|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A personal question | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: But you Gene, are far too smart not to realize that the logic is flawed. Homosexuality isn't like murder or rape.
quote: 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: Already covered this. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Ah, correct. I forgot about that one. Gracias. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I am interested in knowing what you consider "natural" in that case.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Except that homosexuality DOES exist in nature. We ARE nature, Gene.
quote: 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: 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: 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: Certainly, in part. But do you truly believe that male/male sex or female/female sex is an crime equivalent to murder?
quote: You could if you had evidence for the belief.
quote: Nor can the concept of natural vs. unnatural be used to condemn homosexuality.
quote: quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: I do not believe that the evidence to back up this claim even exists.
quote: Yes, I feel great pain every time a gay couple kisses-- even though I can't see them, hear them, or smell them.
quote: 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: ... implicit assumption that the act needs to be justified.
quote: 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: Of course we are not bonobos, but we are damn similar. Do you also object to the comparison of lions and tigers?
quote: 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: True enough. But it serves my purposes, not yours. This paragraph undercuts some of the arguments you made above. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: Which is it? Is, or should be? I can easily think of circumstances where the two are not the same.
quote: No argument, taken on a very large scale. This does not mean, however, that everyone in the society needs to breed.
quote: No I don't.
quote: Why does this matter?
quote: 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: I'd probably fight with them too
quote: 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: 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: Why should I presuppose? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: Actually, if I recall correctly, I said "not that harmful"
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[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: 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: No.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: Anything is possible. Lack of disproof isn't proof.
quote: hmmm.... this could be interesting.... ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024