[ys]

Originally Posted by borrowedheaven

Are you trying to suggest that we uphold some sort of cultural relativism? Different societies have different moral codes, therefore no moral codes can be absolute and we shouldn't criticize other societies?
Because if those are indeed used as synonyms in in Russia, than that alone is a problem that should be addressed.

You think it is a problem. They think public homosexuality is a problem.
You can see a very decent man talking about it on TV and says - "I have nothing against homosexuals, they can do whatever they want - it is their private life, as long as it stays private, as long as they leave their sexuality in their bedroom. If I am walking with my 10 yo son and I see a gay kissing, I'll probably crush his scull". Audience applauses.

[pov]

Originally Posted by ys

You think it is a problem. They think public homosexuality is a problem.

And you can bet people with either viewpoint think their their perspective is more "moral."

[borrowedheaven]

Originally Posted by ys

You think it is a problem. They think public homosexuality is a problem.
You can see a very decent man talking about it on TV and says - "I have nothing against homosexuals, they can do whatever they want - it is their private life, as long as it stays private, as long as they leave their sexuality in their bedroom. If I am walking with my 10 yo son and I see a gay kissing, I'll probably crush his scull". Audience applauses.

So you think there is no way to determine which one of the beliefs is more morally correct? I just explained why that doesn't work, but I assume reasoning won't change your opinion. You have yet to come up with a decent argument on why we shouldn't condemn Russia's politics on homosexuality. The argument that is just a different culture and that we should accept that is not a sound one.

[ys]

Originally Posted by borrowedheaven

So you think there is no way to determine which one of the beliefs is more morally correct? I just explained why that doesn't work, but I assume reasoning won't change your opinion. You have yet to come up with a decent argument on why we shouldn't condemn Russia's politics on homosexuality. The argument that is just a different culture and that we should accept that is not a sound one.

Just like in USA, it is mostly an ochlocracy, not a democracy. Country's leadership will very rarely go against opinion of majority.

Russia is quite a puritanical country - Russia has never been a liberal society and perhaps will never be. It's the way they like it. And for most of people, given the country's tradition - any openness in sexual subjects will be disliked by most of people. It's Russian Orthodox church tradition. It's Islamic tradition too. Those are two dominant religions in Russia.

Putting some limitation on boundless allow-everything freedom is not necessarily such a bad thing. Generally, an opinion that liberalism is a path to nowhere makes sense for most of people in the world.

[pov]

Originally Posted by borrowedheaven

The problems with cultural relativism are well documented, but I'll try to give a brief explanation why it can't be used.

Basically, the cultural differences argument goes like this:

(1) different societies have different moral codes
(2) therefore, there are no absolute moral rules. What is right or wrong depends on the code of the society, and these are just opinions.

The big problem with it is that the conclusion does not come from that premise. You go from a specific argument to a broad scale conclusion. There's is nothing to suggest that if there is an absolute moral rule, that every society knows it exists. Based on that, suggesting that one moral code is better than another one is not invalid reasoning.

It's true that we should be tolerant of other cultures, but being tolerant does not equal to tolerate everything.

There are no problems with what you term "cultural relativism" Like any and everything else there are those who have arguments against it.

In terms of strict logic you're arguments make sense but so does Zeno's Paradox. The fact is that based on all experiential evidence we have, it is clear that there is no absolute or even universal moral code.

The other issue with people like you is that somehow the values you want to impose are always the ones you hold to. To use a version of your logic: if there was an absolute moral code doesn't mean that the moral code you adhere to is synonymous with, or even a sub-set of, that absolute.

To break it down another way - the people who think homosexuality is immoral are themselves waxing eloquent about how there is an absolute moral good.

Tolerate? lol. Again they say the same thing - they won't tolerate homosexuality or other sorts of immorality.

The type of approach you favor leads to one thing - war. And the "absolute moral code" will simply be the moral code of those with the greatest military might and willingness to use that might to enforce their values. Of course if the victor ends up being the side that you're own you will crow that right won out.

[pov]

Originally Posted by borrowedheaven

So you think there is no way to determine which one of the beliefs is more morally correct?

It's not a matter of "think". There isn't a way because the hypothesis is flawed. Something can only be "morally correct" gauged against the code of morals being employed. You are making a circular argument. And as much as you style things as "you've just explained" all you have done is give rationales for your viewpoint. Clearly you think that having explanations for your viewpoint make it correct. However this isn't chemistry or even deduction. It is you believing, much as religious fundamentalists do, that one's beliefs are more correct, more right, more "good" than those who have different views.

[shap_half]

If you really think that someone who says that he'll bash someone's skull for kissing his same sex partner in public is not on a lower moral ground than people who just want to not be oppressed then there is something wrong with you. You can't use relativism for every situation out there. You have to take a stand where there's something obviously unjust happening. Sit back and accept it as social relativism, you're just as culpable.

[borrowedheaven]

It's not about believing, it's about rational arguments. There are no rational arguments to support the claim that homosexuality is bad or influences the children, so there is no rational base on which it should be banned. I shouldn't have used the word 'belief', but an opinion supported by rational arguments surely hold more claim to the truth than an opinion that isn't. That's part of the very definition of rationality: it's impartiality.

And just so you know, of course there are universal moral codes, because society needs them in order for society to be possible to exist. If lying wasn't wrong, nobody would believe any statement and society would not be possible. Likewise with murder. I'm not saying that accepting homosexuality is an absolute moral rule, but stating that there are no universal rules is false.

Also, cultural relativism makes moral progress impossible, because there is no way to determine if one act is better than another. So, according to your beliefs, slavery wasn't wrong, as it was part of the moral code. And abolitionism was not morally better, just a different moral code.

[dybbuk]

Is believing that the earth is flat as perfectly valid as believing the earth is round? One comes from ignorance of scientific fact and the other comes from a basis of said fact. The scientific community has a consensus about the nature of homosexuality (as something complex and not something that can simply be "influenced" by seeing a kiss). Thus if a point of view that ignores scientific consensus is as valid as one that incorporates it in the case of homosexuality, then why isn't a view that the earth is flat as valid as the thought that the earth of round?

And of course, it's only straight people defending this in the name of cultural relativism, anyways. As would be expected. It's so easy to defend something that has no way of affecting you anyways. I wonder if Russians gays defend this in the same way? Somehow I doubt it. I wonder if said posters would defend it if some law somewhere went in place that made it illegal for straight couples to kiss in public, but gay couples were allowed to?

[Novichok]

Whether or not there are objective moral truths is debatable. Whether or not discrimination against LGBT people increases suffering in the world is not. The real question is: Do you want to live in a world where there's less suffering or a world where there's more suffering?

[dybbuk]

Originally Posted by Novichok

Whether or not there are objective moral truths is debatable. Whether or not discrimination against LGBT people increases suffering in the world is not. The real question is: Do you want to live in a world where there's less suffering or a world where there's more suffering?

While I agree, in this particular case we're not even actually speaking of moral truths. We're speaking of actual scientific truths of whether or not homosexuality is basically "contagious" or can be passed from one person to another via seeing it. So in this case I'm not buying the idea of cultural relativity, and discussion of moral truths isn't even necessary. Scientific truths are not relative to the country you are in at the moment.

[Novichok]

Originally Posted by dybbuk

While I agree, in this particular case we're not even actually speaking of moral truths. We're speaking of actual scientific truths of whether or not homosexuality is basically "contagious" or can be passed from one person to another via seeing it. So in this case I'm not buying the idea of cultural relativity, and discussion of moral truths isn't even necessary. Scientific truths are not relative to the country you are in at the moment.

Oh, I just assumed you all were talking about morality. If they don't believe the numerous studies that have shown that homosexuality isn't contagious, they should point out which studies they disagree with and explain the methodological flaws (or other errors in reasoning).

[Cajka]

Originally Posted by Novichok

Whether or not there are objective moral truths is debatable. Whether or not discrimination against LGBT people increases suffering in the world is not. The real question is: Do you want to live in a world where there's less suffering or a world where there's more suffering?

Theat's not how it works with these moral folks. They like to twist it all and they would probably say that "public homosexuality" means more suffering. That's the best part, when they try to make it look like the rights of straight people are in danger, that straight people are the victims in this story.

[dybbuk]

Originally Posted by Cajka

Theat's not how it works with these moral folks. They like to twist it all and they would probably say that "public homosexuality" means more suffering. That's the best part, when they try to make it look like the rights of straight people are in danger, that straight people are the victims in this story.

Like I said, it's funny how the people who defend misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. cultural practices are 99.95% people who will NEVER be affected by said practices. If you asked girls in places where they're not allowed to go to school if that isn't wrong they would tell you of course it is. Or asked pre-emancipation African Americans if slavery is morally permissible because the morality of slavery depends on what culture you're in, they would tell you you're a heartless bastard. But if ys and pov are right then slavery ISN'T wrong, and neither is denying girls education. While some cultural relativism is of course needed, applying it too broadly to justify it in these cases amounts to nothing less than uncaring, cruel passivity. And like I said too, I wonder if we started enslaving groups they are a part of would it still be morally permissible? It's not as easy to have that sort of attitude when you're part of the group being disadvantaged and discriminated against.

[wayitis]

Originally Posted by ys

You can see a very decent man talking about it on TV and says - "I have nothing against homosexuals, they can do whatever they want - it is their private life, as long as it stays private, as long as they leave their sexuality in their bedroom. If I am walking with my 10 yo son and I see a gay kissing, I'll probably crush his scull". Audience applauses.

That's an oxymoron, if there was ever one... The reasoning is clear, but wrong in anyways, as it's not based on logic but on fear and irrational tradition... They seem to rally behind history and immobilization, but change is always needed, even if not particularly welcome or easy... if society had not reacted, Russia would still be under serfdom and tsarism... Your own posting history indicates that you may favour an absolutist regime, as you don't seem to trust the guidance and knowledge of the non-elites, but beliefs and ideas can be changed if given a chance... what this law is looking to do is trying to hide an "unattractive" side of society in a feeble way to see if it fades away, which of course will not happen...