Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A personal question
John
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 193 (20243)
10-19-2002 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by nos482
10-19-2002 8:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
They kill out of instinct, they are predators.
Your black vs. white perceptions are sometimes most amusing. Schaf is right. Many animals kill for the hell of it.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by nos482, posted 10-19-2002 8:54 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by nos482, posted 10-19-2002 9:36 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 193 (20245)
10-19-2002 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by nos482
10-19-2002 9:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.
No I'm not, Nos. Ask a primatologist.
You make the error opposite the one of which you accuse me -- that of mechanizing animals, of drawing a hard line between 'them' and 'us' Animals, mammals in particular, have more or less all of the same brain structure and chemistry as do we. It is absurd to reduce animals to autonomatons.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by nos482, posted 10-19-2002 9:36 AM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nos482, posted 10-19-2002 10:29 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 193 (20250)
10-19-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by nos482
10-19-2002 10:29 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
You are humanizing them. Bonk, bonk.
No I'm not, Nos. Ask a primatologist.
You make the error opposite the one of which you accuse me -- that of mechanizing animals, of drawing a hard line between 'them' and 'us' Animals, mammals in particular, have more or less all of the same brain structure and chemistry as do we. It is absurd to reduce animals to autonomatons.

Whatever.

LOL...... willful ignorance and self contradiction to boot.
Did you not argue with Delshad that we ARE animals? Yet now you imply that we are somehow fundamentally different from them.
Oh BTW, did you get your info from the TV again?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nos482, posted 10-19-2002 10:29 AM nos482 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 193 (20284)
10-19-2002 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by gene90
10-19-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You believe it is someone's rightful nature to be homosexual?
Why wouldn't it be Gene? Biologically, the gender of one's mate is irrelevant unless one wants to make babies. You could argue that this in itself is enough to make homosexuality unnatural. Of course, the same logic also makes infertile men and women unnatural, and those merely choosing not to have kids, and those who only have on or two kids as well-- don't want to cut short the reproductive potential.
quote:
Excellent point! Some people are predisposed to domestic violence by nature of their genetics. Others are predisposed to chemical addiction. Some turn into flat out psychopaths.
That doesn't mean that drug addiction, or compulsive stealing, murder, or rape are "natural states of being" or morally acceptable.

It is an excellent point. Stealing, murder and rape are all different classes of behavior-- ie. they all involve harm to other individuals. You should realize this is a false analogy. As for drug addiction... it is only a problem when it leads to behavior like stealing, murder and rape.
quote:
The LDS church treats homosexuality like these, not as a naturally occuring version of sexuality.
But you Gene, are far too smart not to realize that the logic is flawed. Homosexuality isn't like murder or rape.
quote:
If homosexuality is natural because it is a genetically predisposed trait and occurs in nature, then aren't the above immoral behaviors equally "natural", and therefore, equally acceptable.
Equally natural? hmmm... that requires some clarification. There are no rules in nature as a whole. That is, one could probably find an example of any behavior at all in non-human animals. But we aren't talking about nature as a whole, we are talking about a particular species which survives by associating into groups. Certain behaviors, when not checked, are very bad for such associations. Homosexuality is not one of those behaviors.
quote:
And in the same vein, if gay bonobos means that gay behavior in humans is perfectly permissable, then what about cannibalism in bonobos? Doesn't that become a "natural" thing for people to do?
Already covered this.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by gene90, posted 10-19-2002 1:34 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 10-20-2002 5:56 PM John has replied
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 193 (20330)
10-20-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by nator
10-20-2002 5:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
We would also have to consider it "unnatural", from a Biological viewpoint, to refrain from creating children as soon as we reach sexual maturity, which would be around 12 for girls and a few years older for boys.

Ah, correct. I forgot about that one. Gracias.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 10-20-2002 5:56 PM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 193 (20404)
10-21-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Andya Primanda
10-21-2002 5:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
quote:
That is what you have been taught, but it hasn't always been that way.
Have you read the Old Testament? A great deal of it is God promising to smite down the enemes of his chosen people. There isn't a lot about love and happiness in there.
Again; read the Old Testament and tell me how much more killing and enemy-felling there is than love.
Lets see... The OT was initially revealed to the Jews...
Now I get it. The OT is their reason for all those manslaughter and atrocities they commit to the Palestinians.

The scary part about your comment is that it is essentially true. The Bible does give the Jews permission to kill and enslave anyone non-Jewish.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-21-2002 5:56 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 193 (20448)
10-22-2002 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by gene90
10-20-2002 8:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Because just because someone is genetically predisposed to a behavior
does not make that behavior "natural" to them.

I am interested in knowing what you consider "natural" in that case.
quote:
I'm waiting on your side to show that it is.
This is interesting. It seem to be a request that the side making the iconoclastic claim provide the evidence. What is interesting is the assumption that Schraf and I are making the iconoclastic claim. I think you'd be hared pressed to back that up. Many human cultures have incorporated homosexuality into the social order.
quote:
From an evolutionary perspective, disregarding any supernatural beings, what is the purpose of sex?
To reproduce.

This is an oversimplification. Think about that next time your wife says "Ride 'em Cowboy"
Look around. Sex is everywhere. Do you really think all that is about making babies?
quote:
Why do we crave sex?
So our genes get passed on.

Fair enough. However, there are more roles to play than that of breeders. Again, you are oversimplifying the issue.
Humans are not brute force survivors. We don't lay thousands of eggs so that several survive. We make a very few offspring and take care of them well. We do that within the structure of a society, and not everyone has to be a sperm donor or an egg factory/incubator.
quote:
Homosexuality is an aberration of that.
Except that homosexuality DOES exist in nature. We ARE nature, Gene.
quote:
It isn't the "natural" way of things, even in a completely naturalistic worldview. In fact it "should" be selected against so I wonder
why it is still around.

It has been around a very long time and the race isn't dying off. This should make you wonder about the validity of your argument.
Homosexuality could be due to the extreme similarity of the sexes. It could be that it provides some positive social bonding. It could be that it simply isn't harmful.
[quote][b]Even if she could prove it were natural it would not mean it was "right". Moral values transcend simply trying to transmit genes.[/quote]
[/b]
I suppose moral values would have to be different from gene transmission. Gene transmission is amoral.
quote:
I don't see it as a false analogy because, like same-sex marriages, they are not allowed by the church.
The issue is not whether the church allows murder and rape but whether murder and rape are the same class of behavior as homosexuality.
quote:
Therefore, if having a biological predisposition towards being gay makes it morally ok to be gay, being genetically predisposed to having violent episodes must make it morally ok to kill or do whatever may occur during one of those episodes.
I am not arguing that genetic predisposition makes a behavior acceptable. Shraf perhaps, is making that argument. (I do, however, argue against the idea that homosexuality is not natural.)
quote:
The "problem" with my analogy is that we have different worldviews.
Certainly, in part. But do you truly believe that male/male sex or female/female sex is an crime equivalent to murder?
quote:
But the problem is that I can never prove to you that homosexuality is immoral
You could if you had evidence for the belief.
quote:
The purpose of this analogy was just to demonstrate that a genetic predisposition cannot be used to justify being gay.
Nor can the concept of natural vs. unnatural be used to condemn homosexuality.
quote:
Taken in that context I fail to see how it is flawed. Please re-examine it and comment further in future posts. On to the next point.
quote:
*But* I believe it is contrary to the way God would want it to be. Obviously there are two sexes and I don't see any way around it.
No need to get around it. Its just that most of the time whether one sports an in-ie or an out-ie makes no difference. The only time it does matter is when reproduction is desired. Ten -- ok, if you're a guy, twenty minutes-- before and five seconds after, it makes no difference what your sexual preference happens to be.
quote:
Suffice to say the Church does not recognize same-sex marriages. I
don't think that's a problem because gay people are not required to join unless they want to, and if they believe in the church, then obviously they must also believe the policy is correct. Theology is a package-deal and I don't think anyone should criticize us for it.

Can't really argue here.
[quote]It is easy for some of you here on this board to show tolerance towards a minority of society like homosexuals and at the same time show intolerance towards the LDS church (or whoever) because they don't share the same worldview as they do.[/b][/quote]
I try to play fair.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by gene90, posted 10-20-2002 8:08 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 2:57 AM John has replied
 Message 133 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 4:25 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 193 (20477)
10-22-2002 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by compmage
10-22-2002 2:57 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
While theology is a package deal, if that package contains illegal or immoral chapters then it should be criticised and a lot worse.
Yeah, I agree. I should have been more clear with my response. What I can't argue with is the idea that people do get to choose. The LDS is not some Leviathan that can force its will on people.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 2:57 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by compmage, posted 10-22-2002 11:02 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 193 (20484)
10-22-2002 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Delshad
10-22-2002 9:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Delshad:
Since homosexualism 99% is based upon the surrounding environment and not dependent upon genetical structures, one should ask himself if it really is moral.
I do not believe that the evidence to back up this claim even exists.
quote:
Firstly, it doesnt only effect you, it effects society.
Yes, I feel great pain every time a gay couple kisses-- even though I can't see them, hear them, or smell them.
quote:
The children for example doesnt know what roles the two sexes are supposed to have and their judgement will be very confused when they grow up.
What roles are the two sexes supposed to have? Human society is VERY flexible. Social roles are mutable as all get-out. Read some cultural anthropology. Culture creates those roles. Culture can change them. In other words, there is nothing except culture that makes homosexuality distasteful. More cultures than not-- outside of the Judeo-Christian traditions, of course-- incorporate the behavior.
Secondly, the "confused children" argument has never been supported by any scientific study.
quote:
Whatever "pleasure" the gay pair will have will never justify the act
... implicit assumption that the act needs to be justified.
quote:
a pair stealing a childs judgement by their direct or indirect influence
You realize that ANY parental influence qualifies as "stealing a child's judgement"? Children are like little Borg--- they assimilate. It is how humans adapt and survive. You undercut the entire survival strategy.
quote:
And secondly, we arent bonobos, no matter how much some of us would want it.
Of course we are not bonobos, but we are damn similar. Do you also object to the comparison of lions and tigers?
quote:
We can understand right from wrong, we know that children arent made that way, bonobos dont.
How do you know what bonobos understand? And how do you know how we are made? If I could prove that we are made that way via genetic study, would you then accept it? Doubtful. Hence, you may want to rethink the argument.
quote:
Think about this, before we knew how to make fire, we ate raw meat, we perhaps ate plants we were allergic to or we perhaps died by lack of hygien.
Now we know what is good for us but we dont consider the soap unnatural, or cocked food unnatural, or clothes unnatural or medicine unnatural.

True enough. But it serves my purposes, not yours. This paragraph undercuts some of the arguments you made above.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Delshad, posted 10-22-2002 9:35 AM Delshad has not replied

  
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?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

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

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

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 193 (20729)
10-24-2002 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by gene90
10-23-2002 7:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
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?
I might be able to answer that if I knew the will of this hypothetical creator. He/she/it could have built homosexuality into the creation. Perhaps this creator had more in mind than reproduction when he/she/it invented orgasm.
quote:
You said homosexuality was harmless. No sex is necessarily harmless.
Actually, if I recall correctly, I said "not that harmful"
quote:
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?
The same right you have to accept it and to defend it.
Morality is subjective. This isn't the same as saying that ideas and behavior are beyond criticism. Debate is how we learn things. It may be slow and painful but it the best we've got.
quote:
That was meant rhetorically. I presuppose, and unless you consider that position my version of morality will make no sense to you.
I understand your version, Gene. It is all around me. And it makes no sense. It is a worldview based on nothing. Why base a worldview on not one shred of evidence? The logic involved is the same logic you yourself criticise when dealing with creationists.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by gene90, posted 10-23-2002 7:18 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:09 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 193 (20797)
10-25-2002 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by gene90
10-24-2002 5:09 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Actually what you said in Post 115 of this thread was:
[QUOTE][B] Homosexuality could be due to the extreme similarity of the sexes. It could be that it provides some positive social bonding. It could be that it simply isn't harmful.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Oh.... hmmm.... I stand corrected. I must change that to "it simply isn't that harmful"
quote:
Which is patently false. Sex, whether hetero or homo, can very well be harmful.
Ok. Everything has some degree of danger to it. I don't see that homosexuality is any more dangerous than heterosexuality or, say, driving a car on a daily basis, or working a high stress job.
quote:
So then do you have a right to harrass Mormons on the street?
No.
quote:
Or wouldn't that be religious intolerance?
It would be. Despite our differences, we have to live together. This is the key issue for me. As long as I am not being imposed upon by a faith, I am happy to let it be.
quote:
Would you drive up to a gas station, and if you saw a Christian fish on a vehicle there, confront the driver about his religious preferences and tell him about how unreasonable he is?
I wouldn't, no. Though I have been approached and preached at by those fish-on-car people.
Again, we have to live together.
quote:
Then what right have you to criticize my moral values?
In my case, it is ultimately a selfish endeavor. What you believe is mostly irrelevant to me, but your reasons for what you believe may effect my reasons for my own beliefs. I try to think of everything, but I am not quite so arrogant as to think that I can succeed at that. You are a check and balance. It would be flattering if I converted you, but I wouldn't spend so much time here for that reason. Like I said, what you believe doesn't effect me for the most part. (Of course, this changes in the political arena. Laws do effect me.)
quote:
Only if you presuppose there is no God, just as I presuppose there is.
It is a theory of knowledge issue. What is the source of our knowledge? Empirical information. Any other stating point requires a greater number of assumptions. There is no evidence for a God.
quote:
The logic I criticize dealing with Creationists is the same logic I criticize coming from atheists, only they push different ideaologies with it. I've debated both, and the arguments are often almost identical.
"There's no transitional fossils!"
"There's no evidence of God!"

Except there are transitional fossils. Very bad analogy.
Gene, in any other arena, would you believe something for which there is no evidence?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 10-24-2002 5:09 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:32 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 193 (20876)
10-26-2002 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by gene90
10-25-2002 8:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Actually I believe I have highly subjective evidence that there is a God, but you would just say that I've found a way to release endorphins on demand.
Without having heard what you have to say on the topic, I'd probably respond that other people in other religions have found similar evidence -- or say they have, being subjective I cannot verify it-- and not all of you can be right.
quote:
In any other arena is a bit loaded.
Is it? I don't think so. Dividing the world into multiple metaphysical arenas and using different rules in each just seems like cheating.
quote:
In religion? If I were not a theist I would still have to accept the possibility rather than just to decide one day there is no God.
Anything is possible. Lack of disproof isn't proof.
quote:
By the way I'm not sure there's no *historical* evidence for God either but I'm not going to mess with that yet.
hmmm.... this could be interesting....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by gene90, posted 10-25-2002 8:32 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by gene90, posted 10-26-2002 1:00 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 193 (21014)
10-29-2002 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by nator
10-29-2002 10:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
I don't think religion, in some form or another, will ever go away, even if we didn't have any psychological need for it and even if they're all baloney.
Ah, but I think it would go away if there wasn't the psychological need for it.
I mean, it went away for lots of Agnostics and atheists, didn't it?

That is a good point, Gene. If the psycho-need (for short ) for it went away and religions are all baloney, why would it stay around?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 10-29-2002 10:02 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024