A healthy society need not be intolerant by virtue of imposing the collective mo
The objection will be made that that imposing the morality of the many will result in the oppression of the few. But we now have the oppression of the many by the morality of the few. And perhaps the depravity of the few is such as to need repressing. When all has been said, the question remains: Somebody’s morals are going to be imposed. Ours, or theirs?
A healthy society need not be intolerant by virtue of imposing the collective morality. A culture can, and should, admit of positions between “yes” and “no.” Consider homosexuality. A society may agree that if homosexuals choose to be discreet, then society in return will leave them alone – that they will suffer no persecution or penalties, that gay bars discreetly run will be discreetly ignored. The compromise is a useful one. It permits homosexuals to live largely as they wish, yet heterosexuals will not have thrust on them practices that they find repugnant.
The compromise can be maintained by the public will, just as (so far) the tacit injunction against riding naked on the subway can be maintained. Some things you don’t do. Logical argument fails against either. Why not ride naked?
I've always thought that
Side Score: 8
|
 |
Wait...., What? No!
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
We have become so open minded that our brains have fallen out. ;) People who liked this debate also liked: Side: I've always thought that
1
point
1
point
Ooops. Did I get your panties in a bunch again? Disclaimer: I'm not against gays in any way shape or form. But I do use these debates to point out the hypocracy of some people. The hypocracy where some one says, "I'm tolerant, except of intolerant people." If you are intolerant of intolerant people, then you're intolerant. If that person where truly tolerant then the following scenario would play out: intolerant person: "I feel uncomfortable seeing two men kissing in public when I'm with my young children." tolerant person: "Well, lets try and take into account your concerns without squaching theirs. How about we make all kissing in public illegal?" Now you might say that's a stupid example but the point is that a truly tolerant person would try to come up with some compromise. A person who claims to be tolerant but is truly not would behave something like this: Noetolerant person: "Well, the reason you feel that way is because you're an intolerant, incensitive, homophobe....., ass hole!" The hypocracy is where some people decide what to be tolerant of and that only their belief of what should be tolerated is valid. Now these people are very quick at calling you names and pointing out all kinds of reasons explaining why the thing they are tolerant of should be tolerated and why the opposing view should not be tolerated in any way, shape, or form. But the reality is that those people are intolerant and they are just fooling themselves. Now, I can not give you a reason expalining how allowing homosexuals to live their lifestyles openly hurt our society because I'm a tolerant person. I can tell you, however, that, as a tolerant person, I allow the other side to express their point of view. The reason I allow them to express their point of view is because I cannot give anyone any reason explaining how allowing them to express their point of view openly hurts our society. Finally, as a tolerant person, I can't call you names. Now...., what were you trying to imply when you said that my brains have fallen out ;) Side: I've always thought that
|
Again, fred is kind of dopey. This basically says that if the majority does not impose their own virtue on the minority, then they somehow are magically themselves having some other form of virtue imposed on them. No one needs to be intolerant of anyone. And not being intolerant does not in any way infringe on the rights of those not being intolerant... I mean, that's like if I were to say, "since I like Kool-aid, everyone needs to drink Kool-aid, or my right to like Kool-aid myself is in danger." If someone wants to drink the Kool-aid, fine, but don't try to make everyone else. Side: Wait...., What? No!
The veiled argument against tolerance and equal civil rights being extended to gays fails both in its essential premises and in its two central comparisons. The premise that we are not already imposing the moral will of the majority is just basically incorrect. We do impose the morality of the majority. Murder, bestiality, child molestation, rape, theft, and a grand many kinds of drugs . . . all illegal. What we do not do is allow the immediate selfishness of the majority to override the basic civil rights and liberties common to all citizens and (philosophically at least) to all human beings. This is why you can't own slaves or beat up your wife anymore. Law IS the imposition of a set of moral norms, and under our republican system of government it IS largely dictated by the majority subject to the sanctity of basic common rights. The comparisons are simply non sequiturs: 1) "Gay bars will be ignored" -- bars, gay or otherwise, are ordinary everyday businesses. A bar that caters to a homosexual clientele is hardly on its face more subversive or sexually offensive than a strip club or a porn shop, in which sex is blatantly for sale. A gay bar, on the other hand, is simply a meeting place like any other bar, and is an entirely ordinary and lawful business just the same as is a "biker bar" or "yuppie bar" or any other kind of bar. 2) "Riding naked on the subway" -- the subway is a public place and public lewdness -- gay, straight, with duct tape and chickens, or otherwise -- is illegal. Make especial note of the word "public." Side: That IS what we do
2
points
This is ludicrous. The only laws that should be made which "enforce morality" are those that protect people. So basically, murder, stealing, drunk driving, rape, incest, etc. should all be illegal, as they are actions that hurt others. Any action which does not hurt other people, on the other hand, such as the use of drugs or sex with a same-sex partner, should not. These are merely choices people make that some people disagree with. Your disagreement on a moral basis does not mean I should not have the choice for myself. A society may agree that if homosexuals choose to be discreet, then society in return will leave them alone – that they will suffer no persecution or penalties, that gay bars discreetly run will be discreetly ignored. The compromise is a useful one. It permits homosexuals to live largely as they wish, yet heterosexuals will not have thrust on them practices that they find repugnant. That's fucked up. Heterosexuals having to coexist with homosexuals is not an issue that needs addressing. It's called tolerance. Some people are different from you. Deal with it. Side: Wait...., What? No!
|
