psychological profile...

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, the influence of education on the child´s personality goes notoriously wrong. There´s no way to "choose" your childrens psychological profile.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Whats the problem with people choosing their baby's genetic predispositions? They already pretty much choose their psychological profile...

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, you tell me. I think the Slippery Slope argument applies better here than anywhere else. What things are and are not ok to select for? Skin color, intelligence, good looks, size of reproductive organ? What is the cost going to be? Can only rich kids become super smart/handsome/endowed?

I'm not saying I disagree with you, just that it is FAR more complicated than 'so what, let em do what they want.'

[guesswest]

I've never heard of a legal situation where the 'slipperly slope' argument actually does apply, and this is no exception. It's the same line of thought that goes into notions like stem cell research legalization leading to us all cloning ourselves for organ harvesting/fun. It's an argument that rightly applies to individual compulsive behaviour, not laws.

We make one illegal and not the other, in accordance with legislative consensus derived from public opinion, I really feel it's that simple.

[Youre A Towel]

OP, you make the point that the gay lifestyle is "highly problematic" in the sense that gay people are less likely to be happy. I think you are probably right about that. But I think looking at the REASON gay people are less likely to be happy is of critical importance. Some like Michael Levin have suggested that gays are unhappy because they are misusing their bodily organs (in a way other than for what nature intended), and that such activity could only lead to unhappiness.

I think that kind of view is ridiculous, and that it's far more likely that gays are unhappier because much of society holds the gay lifestyle in contempt, and even many of those who profess not to mind it choose to ignore such characteristics rather than accept them.

Fifty years ago, the American mainstream (at the very least the South, but the North too really) was in a similar situation with African Americans -- the examples of outright, vitriolic racism were probably pretty rare, but a lot of Americans were uncomfortable with the idea of having their kids in the same schools as "negroes," sharing water fountains with them, etc. I imagine that this type of treatment made African Americans LESS happy on the whole than their white counterparts (obviously there were exceptions, and there was certainly a large and thriving black pride movement), but I think most of us would agree that mainstream society was mostly to blame for African Americans' "unhappiness."


Obviously the prejudice against homosexuals is not nearly as strong, and the examples of their mistreatment much less overt, but I think the unhappiness you alluded to is rooted in a similar kind of discomfort on society's part. It is not a form of self-alienation (unless you believe that homosexuality is entirely a choice, a theory which has been almost completely discredited).

Cliff Notes: I agree that homosexuals are generally unhappier than heterosexuals. I think this is because of how society views them, not because of anything internal. I make no claims about a societal obligation to make homosexuals happier, although I think its pretty obvious that if society was more accepting of homosexualy that homosexuals would be happier.

[evolvedForm]

I agree with your main points. I also think the reason gays aren't as happy as they could be because of society. Also, let me clarify my point that it's not just about happiness, but pain and suffering. Gays almost certainly suffer, in general, more emotional and psychological pain. This is similar to unhappiness but I just wanted to make the distinction. Most of this is probably a result of having a hard time fitting in, or not being accepted by their families -- or even themselves. It's not likely to be any internal chemical cause, imo.

It seems that you imply that gays will soon be (are already?) accepted in society. You also make the case about blacks. Both groups have considerable legal status (with blacks obv having the edge) but I don't think either are accepted at the psychological level. 50 years ago blacks were still being beaten on the streets. It takes much longer than that to erase the memories, which linger in society's consciousness. There is still rampant racism, evidenced by the fact that we can't stop talking about racism. And long after gays attain full legal freedom, there will be the hangover of a society that was grounded, as it were, in anti-homosexual feeling. Gays will still be alienated by the majority because the predominant ethos of our society will not easily change.

Take Ancient Greece as an example of a society with a vastly different system of ethics; one that seems much freer, but that is still in some cases just as restrictive. In Athens it was perfectly acceptable for grown men to pursue teen boys. They could have wives, and most of them did; but they were free to have a paidika on the side. The boy, however, had the right to choose the man. The point of all this stuff, which sounds pretty disturbing, I admit, is that men were not looked down upon for this behavior. It was even encouraged. On the other hand, they were severely ridiculed if they had relations with other adult men. That, paradoxically, was considered perverse. The key is that boys are passive and men are active. The dichotomy makes it acceptable -- "natural," like a man and a woman.

The entire Greek ethics was founded on the active-passive dichotomy. To go against this would cause severe problems. In our society, it seems our ethics is a stricter man-woman dichotomy. As long as this is the case, gays and other kinds of people will struggle. And though there is growing acceptance, our society has not yet shed the old ethics, and it may never will, considering how deeply it has permeated our political, legal, and social institutions.

[Youre A Towel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your main points. I also think the reason gays aren't as happy as they could be because of society. Also, let me clarify my point that it's not just about happiness, but pain and suffering. Gays almost certainly suffer, in general, more emotional and psychological pain. This is similar to unhappiness but I just wanted to make the distinction. Most of this is probably a result of having a hard time fitting in, or not being accepted by their families -- or even themselves. It's not likely to be any internal chemical cause, imo.

It seems that you imply that gays will soon be (are already?) accepted in society. You also make the case about blacks. Both groups have considerable legal status (with blacks obv having the edge) but I don't think either are accepted at the psychological level. 50 years ago blacks were still being beaten on the streets. It takes much longer than that to erase the memories, which linger in society's consciousness. There is still rampant racism, evidenced by the fact that we can't stop talking about racism. And long after gays attain full legal freedom, there will be the hangover of a society that was grounded, as it were, in anti-homosexual feeling. Gays will still be alienated by the majority because the predominant ethos of our society will not easily change.


[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree with this. I did not mean to imply that society in all of its totality will one day accept homoexuality, nor was I suggesting that racism is a thing of the past. However, racism is much less prevalent (and much less obvious/blatant) in today's society than it was 50 years ago -- most would call this "progress." Progress isn't necessarily destined to happen, though, and its certainly possible that in 50 years homosexuality will be even more self-alienating (due to society's failure to accept it) than it is today, if for example the Religious Right grows in size and/or power. In such a case, time would be progressing, even if society really wouldn't be in the realm of tolerance for homosexuals.

And again, my post was more an observation than a moral prescription. I personally think the country would be a better place if it was more tolerant of homosexuals, but obviously a lot of people strongly disagree with me (many of them for ridiculous reasons, unfortunately; like fear that acceptance might increase the likelihood that their kids become gay, for example, but I'll leave that one alone).