lesbians are immoral.

i was taken aback by this statement. yeah it's strong, but does it have any basis?

of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character. i consulted trusty google for the definition, this was the first one i got. judgment. now that's a word.

i do not know if there is anything more subjective than the word judgment. it implies a person's own idea. his opinion. his perception on how things were, how they are and how they should be. you can rely on facts, you can base it on history or experience you can also draw from what you have observed. ultimately though, whatever you have decided on will be a product of your personal assessment. everyone has his or her own biases. nobody can be perfectly neutral at any and every point. preferences are a given. something as simple as a color you like more can figure greatly in a decision you have to make (apartheid, ring any bell?).

so what am i saying?

the age old debate on morality have withstood the test of time. it is still as alive as it was when it was first brought up. nobody is backing down. moralists have their own code, a set of standards that every act is subjected to before they consider it just. the people on the other side of the fence, who they call "immoral" , also have their own version of what is fair, what is right. if you study the definition, it would imply that not one of them is incorrect.

morality, if we are going to strictly follow its definition, pertains to what we, as individuals, view as right or wrong or fair or unjust. it is not uncommon for a large group of people to have the same views, that is fine, the problem begins when this group insists that what they think is better or more correct than what a smaller group does. something does not automatically become right just because almost everyone thinks it is, the same way that an act should not be automatically termed wrong just because only a few people think it's right.

we each have a different opinion on a lot of stuff. that is alright. it is so much better than everyone thinking alike, like robots, programmed. yeah discussions are bound to happen, that is quite normal. what is not acceptable for me though is that a whole bunch of people are trying to shove their beliefs on every other individual they can find who are opposing theirs. just because you are the majority, it does not mean that you have the license to ram your ideas on the minority's throat.

in politics we have this term "tyranny of the majority", it means that since almost everything is decided through a majority's vote it could lead to the minority losing it's voice. the powerful majority could very well crush whoever questions them. it would either be their way, or the highway. fair?

whatever happened to the concept live and let live?

we can be the masters of our lives. do what we wanna do, be who we want to be. the only thing we are asked in return is to allow other people to be able to do the same thing, live as they want to live.

if respect is too much to ask, can't the masses just be apathetic then? if acceptance is much more impossible than achieving world peace, can't they just leave us alone? if understanding is something unintelligible to them, why can't they just allow us to be who we are and not ask us to explain why we are.

so who should define moral?

should they? should we?

maybe no one really needs to.