Sexuality: Does it matter?
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 26, 2012 4:32:46 GMT
The question is, simply, whether people should be treated in any way differently based on sexuality. This includes gay marriage and other gay rights.
|
|
|
Post by Saza on Jun 26, 2012 4:43:38 GMT
No.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 26, 2012 5:03:10 GMT
Indeed, it's no reason to treat people differently.
|
|
|
Post by Hachi1 on Jun 26, 2012 7:09:53 GMT
whether people should be treated in any way differently based on sexuality. with this broad question, I think there are too many answers possible. If you say 'no' what happens to sport? If men and women are treated equally, sports teams will have to be mixed. Naturally men are stronger so it just wont work. No matter how much equality of sexes develops, (we are getting closer all the time, if you think back every 20 years it is obvious) I think it will never be possible to truly treat one an other equally. The fact is, men are men and women are women. Even if direct treatment is made to be equal as much as possible, I cannot imagine a world where it actually is. A simple example - socially, a man will be kinder towards women than other men. This is already an example of unequal treatment of different sexes, no matter how small and insignificant. Question: Do nonja's have different sexes?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 26, 2012 7:24:40 GMT
Sexuality, not sex, and they do but it is usually masked.
|
|
|
Post by Hachi1 on Jun 26, 2012 8:24:04 GMT
oh I totally misread the sentence..... sorry 'bout that.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jun 26, 2012 10:52:09 GMT
Wow, absolutely no arguments against sexuality mattering for treatment of individuals.
Whereas I agree, I am disappointed as a philosopher at the lack of discussion, so I shall take on the role of Devil's Advocate to stimulate better discussion. Why shouldn't people be treated differently on the basis of sexuality?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Jun 26, 2012 11:02:29 GMT
Well why should they?
Regarding mixed sports teams, what's wrong with them? Some women are stronger than most men. Stuff like that should be based on strength or whatever, not gender.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jun 26, 2012 12:35:18 GMT
As Temporarily9 said, that's about sex, not about sexuality. Sex is whether one is physically/chemically a male or a female. Gender is how you view whether you are a male or a female. Sexuality is related to sexual preference and desires. The debate is about the last of these three things, not the first.
Concerning your counter-question, I'm trying to determine why it is that you all believe that people should not be treated differently on the basis of sexuality. So far, all I'm getting from people is "oh, I don't have a reason, I'm just blindly accepting it since I can't think for myself, hurr." Surely this is not true, but no one is giving me reason to believe otherwise. The failure to explain why one holds the position one holds is the key to the death of a meaningful discussion.
Until someone who truly believes that people should be treated differently on the basis of sexuality comes into the chat, my plan is to have you (arbitrary reader who is a supporter of Temporarily9's claim) to state why you hold your claim, then I will find a way to find fault with it. You will then either show any misunderstandings or faulty reasoning on my part or else defend your position, and then I will correct my reasoning inclusive-OR attack your supporting claims. Repeating this process back and forth, we will all descend deeper and deeper until some core values are philosophically analyzed. Since everything else discussed will rely on them and possibly other defended core values, all the reasoning in support of the initial claim will be strengthened at last, or if it turns out the cores are bad or missing altogether, then either the foundation will be replaced or the claim overturned. In the event that no one who believes that people should be treated differently on the basis of sexuality comes into the chat and the claim I want to defend by ironically attacking gets overturned, then at last I will have to abandon my position as Devil's Advocate, explain my reasoning, hope that someone who shares my view nevertheless takes on the role of Devil's Advocate, and either come out with my claim strengthened or with a new claim altogether following the same process above.
So please help me to help you help us all - answer my question...
|
|
|
Post by priok on Jun 26, 2012 14:40:34 GMT
People should not be treated differently based on their sexuality, because it's something so irrelevant to practically anything. I don't really think it matters, it is just like how some people are born with different taste for many different things and colors, and none of that matters really. It is not like people who like the color red are being discriminated against or whatever, it is like the same thing or something.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 26, 2012 16:25:54 GMT
Indeed. The matter is irrelevant to modern society, and simply does not matter in treatment. There is no reason to treat them differently, but it can create negative effects should someone do so.
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 26, 2012 16:59:22 GMT
The issue of sexuality is, I must say, much bigger in North America than here in Brazil. It is, however, very important. A simple answer would be "no", but what about prejudice? It exists, and homophobia is a big problem. But to protect someone based on their sexuality is to treat them differently. Here in Brazil, and I don't know about the US, minorities such as natives and black people get a certain quota in university admittance and graduation. This is a thing I'm strictly against, since intelligence isn't determined by race (and not just white people say that, I have a number of friends from other races that do agree with me). Yes, sexuality does not matter, but to give everyone the same rights and just leaving it like that doesn't fix the issue. There's a need to educate the population, to make people understand that it doesn't matter, too, and that, in a way, is to treat them differently. If homophobia turns out to be a crime, then so is "heterophobia". "Treat differently" is a very vague term, in my opinion. In a way or another, there will be a need to treat this issue specially.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 26, 2012 17:06:32 GMT
They aren't allowed to get a straight-up quota, but affirmative action means that they do get an advantage when getting into universities, plus its way easier for them to get scholarships. That doesn't mean that's correct, either. They should be treated equally just as people of different sexuality should be treated equally. Once two groups are treated equally in all possible ways, thinking of them as equal only takes a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 26, 2012 17:14:42 GMT
While I do agree on that as a just thing, how are people going to deal with prejudice without special, perhaps even temporary, rights? To call someone "white" or any pejorative term regarding white people isn't taken as serious, but to call someone "black" or any other pejorative term is more serious. But, however, black people and homosexuals are more susceptible to actual, physical attacks than the "normal" people. The only way to achieve equality would be to adress these issues in a special manner, until people are conscient of each other and learn to accept difference. The thing would be: How to adress it specially, in a way that neither glorifies nor makes people take pity?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 27, 2012 0:42:24 GMT
That's what hate crime laws are for. Rather than causing more hatred by giving the group advantages in different areas, simply punish those that attack.
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 27, 2012 3:08:47 GMT
But the mentality will remain the same unless people are taught not to do that. Just throwing in laws and rights does not make a person just blend in the society. Mentality is about 60% of the issue, or else it would fixed as it is in the current moment.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 27, 2012 3:10:46 GMT
It's impossible to teach a group a certain ideal, however one may try to force it upon them. All that can resolve that is time.
|
|
|
Post by AlchmistFaust on Jun 27, 2012 3:49:49 GMT
But consider, a mentality of hostility can be kept for centuries. A simple endorsing of teachers in schools, and authorities, as saying "It's not a crime, and it isn't wrong" could, over time, do a very good job in changing the minds of future generations.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Jun 28, 2012 14:04:29 GMT
It's not about whether you have sex with a man or a woman. It's about whether you're in the dominant position or not.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jun 28, 2012 17:20:51 GMT
We're talking modern psychology, not ancient Roman psychology.
|
|
|
Post by Clockwork on Jun 28, 2012 23:50:11 GMT
That is modern psychology lol
|
|
|