Michellebell wrote:
As far as cultural ramifications of homosexuality, I am not worried about under population of course. However I am worried about the percentages of children that are raised in stable heterosexual married families. The nuclear family is no longer being seen as the highest standard for raising kids. It is becoming just one of so many options, each considered just as good as any other. I feel like our society is viewing families as a free-for-all, make-it-up-and-call-it-a-family type deal. Two dads? Sure. Two moms? Sure. Open relationships? Sure. How about polygamy? This is all in the name of being tolerant and nonjudgmental.
People are becoming afraid to teach their values to young people who are now exploring so many avenues believing they are all as good as any other.
However I might feel completely different if my attraction toward men were viewed as taboo by the rest of the world and I really felt I had no choice in the matter.
Sexual relativism I think can be an especially "slippery slope" because it can be perverted so easily. There is no objective standard then as to what is correct and that which is not. We state that we make laws to be objective but even those are then crafted by people that have subjective opinions, the issue of the "problem of the majority". For instance, I am a male that is heterosexual and I have a wife and we have a monogamous relationship. This to me, is the standard. You are either a.) single, b.) married to a person of the opposite sex.
By saying that homosexuality is acceptable, there is no stop point. Using this logic, why wouldn't it be different to say a male is attracted to female children. Is this any worse than homosexuality? One is an age of consent issue, the other is of two people who's parts physically don't fit together (i.e. two keys or two locks versus a lock/key combo).
By accepting all of this, as I said, there is no endpoint. Anything can be acceptable if you can get the majority to side with you on it, or a vocal and strong minority. Look at NAMBLA for instance, is that wrong? Why is it wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ame ... ssociation. Objective morals I think are very important for determining how we ought to behave. Subjective morals can different from person to person which really makes them useless. 2+2 = 4 to one person and 2+2=5 to another. It collapses on itself.
I think this also goes into the debate of are people inherently good or bad? Based on my religious views and common sense (in my opinion), believing people are inherently bad makes sense. That's why we have to live by laws and our society is organized by laws. Without laws, things fall into chaos because we're imperfect creatures.
Life isn't fair and we all have desires that we either can't quench or shouldn't quench. Not everyone is the same, but we should all be helping out others as we also help ourselves to reach towards what we morally ought to be, not what we always want to be.
The point is, pluralism, or a variety of ideas, are not all correct. You are still fundamentally missing a side of the story when you're growing up and by steering away from this, there are other things that negatively pop up.
Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute
"you are not disabled by your disabilities but rather, abled by your abilities." -Oscar Pistorius