Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 12:48 PM
196 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,386 Year: 19,209/29,783 Month: 1,154/2,043 Week: 199/507 Day: 27/83 Hour: 4/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Author Topic:   A personal question
John
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 193 (20606)
10-23-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:25 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I was the one that was attacked, and I am the one that is outnumbered.

It is the idea not the person, Gene. I don't have any animosity towards you personally.

{quoteThe way I see it, starting up these little arguments against Mormon theology with me is often tantamount to harrassing Mormons on the streets.][/quote]

I don't see it as a debate about Mormon theology, at least not the part I have stepped into.

I dislike the 'homosexuality is unnatural' argument. It has no grounds that I can tell. And I have this weird idea that people ought to have rational grounds for what they believe.

If you wish to believe based on faith then so be it. Faith is faith-- right or wrong. It isn't the faith, it is the justification for it.

quote:
I don't think I'm the iconoclast. Some cultures in history have taken up homosexuality but traditionally the US is not one of them.

Respectfully, this is extremely ethno-centric of you. If you want to make arguments about what is natural and what is not natural, you are going to have to go beyond cultural peculiarities.

quote:
In this context I think it the way a person is or should be.

Which is it? Is, or should be? I can easily think of circumstances where the two are not the same.

quote:
Ultimately yes. But I've had to concede that sex plays a role in society as well. But society still exists to raise babies.

No argument, taken on a very large scale. This does not mean, however, that everyone in the society needs to breed.

quote:
You know that isn't true.

No I don't.

quote:
I'm about to get very un-pc by pointing this out but where was HIV first discovered?

Why does this matter?

quote:
Anytime you exchange bodily fluids you have potential for disease transmission. Homosexual sex, just like hetero sex, can kill you. And it won't make babies.

Unless you are planning to make babies this also does not matter biologically.

[quote]It's an evolutionary hazard with no immediate evolutionary reward, unlike heterosexual sex, that sometimes produces pregnancy.[/b][/quote]

Not true, as has been pointed out to you. Reproduction is not the only way to contribute if one happens to live in a society.

quote:
That's debatable. In fact a lot of the more extreme environmental groups will happily disagree with you. But it's not my fight.

I'd probably fight with them too

quote:
And your root problem is that my moral values are more complicated than "it's not hurting anyone so it's ok" so I don't see how this debate can be settled.

Yes, Gene, your values are terribly complicated. "A book told me so." I don't appreciate the cheap shot. You actually have it easy. You have authority. I have only myself.

quote:
I didn't know there were any "evidences" for even the existance of morals. I thought they were a subjective thing. Oh well.

You hit it on the head. There isn't any evidence. They are subjective. I am not the one treating morality as if it were some Platonic Form.

quote:
It is if you presuppose that the sexes were made for particular purposes by an IDer. That's that huge difference in our worldviews I keep pointing that means we won't agree.

Why should I presuppose?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:25 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:18 PM John has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 193 (20607)
10-23-2002 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:32 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

There's our Strawman of the Day.

So, you're off to see the wizard. I wonder what he'll have to give you?

I suppose he is partly correct, some sects have claimed in the past that sex is dirty...the Shakers for one.

Some? How about most. Christianity sees sex for pleasure as immoral.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:32 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:08 PM nos482 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 193 (20608)
10-23-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Delshad
10-23-2002 5:29 PM


Originally posted by Delshad:

My intentions in my previos posts was not to insult anyone, and I have never stated that it would be harmfull in the way you are emplying.

Perhaps I could explain my perspective with this analogy: Someone offers you a key, but you havent seen anyone before and you do not know where it goes.
(This is like the bunny, hold out your foot infront of it and it yould try to have sexual intercourse with it, because of ignorance).
If you ask the giver, where does this key go to and he says, to that door, then you will use it in the right way.
(As the man, who can learn from others that the organs have a purpose.)

However , I dont despite the same sex relationships and who am I to stop them from doing what they want.
Im simply stating that man and woman relationships is the moral norm that leads society and deviations should be accepted but not embraced.

Sincerely Delshad

Morality is subjective. No one is telling you to embrace anything either. What consenting persons do is their own business. Love is not just sex. You have no choice in who you love.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Delshad, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM Delshad has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 193 (20609)
10-23-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:25 PM


You know that isn't true. I'm about to get very un-pc by pointing this out but where was HIV first discovered?

HIV is a primarily heterosexual disease. Unless you believe that the vast majority of Africa is gay? HIV first appear, in the West, by way of drug users. Anyways sex is not the problem, it is ignorance of sex that is the real tragedy here.

Anytime you exchange bodily fluids you have potential for disease transmission. Homosexual sex, just like hetero sex, can kill you. And it won't make babies. It's an evolutionary hazard with no immediate evolutionary reward, unlike heterosexual sex, that sometimes produces pregnancy.

As was stated somewhere else homosexuality may serve the purpose of limiting population growth when a popultion either grows too fast or too much. BTW, only 2 out of every 100 heterosexual acts result in a pregnancy.

Also, I thought that you said that life was more than proving one's fitness to reproduce?

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:25 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:06 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1805 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 141 of 193 (20611)
10-23-2002 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by nos482
10-23-2002 6:16 PM


[QUOTE][B]HIV is a primarily heterosexual disease.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Yes. But have you forgotten what was going in on in the early 80s?

[QUOTE][B]Unless you believe that the vast majority of Africa is gay?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

No, HIV got out of Africa primarily through prostitution along the Kinshasa Highway. Prostitution is, of course, another thing I consider immoral but we'll save that for next time. Why HIV is so widespread in Africa now I do not know, probably a combination of drug use, lack of monogamy, and refusal to use rubbers.

[QUOTE][B]As was stated somewhere else homosexuality may serve the purpose of limiting population growth when a popultion either grows too fast or too much.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I considered that already but did not find it credible. There is no evidence to indicate an increase in the proportion of homos to heteros with increasing population. Instead changing cultural values tends to affect the proportion (example: US vs Ancient Greece) which seems to support many cases of homosexuality being an artifact of the environment or the culture.

[QUOTE][B]BTW, only 2 out of every 100 heterosexual acts result in a pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That's an interesting figure. Are all of these "heterosexual acts" intercourse? And do they include the ones where contraceptive is used?

[QUOTE][B]Also, I thought that you said that life was more than proving one's fitness to reproduce?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Life is more than proving fitness. In fact I'm arguing that there are more to morals than self-preservation. However consistent I have had to go to the a naturalistic perspective and argue from there as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:16 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1805 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 142 of 193 (20612)
10-23-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by nos482
10-23-2002 6:02 PM


[QUOTE][B]Some? How about most. Christianity sees sex for pleasure as immoral.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

I disagree. If you're married, most don't care.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 6:02 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:29 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 153 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:06 PM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1805 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 143 of 193 (20613)
10-23-2002 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by John
10-23-2002 6:00 PM


[QUOTE][B]I dislike the 'homosexuality is unnatural' argument. It has no grounds that I can tell.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Well homosexuality does exist in nature, if that's what you want to hear, take it and be happy. You can blame the whole thing on my not be clear about my two alternating definitions of "nature".

[QUOTE][B]Which is it? Is, or should be? I can easily think of circumstances where the two are not the same.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Should be.

[QUOTE][B]This does not mean, however, that everyone in the society needs to breed.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

But if the sexes were created for a reason by a creator, don't you think that giving in to the temptation to go after the wrong sex is contrary to the will of the creator?

[QUOTE][B]Why does this matter?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

You said homosexuality was harmless. No sex is necessarily harmless.

[QUOTE][B]You hit it on the head. There isn't any evidence. They are subjective.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Then what right has Schrafinator to attack the LDS church for women and the priesthood or her interpretation of the president's commentary on homosexuality?

[QUOTE][B]Why should I presuppose?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

That was meant rhetorically. I presuppose, and unless you consider that position my version of morality will make no sense to you.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-23-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by John, posted 10-23-2002 6:00 PM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:34 PM gene90 has not yet responded
 Message 154 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:09 PM gene90 has responded
 Message 162 by John, posted 10-24-2002 4:16 PM gene90 has responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1805 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 144 of 193 (20619)
10-23-2002 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Delshad
10-23-2002 5:29 PM


I agree. "Christians" shouldn't go around trying to wage a "holy" war against homosexuals. I heard about one recent incident in Texas where a gay student was murdered and a bunch of "Christians" had an outdoor event a few weeks ago on the anniversary of the murder, 'to celebrate his death and entry into Hell.' And that's a close quote, I think they even played a soundbyte of some minister saying that on the radio.

I don't agree that homosexuality is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Delshad, posted 10-23-2002 5:29 PM Delshad has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:38 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 193 (20624)
10-23-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:08 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

I disagree. If you're married, most don't care.

Even in marriage if it wasn't for reproduction it was discouraged.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:08 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 11:11 PM nos482 has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 193 (20626)
10-23-2002 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:18 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

Should be.

Rarely are things as some would like them to be.

But if the sexes were created for a reason by a creator, don't you think that giving in to the temptation to go after the wrong sex is contrary to the will of the creator?

That's a big if concidering that you ca't even prove that your god actually exists. Wrong sex?

You said homosexuality was harmless. No sex is necessarily
harmless.

Nor is it necessarily harmful either. You are confusing ignorance about sex with sex itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:18 PM gene90 has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 193 (20627)
10-23-2002 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:40 PM


Originally posted by gene90:

I don't agree that breathing air is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.

Like breathing air being gay is not a choice. If you were gay would you have chosen to be so if you knew how you would be treated by others?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:40 PM gene90 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by nator, posted 10-23-2002 10:16 PM nos482 has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 148 of 193 (20641)
10-23-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by gene90
10-23-2002 3:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]In that case, does one also choose to be heterosexual?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Good point! Yes. As long as there is the possibility of being homosexual, one *must* choose, at some level, to be heterosexual.

BTW, you opened the door for this when you insisted that people aren't 100% heterosexual.[/QUOTE]

The point remains that since most people "sit the fence", more or less, and we happen to live in a culture (US) that generally hates and fears homosexuality, or at the least most people are uncomfortable with it, the social pressure to live a hetero lifestyle is quite strong.

In other parts of the world it isn't like that.

[QUOTE][B]You still have not explained how homosexuality is harmful to anyone.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Homosexuality, as far as I can tell, is not harmful. But that does not make it moral. I think it should be allowed to be practiced in the open. I think homosexual partners should have the same legal rights as nonmarried heterosexual partners. I'm not sure about my opinion on homosexual marriages, I feel like I could argue that either way.

My problem with your reasoning is that you think that moral values are based entirely on what is and is not harmful to others. You don't recognize the possibility, that with some kind of ID and a sense of "purpose" for gender differences, it becomes more complicated than that. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sure, it's possible, but it certainly isn't probable, and I see no evidence for ID, and I see no reason to condemn love between two people for no good reason.

You do realize, of course, that you have not given any reason for why homosexuality isn't moral, other than "the Bible says so".

The Bible also says that slavery is OK and that it is an abomination for crippled people to approach the alter in temple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:29 PM gene90 has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 149 of 193 (20642)
10-23-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by nos482
10-23-2002 8:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Originally posted by gene90:

I don't agree that breathing air is the 'right' way to go, but I'm not saying that they should be denied their choice.

Like breathing air being gay is not a choice. If you were gay would you have chosen to be so if you knew how you would be treated by others?


I don't think it matters if it is a choice or not. People aught to be able to love whomever the hell they want.

Having said that, I don't think that many gay people are happy pretending to be hetero. Our culture hates and fears them.

This is why the suicide rate among gay teenagers is very high.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by nos482, posted 10-23-2002 8:38 PM nos482 has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 150 of 193 (20643)
10-23-2002 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by gene90
10-23-2002 3:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:

quote:
It is still around because it doesn't hurt anyone, and it actually helps with social bonding.

What does not hurting anyone have to do with it still being around, from a naturalistic perspective? Cannibalism is quite popular in the animal kingdom, probably more so than homosexuality, and you can't argue it doesn't hurt "anyone".


One of the reasons certain traits are still around is because they are neutral in effect.

The reason cannibalism is still around, I imagine, is because they occur in species which reproduce copious numbers of offspring (mice) or in species where there is a lot of competition for females, rangeland, and pack leadership (lions).

quote:
As for social bonding, see my war analogy.

I already addressed your war analogy.

I said that the bonds of war happen because people are coming together to fight a common foe, not simply because shooting occurs.

quote:
But what harm does homosexuality cause to herterosexual people, Gene?

quote:
I have not claimed that it did harm heteros. You're building a strawman.

So, are you saying that your morals are relatively arbitrary, and even though you think that homosexuality doesn't harm anyone, it is still immoral, because the Bible says so?

Then I would say that your position lacks reason.

quote:
How can you possibly equate the act of murder with two people who happen to be of the same gender loving each other? That is completely irrational.

quote:
Because the analogy proves that being predisposed to a behavior does not necessarily justify that behavior. I still stand by the analogy.

So, is your standard of morality begin and end at the bible, no matter how illogical and unreasonable it is?

[QUOTE][B]I am not saying that "a genetic predisposition = morally OK."[/QUOTE]

[/B]

quote:
Good.

[QUOTE][B]I am saying that the LDS statement is utterly wrong in it's strong implication that gay people aren't that way by nature.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

quote:
I didn't get that implication from reading, or rereading it for that matter.

I certainly did.

[QUOTE][B]I have many gay co-workers and friends.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

quote:
You are implying that my opinion is based upon a lack of experience around homosexuals.

Homophobia generally is based upon a lack of ecpreience with openly gay people, yes. (Homophobia might be too strong a word for your views, I'm not sure.)

quote:
However, it is equally valid for me to claim that your opinion is based upon your being around homosexuals all the time, and therefore you have become biased.

Gee, let's see...who is more likely to have a realistic view of what openly gay people are like inside a community; someone who interacts with gay people and someone who has never met an openly gay person?

quote:
I suggest we leave our respective environments out of it. The ideal environment is probably in between these two extremes anyway.

LOL! My environment is hardly the Village or the Bay area, Gene! Since the vast majority of Michigan is, shall we say, extremely conservative and the north branch of the Bible Belt, Ann Arbor has become a Mecca for all those Michigan people who are "different"; artists, musicians, free-thinkers, atheists, gay folks, hippies, liberal political actiivists, etc.

It's where all the wierdos who were run out of town for being different come.

[QUOTE][B]If you want to think that being gay is immoral, then fine, but it is not rational in the least to say that it isn't natural, as there is a lot o' homosexual behavior in nature.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

quote:
I will allow that it is "natural" in the sense that it occurs in nature (and its presence in nature has no relevance to morality). I do not allow that it is "natural" in a different connotation, that it is a part of God's plan.

My fault for not being clear.


See, this I have no problem with, because you have decided that you are believing something because you believe God wants you to think a certain way. I certainly think you are wrong, and I don't think you can justify your belief in any other way other than it being from the Bible/your religion, so I will object on those grounds. I will also object on philosophical and ethical grounds, but not on religious grounds.

[QUOTE][B]Didn't God make them the way they are?[/QUOTE]

[/B]

quote:
"God made us, and made our weaknesses as well. The test is if we can overcome our weaknesses and immoralities, that is, if we can prove that our sense of reason and morality is stronger than our genes. If we can, then we are valiant and noble creatures indeed, and have proven true agency."

(From: The World According to Gene90; 2002 edition )


See, I think it is unreasonable to expect every human on the planet to be/act 100% heterosexual.

quote:
By the way, God also made sociopaths. I'm sure that under different circumstances you would have pointed that out by now.

LOL!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 3:55 PM gene90 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 4:56 PM nator has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 151 of 193 (20645)
10-23-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by gene90
10-23-2002 4:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]It's funny you should mention war, though, because I think it was the ancient greeks who's soldiers used to have gay lovers because they believed that the loyalty and devotion would be greater, thus would protect each other more fiercely.[/QUOTE]

[/B]

Actually homosexuality was rampant in Greece, even outside the military. Even the word "Lesbian" is derived from the Isle of Lesbos, which was a Greek city-state. The widespread homosexuality of the Spartan army could have partly been because it was believed to form close relationships, but it probably had everything to do with the fact that those men didn't have access to their wives for years at a time.

Now tell me, if being gay is simply an expression of a person's "nature" (that people do not choose to be gay), why was it so common in Greece and not in other cultures?


It goes back to the bell curve I was talking about.

(Bear in mind that this bell curve is probably skewed in favor of more hetero and fewer homo, but it is a curve, nonetheless.)

The small number of people at the ends of the bell curve are "very" straight or "very" homosexual. Everyone else in the middle could probably respond either way, to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon circumstance and cultural influences.

IOW, I never said that people didn't choose to be gay, but that fewer people choose it now because the social pressure to not be gay is so strong.

I think that most of the people who come out these days are probably quite far to the end of the "gay" side of the bell curve because there is risk to one's personal safety in a lot of the world, let alone teasing and harrasment.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:03 PM gene90 has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
111213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018