What do you find immoral?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Death penalty, porn, fur, cloning humans.

Polygamy is not inherently immoral, but it is in the way it's practiced most of the time.

[afleitch]

A lot of you fail to realize the existence of a process of thought that weighs various things or, can, in fact be knowingly hypocritical. I can knowingly do or want to do a number of immoral things consciously. That certainly doesn't make me a good person, but fact is that my behavior is not the ultimate determiner of what I judge to be right or wrong. Ridiculous.

I just threw up a little in my mouth, because I agree with most of what Cathcon said.  *shudder*

Just because you personally enjoy doing something doesn't make it moral.

I have to say though whoever said teenage sex is immoral just called Mary mother of Jesus a whore.  Congratulations.  The lack of scientific knowledge in America and the western world in general is amazing.  How can someone not even know that human beings evolved to initiate sexual relations in their teens?!  WTF, Atlas?!

It ties with homosexuality. Given both are evolutionary responses, I wouldn't be surprised if the same people voted for both.

Afleitch, you're pushing it...

I mean in the strictest possible sense. Given that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost all animals (and I say almost as any inference has to be based on an observation) that procreate (and by extension, are 'sociable') in species separated by up to 200 million years of evolution, then given that it presents itself across species then there must be a reason why it still does, even as animals have evolved.

[Sol]

I suspect Homosexuality's commonness is less of an adaptive response and more of a maladaptive inevitability. Not that we should base our ideas on morality on the evolutionary fitness of a trait, of course.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A lot of you fail to realize the existence of a process of thought that weighs various things or, can, in fact be knowingly hypocritical. I can knowingly do or want to do a number of immoral things consciously. That certainly doesn't make me a good person, but fact is that my behavior is not the ultimate determiner of what I judge to be right or wrong. Ridiculous.

I just threw up a little in my mouth, because I agree with most of what Cathcon said.  *shudder*

Just because you personally enjoy doing something doesn't make it moral.

I have to say though whoever said teenage sex is immoral just called Mary mother of Jesus a whore.  Congratulations.  The lack of scientific knowledge in America and the western world in general is amazing.  How can someone not even know that human beings evolved to initiate sexual relations in their teens?!  WTF, Atlas?!

It ties with homosexuality. Given both are evolutionary responses, I wouldn't be surprised if the same people voted for both.

Afleitch, you're pushing it...

I mean in the strictest possible sense. Given that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost all animals (and I say almost as any inference has to be based on an observation) that procreate (and by extension, are 'sociable') in species separated by up to 200 million years of evolution, then given that it presents itself across species then there must be a reason why it still does, even as animals have evolved.

Oh I misread you... I thought that said homophobia was an evolutionary response. I apologize.

Interestingly the ubiquitous presence of homosexuality in nature has proven to be a major problem to a lot of classically adaptationist evolutionary biology. It's clearly a trait with a long history in nature, but surely by its nature it should be selected against?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I mean in the strictest possible sense. Given that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost all animals (and I say almost as any inference has to be based on an observation) that procreate (and by extension, are 'sociable') in species separated by up to 200 million years of evolution, then given that it presents itself across species then there must be a reason why it still does, even as animals have evolved.

That assumes you accept the evil "theory" of evolution.

Interestingly the ubiquitous presence of homosexuality in nature has proven to be a major problem to a lot of classically adaptationist evolutionary biology. It's clearly a trait with a long history in nature, but surely by its nature it should be selected against?

If it were a dominant genetic trait it would, but recessive traits or traits whose expression depend upon the environment can overall be evolutionarily favorable even if it decreases the chance of particular individuals to pass on the trait to their own offspring.  Sickle cell disease is the classic textbook example of a recessive trait where one copy good, two copies bad.  Similarly, the traits that lead to a high susceptibility to diabetes when there is plenty of food tend to give individuals who have them a better chance of survival when access to food is irregular.

[Miles]

Abortion
Death Penalty
Assisted suicide
Sex before marriage
Polygamy
Teenage sex
Suicide
Cloning animals
Cloning humans

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Abortion - Don't care 99% of the time.  Go for it.
Death penalty - State should not being murdering.  People are not entitled to revenge.
Doctor-assisted suicide - Of course this is moral.
Sex before marriage - LOL
Divorce - LOL
Polygamy - Do whatever you want.
Pornography - LOL
Birth control - LOL
Teenage sex - Stupid in certain cases, but not immoral
Homosexuality - LOL
Gambling - this one is subjective, big time.
Unwed birth - Are you getting that I don't care about people's personal lives?
Stem cell research - Above moral.  Immoral to NOT involve ourselves in.
Suicide (in general) - No person has any obligation to live if they would not like to
Medical testing animals - depends.  If it's for something that could save millions, I'll sacrifice a rat.  
Wearing clothes w/animal fur - Immoral, because we've gotten to the point where we don't need to wear animals for warmth.
Cloning animals - Why not?
Cloning humans - see above.

[DC Al Fine]

I mean in the strictest possible sense. Given that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost all animals (and I say almost as any inference has to be based on an observation) that procreate (and by extension, are 'sociable') in species separated by up to 200 million years of evolution, then given that it presents itself across species then there must be a reason why it still does, even as animals have evolved.

That assumes you accept the evil "theory" of evolution.

Or that animals are somehow a moral guide.

[DC Al Fine]

Just realized I never responded to these. Whoops.

Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)

That's a lot to ask of someone, to forgo sex and intimate relationships.  I wonder if moral is ever the right word for this fundamentalist Christian idea.  Homosexuality is a taboo from back in the day, but it's certainly not wrong in the way stealing is wrong.  What's the moral reasoning there?

"It's haaard" is a pretty silly reason to reject any moral view.

Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)[/color]

Give me one good reason why you believe this.

Well if "good reason" means one that will satisfy you, I don't have one. We don't share the same moral foundation. You reject my basis for morality and I reject yours, so "good" reasons to convince the other will be hard to come by.

That said, here's my quick and dirty reasoning: Like all sin, it boils down to idolatry. By doing what God has forbidden, the sinner is putting themselves or something else ahead of God, violating the first commandment.

[Lief 🗽]

None of these are inherently immoral, but there are situations where some of them might be.

[bedstuy]

Just realized I never responded to these. Whoops.

Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)

That's a lot to ask of someone, to forgo sex and intimate relationships.  I wonder if moral is ever the right word for this fundamentalist Christian idea.  Homosexuality is a taboo from back in the day, but it's certainly not wrong in the way stealing is wrong.  What's the moral reasoning there?

"It's haaard" is a pretty silly reason to reject any moral view.

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened.
And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

Taking that into account, you have to interpret the Bible using common sense.  If the Bible appears to say something absurd, like the creation story or that homosexuality is wrong, you have to find a non-absurd interpretation. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

[Oakvale]

Some pretty enlightening answers here. Teenage sex is immoral, really? Suicide?

TEENAGE DREAMS SO HARD TO BEAT
EVERY TIME SHE WALKS DOWN THE STREET

[Link]

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened.
And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

I don't know of any Christians that think that.  My view is that if a supreme being that created the Universe were to write a book I as a humble human being probably wouldn't necessarily get all of it.

One thing is written in the Bible... We are all sinners.  Heterosexuals are sinners and homosexuals are sinners.  Our lot in life is just to try and be good people.  We all break the commandments of God at one time or another.  If someone asks me what is immoral I will list what I was taught from the Bible is immoral.  If someone asks me whether that list impacts my interactions with other human beings I will say on a lot of things no.  Would I refuse to hire someone because they had premarital sex?  No.  Would I refuse to hire someone because they had homosexual sex?  No.

My issue is reconciling what is written in the Bible and how it makes homosexuals feel.  Even if it doesn't affect my desire to interact with homosexuals it bothers me that I still believe the Bible says homosexuality is immoral.  Modern reality and what is in the Bible is something a theologian is really going to have to explain to me.

[bedstuy]

I think the average reasonable Christian view is the following:  The Bible is largely metaphorical and poetic.  There are myths and non-historical tall tales in the Bible that never actually happened.
And furthermore, the Bible was written by fallible human beings, based on oral traditions and textual mistranslations so not every detail is true on a sentence level.

I don't know of any Christians that think that.  My view is that if a supreme being that created the Universe were to write a book I as a humble human being probably wouldn't necessarily get all of it.

You don't know any reasonable Christians.  Among the people I've gone to school with, known, worked with, etc, the idea that homosexuality is immoral would be considered ridiculous.

One thing is written in the Bible... We are all sinners.  Heterosexuals are sinners and homosexuals are sinners.  Our lot in life is just to try and be good people.  We all break the commandments of God at one time or another.  If someone asks me what is immoral I will list what I was taught from the Bible is immoral.  If someone asks me whether that list impacts my interactions with other human beings I will say on a lot of things no.  Would I refuse to hire someone because they had premarital sex?  No.  Would I refuse to hire someone because they had homosexual sex?  No.

Well, that's orthogonal to the point at hand.  What if I said the same thing about having brown hair?  "I don't mind working with brown haired people, after all, we're all sinners and I forgive them for having brown hair." 

[AggregateDemand]

What the hell is going on with people claiming suicide is immoral? What kind of rationale are these votes based on? This is utterly ridiculous.

I can think of instances when it would be immoral. If you got a divorce, for instance, and you were ordered to pay alimony and child support, but you abdicated your responsibility and blew your head off.

If suicide is an act of irresponsible self-pity, I can see how people would say it's immoral. However, I wouldn't say suicide is immoral in general.

[AggregateDemand]

Well, that's orthogonal to the point at hand.  What if I said the same thing about having brown hair?  "I don't mind working with brown haired people, after all, we're all sinners and I forgive them for having brown hair." 

Brown hair is an immutable characteristic. Having sex with people of your own gender is not. I'm not defending bigotry, only pointing out that immutable characteristics vs. personal choice is the underlying legal complication in same-sex rights and so forth.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Well, that's orthogonal to the point at hand.  What if I said the same thing about having brown hair?  "I don't mind working with brown haired people, after all, we're all sinners and I forgive them for having brown hair." 

Brown hair is an immutable characteristic. Having sex with people of your own gender is not. I'm not defending bigotry, only pointing out that immutable characteristics vs. personal choice is the underlying legal complication in same-sex rights and so forth.

Homosexuality is immutable. Should gay people all be celibate? Furthermore, why is having gay sex immoral in and of itself?

[bedstuy]

Well, that's orthogonal to the point at hand.  What if I said the same thing about having brown hair?  "I don't mind working with brown haired people, after all, we're all sinners and I forgive them for having brown hair." 

Brown hair is an immutable characteristic. Having sex with people of your own gender is not. I'm not defending bigotry, only pointing out that immutable characteristics vs. personal choice is the underlying legal complication in same-sex rights and so forth.

No.  I'm fine with people having naturally brown hair, if that's how God made them.  But, it's immoral for them to choose to grow brown hair of their own choice.  They can easily shave their hair or dye it another color so it's not an abomination before God.  That's easier than choosing to live a life without sex or intimate relations.  Am I right?

[AggregateDemand]

Homosexuality is immutable. Should gay people all be celibate? Furthermore, why is having gay sex immoral in and of itself?

It's not a matter of celibacy. It's about maintaining differentiation between sexual orientation and sexual action, which was an important development to bring us out of the dark ages of relationship law.

[AggregateDemand]

No.  I'm fine with people having naturally brown hair, if that's how God made them.  But, it's immoral for them to choose to grow brown hair of their own choice.  They can easily shave their hair or dye it another color so it's not an abomination before God.  That's easier than choosing to live a life without sex or intimate relations.  Am I right?

No, you're not right. But the law recognizes your right to make the distinction between orientation and action. It should remain that way, even if it complicates matters.

[bedstuy]

No.  I'm fine with people having naturally brown hair, if that's how God made them.  But, it's immoral for them to choose to grow brown hair of their own choice.  They can easily shave their hair or dye it another color so it's not an abomination before God.  That's easier than choosing to live a life without sex or intimate relations.  Am I right?

No, you're not right. But the law recognizes your right to make the distinction between orientation and action. It should remain that way, even if it complicates matters.

I guess that's true in some sense.  But, neither gay sex nor gay orientation are immoral.  And gay sex is fundamental right under the US Constitution.  So, it's a frivolous point.

[AggregateDemand]

I guess that's true in some sense.  But, neither gay sex nor gay orientation are immoral.  And gay sex is fundamental right under the US Constitution.  So, it's a frivolous point.

If you try to think of counterarguments to the discriminatory hypothetical argument you made, it's difficult to find a legal remedy within the current framework or to imagine a new legal remedy. The easy way is to say that sexual orientation = sexual behavior; therefore, immutable characteristic and strict scrutiny. However, treating sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic opens a Pandora's box by undermining the current system.

That's why legal progress is slow and deliberate. That's my only point.

[bedstuy]

I guess that's true in some sense.  But, neither gay sex nor gay orientation are immoral.  And gay sex is fundamental right under the US Constitution.  So, it's a frivolous point.

If you try to think of counterarguments to the discriminatory hypothetical argument you made, it's difficult to find a legal remedy within the current framework or to imagine a new legal remedy. The easy way is to say that sexual orientation = sexual behavior; therefore, immutable characteristic and strict scrutiny. However, treating sexual orientation as an immutable characteristic opens a Pandora's box by undermining the current system.

That's why legal progress is slow and deliberate. That's my only point.

I don't understand your point at all.  The exact contours of sexual orientation in Constitutional law are in flux as is the terminology.  But, practically, it's ridiculous to say both that: Homosexuality is wrong and homosexual behavior is wrong.  Plus, people have sex.  That's sort of a good default assumption.

[DC Al Fine]

That's not really my point.  If you are going to ask another person to ruin their own life, there is a burden of proof on you.  For most people, "my interpretation of the Bible says so" is just a silly argument.  Would you at least admit, taking the Bible out of it, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality? 

Yes, but I would admit that for every facet of my morality from shoplifting on up through murder. If there was no God I'd be a moral nihilist.