A secular dialogue of the Morality of Homosexuality

Greatings everyone. The Christian man got you down? Here is where we are going to continue the same dialogue. I would like to propose some serious criticisms of Homosexuality without the interference of the Them... you know whom I'm talking about. In any event, so that this post is not immidiately locked, I'll post an opinion.

Homosexuality: The term describing sexual acts between two consenting members of the same sex and the people who practice it.

According to the harm principle, one ought to act in such a way as to harm the least amount of people. Preference is placed on physical harm, but psychological harm is also included.

I think that the harm principle will allow anyone who wishes to engage in homosexuality. Although the harm principle is not an ethical absolute, I believe that in modern ethics the harm principle should be the first line of defence against events that would be otherwise lude, crude, and vile.

In a secular veiw, there is no standard morality. Everything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Homosexuality is fine since doesn't hurt anyone else.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

In a secular veiw, there is no standard morality. Everything goes as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Homosexuality is fine since doesn't hurt anyone else.

I don't think that you quite understand what is secular morality. The basis of such a system is logic. No, everything does not go, and it depends on which system of ethical thought you are using. I could consider the Kantian Imperative, Mill's Utilitarianism, Aristotle's Virtue ethics, the harm principle, pragmatism etc. Not all of these follow the rule: Only do what does not hurt anyone else. I am quite prepared to attack homosexuality from secular grounds even though I quite agree with it. You're welcome to read, but I would respect you much more if you didn't jump in with the Christian opinion because, after all, this is a secular thread.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

I am quite prepared to attack homosexuality from secular grounds even though I quite agree with it.

I'd like to see your secular attack on homosexuality. If there was no secular attack on homosexuality there would be no discussion here. Lay it out Hyleaus, from a secular viewpoint, what is wrong with homosexuality?

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

You're welcome to read, but I would respect you much more if you didn't jump in with the Christian opinion because, after all, this is a secular thread.

I understand.

You're welcome to read, but I would respect you much more if you didn't jump in with the Christian opinion because, after all, this is a secular thread.

His previous post didn't really have much to do with Christianity I think.

The basis of such a system is logic.

How does logic, which is a tool that allows one to go from an accepted premise to a conclusion, allow for valued judgements? How does logic decide what is 'good' in the moral/ethical sense?

From a secular perspective, I don't think that homosexuality can be shown to be morally apprehensible, however I do believe that people who practice it are damaged by it (even if its a result of their direct action). For example, in the Western culture that I live in homosexuality is generally condemned, or at least heavily frowned upon. Jokes are made all the time about people being 'gay'. A person who is outgoing about their homosexuality will, almost without a doubt, be marginalised in the culture. Being marginalised as such will certainly affect their psyche & mental health. So, I can see it as being detrimental in that perspective.
But, merely showing that something can be 'dangerous' does not mean that it is morally wrong, which is the argument of this thread. This system of thought means that driving a car, which has caused many thousands upon thousands of deaths, is morally 'wrong' because it harms people. I guess I just refutted the viewpoint that I just presented >_>

I think this is a good discussion. From a secular perspective, how can something be shown to be morally wrong?

What I am foreseeing is that you are asking me to do your homework fo you. I refuse. If you wish to show some intellectual good faith, then please post something other than: Hyleaus, please explain the world to me. There is no reason whatsoever that should provoke me to do this. The topic is too large, and I don't really see us being on any sort of ground that would make me wish to appease you.

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

What I am foreseeing is that you are asking me to do your homework fo you. I refuse. If you wish to show some intellectual good faith, then please post something other than: Hyleaus, please explain the world to me. There is no reason whatsoever that should provoke me to do this. The topic is too large, and I don't really see us being on any sort of ground that would make me wish to appease you.

I'm sorry I thought you said you were "quite prepared to attack homosexuality from secular grounds". It seems that perhaps you are not prepared.

Skate_mate has givin a rebutle to your veiw of morality being based on logic. What say you?

Is anything that causes harm morally wrong? Is cutting down a tree morally wrong since you are harming the tree?

What I am foreseeing is that you are asking me to do your homework fo you. I refuse. If you wish to show some intellectual good faith, then please post something other than: Hyleaus, please explain the world to me. There is no reason whatsoever that should provoke me to do this. The topic is too large, and I don't really see us being on any sort of ground that would make me wish to appease you.

I have researched this topic before (albeit from a different perspective) and I have read a few good arguments against the use of pure logic in creating a value-based system of ethics/morality. I've read secular arguments for morality, but they all seem to come back to that one hinge - using logic. I have not been able to find an answer for myself so I was hoping that you would be able to help me. Please, show some good intellectual faith. I'm asking you this question because I have 'done my homework' and wasn't able to find an answer.
I was not meaning to try and make you 'appease me' or anything like that. This is a thread about the secular perspective of the inherent 'goodness' or 'badness' of homosexuality. I am enquiring as to how this basis is formed. You said it is because of logic, and I showed how I didn't find that quite adequate. It didn't suddenly turn into you trying to appease me or something - it is a discussion.

Multiple threads on the same subject? With the same debators, even? Big no-no.