Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immorality of Homosexuality
LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 61 of 218 (411015)
07-18-2007 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
07-18-2007 1:49 PM


offatopica?
I hope we are not getting off topic with whether gays or staights make up the majority of pedophiles.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 1:49 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 218 (411023)
07-18-2007 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by LudoRephaim
07-18-2007 2:03 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
But we can't assume that in the context of a claim that homosexuality leads to paedophilia. In that context a very large percentage of homosexuals should be paedophiles, and that could quite possibly increase their representation amongst paedophiles to a majority or at least a very large minority. If the majority of paedophiles are straight the claim is called into question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 2:03 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 4:02 PM PaulK has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 63 of 218 (411025)
07-18-2007 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LudoRephaim
07-18-2007 1:09 PM


You are missing the "fundy-mental" point
re: Why is idol worship immoral, etc...
Yes, you are right that idol worship or saying God's name in vain etc, results in a very similiar discussion. However, that's complete beside the point.
The fundies are running presidential campaigns on the issue of Gay Marriage, not on the issue of Idol worship. States are not flocking in droves to pass amendments to their constitutions to prevent idol worship.
The point is, since there is absolutely no foundation for this extreme bias against a particular group of American citizens, why is this such an active issue.
It comes down to fundamentalists being bigots and holding up the Bible to try and justify their bigotry.
And, so far, no one has even come close to being able to excuse this.
Your suggestions basically boil down to: "We should also be bigoted again idol worshipers." That's not an answer, that's just more ignorance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 1:09 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 4:48 PM Nuggin has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 218 (411035)
07-18-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jazzns
07-17-2007 5:10 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
Just to start off, I am not talking about the reasoning in calling someone a bigot. I don't happen to care all that much and I hope this conversation does not descend into that.
Well, its an integral part of the argument. The larger part of this argument is about moral relativism, and how making morally relative pronouncements about homosexuality subjects it to opinion.
Therefore, if Berberry or whoever says that I'm a bigot, what moral pretenses are they operating under?
quote:
So, "consent" is your arbitrary escape clause to assign whatever moral you want.
Okay. Lets examine this for a moment. Why do you consider it arbitrary?
Because its a convenient scapegoat to assign whatever motive you want to the equation in order to justify the action.
I explained in my previous post that consent is a valid external condition because it is a common condition to all other aspects of our functional life. A society without the concept of consent would fail and the evidence indicates that societies where these have had less ability to consent HAVE failed.
Which is bewildering to me because you and many others on this forum speak about consent as if it is morally righteous in absolute terms. And I gave you several instances where two consenting adults copulating is viewed negatively in a moralistic way.
You are basically saying that to negate someone's right to their freewill, i.e. their freedom to consent willingly without the fear of reprisal, is morally wrong. And of course I agree. But you are using it in absolute terms.
The upshot is, consent is absolutly not arbitrary. It is specifically chosen for its power and effectivness as a concept in a stable society.
I say its arbitrary, not in that it was a haphazardly chosen virtue, but that its just a convenient excuse to get around absolution.
Relative MEANS that it is in relation to something else. In this circumstance, the relative moral is in relation to the concept of consent.
Relative morality means that the moral is subjective to some extenuating circumstance that may affect how we deal with the moral in question.
For instance: Is there such is thing as right and wrong?
As an absolutist, I say, yes. But you, as a relativist, must say only insofar as it subjectively serves some sort of pragmatic purpose-- but in the final analysis, no, there is no actual right or wrong.
Why must you say that? Because if there is something as right and wrong, something of more authority must have instituted the policy. That goes against everything in your post-modernist worldview.
I just wanted to make a quick comment on your examples you raised regarding underage consent, incest, etc. What you are raising there are situations regarding law. Elements in law may or may not reflect what is moral.
Don't they most often do that? Think about it. "This is illegal because its wrong."
That's coming from a moral perspective. Don't take people's mail because its stealing, and stealing is wrong. Don't set fire to that man's house because its wrong. Don't speed because you raise the reasonable expectation of carelessly getting in to an accident. Getting in to an accident can hurt somebody. Hurting someone because of your carelessness is wrong.
The list goes on.
If laws truly didn't come from a moral framework, we should expect them to be arbitrary.
Morally, I don't have a problem with a 15 year old consenting to sex with whomever they want under the condition that they seem mature enough to make that decision. The law cannot tolerate living in such a gray area as that.
The law has to be written in absolute terms, not relative terms, because it would affect the fairness of it. We all know that some 15 year olds are more mature than others. But without that critical line of demarcation, we would be making moral decisions based on our biases.
In short, lets try to avoid conflating law and morals. It may be illegal for a brother and sister to marry. The question related to this topic is how it would stand in a moral framework in comparison to other relationships such as homosexuality.
I don't want to conflate the issue. I simply feel that showing this to you serves to better explain the argument.
But, fine, lets bring the argument back in to context.
Is it morally wrong for me to think that homosexuality is morally wrong? If yes, why? If not, why?

"The problem of Christianity is not that it has been tried and found wanting, but that it is difficult and left untried" -G.K. Chesterton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 07-17-2007 5:10 PM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Jazzns, posted 07-18-2007 4:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 78 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2007 4:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 80 by Nuggin, posted 07-19-2007 12:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 65 of 218 (411043)
07-18-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
07-18-2007 2:51 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
Im not sure I understand you; are you debating against the proposed idea that Homosexuality leads to pedophilia? I myself dont believe that it does, anymore than those whose sexual preferences lean towards fat people or pregnant women. I dont approve of Homosexuality, but we would be arguing from differet worlds on that issue.
in the argument it'self, if it where proven beyond reproof that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, the yes they should make up a big chunk of pedophiles. If the vast majority are straight, then the idea that Homosexuality leads to pedophilia is indeed brought into question. But if the latter where true, it wouldn't prove that heterosexuality leads to pedophilia, only that since straights make up the vast majority of men, and since homosexuality does not lead to pedophilia, that straights would therefore make up the majority of pedophiles, along with murderers, adulterers, embezzilers, rapists, tearers of pillow tags, etc.
Has anyone here brought forth statistics as to who makes up the vast majority of pedophiles, or links about whether homosesuality leads to pedophilia or not?

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 2:51 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 4:58 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 66 of 218 (411044)
07-18-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Hyroglyphx
07-18-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Calling Out Nemesis Juggernaut
I think we may be getting somewhere for once. Lets start with this which is what I think is the crux of our differences.
I say its arbitrary, not in that it was a haphazardly chosen virtue, but that its just a convenient excuse to get around absolution.
I suppose my challange to you then would be to clarify this because it seems contradictory.
How can something both be arbitray and yet also "not haphazardly chosen"?
To me, when you have a REASON for something, that negates it as arbitrary.
I also listed a number of factors for why choosing consent as an external condition is non-arbitrary. In fact, I have reworded my reasoning for them twice now. You have yet to address them even once.
How is it that examining our world and noticing that consent is a valid frameword to build rules for a stable society an arbitrary decision? That is what I feel you have yet to coherently support.
Relative morality means that the moral is subjective to some extenuating circumstance that may affect how we deal with the moral in question.
I guess I disagree on your definition of "relative morality" which is where we might be having a misunderstanding. The biggest issue I have is with your use of the word "subjective".
I don't consider relative morality to be subjective. Relative morality is simply means that a particular morality cannot be determined until you know all the circumstances of the situation.
Where I think we are missing is that when I use relative I mean it in the sense of "The theory of realtivity". Really and actually using the root 'relative' as 'in relation to' something.
You are using relative to mean, again the best word I can think of is, arbitrary. That is just simply not how I define it and, it is my understanding from other people's posts, that they do not define it that way either.
Looking at the definition of relative, I cannot see any way you can equate it with subjectivity. Maybe that is why these conversations you have had with myself, among others, have never been very productive.
I'll speak only for myself but I am confident that others would agree, relative morality is not the same as subjective morality.
The differences that people are talking about are along the lines of:
Absolute morality says X is always wrong.
Relative morality says X is wrong unless ...
where ... is not always known completely.

I also think you are trying to argue from the perspective that I think there is no such thing as an absolute morality. That is not true. There may be an absolute from which all the rest of our relative morality stemms. The concept of consent may be a piece of that absolute morality.
I have tried to consistently say in previous debates that I am not arguing against an abolute morality. I am arguing against the claim that we currently KNOW what it is!
If there is such a thing as an absolute morality, humanity has not found it. At the very least, it is ill-defined.

Some housekeeping that I hope we can resolve quickly:
Therefore, if Berberry or whoever says that I'm a bigot, what moral pretenses are they operating under?
It is too hard to tell I think. Until things are better defined who is to say that it is not moral to be a bigot?
I have read a number of these debate where it turns into a spiral about people who are bigots of bigots. It just seems uninteresting to me.
If homosexuality is moral and yet you speak out against it does that make you a bigot? I don't know. I also don't care. Right now at least. {ABE} What I would care about is if homosexuality is moral and you were restricting the rights of homosexuals. That would make you a bigot. It might even make you a bigot even if homosexuality was wrong. I don't think people much care about the preferences of other people except when those preferences manifest themselves in ways that hurt other people.{ABE}
You are right thought that if you can never come to the conclusion about the morality of homosexuality that you cannot make the determination of being a bigot.
Is it morally wrong for me to think that homosexuality is morally
wrong? If yes, why? If not, why?
I don't think that is as interesting a question than if homosexuality is morally wrong or if homosexuality is morally different than other things that you have claimed. It may be true when the day is done that it IS wrong yet STILL is less wrong than beastiality.
The problem remember is with your comparisons. People are claiming that they are invalid. That is the issue.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-18-2007 3:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 218 (411048)
07-18-2007 4:36 PM


Applicable thread
Be advised one and all:
An even more applicable thread has just opened up, courtesy of Modulous.

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Jazzns, posted 07-18-2007 5:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 68 of 218 (411049)
07-18-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Nuggin
07-18-2007 2:54 PM


Beating a Shire horse
The fundies are running presidential campaigns on the issue of Gay Marraige. Sates are not flocking in droves to pass ammendments to teir constitutions to prevent Idol worship.
No, but if you want to force Churches to worship idols (as opposed to forcing Churches to marry gay couples), put idol worship on numerous movies and TV shows showing it in a good light (and those against it as evil madmen bent on Idol worshiper's downfalls and deaths), have numerous parades about "idol worship pride" and show them on the news, promote it as okay on talk shows, want to criminalize preachers who speak out against it (as some leftos would want for pastors who preach out against homosexuality)and keep it a hot issue on the media and...well...forums like this, all together I might see why numerous people would flock to the gates of elections and be seen as bigots against idol worshippers by the left.
The point is, since there is absolutely no foundation for this extreme bias against a prticular group of American citizens, why is this suc an active issue?
Because the foundation for it is real, but religious. Christianity isn't the only religion that goes against homosexuality; Muslims and some groups within Judaism do too. They dont want their children to be taught by their school teacher that it is okay to be gay or bisexual and therefore give into urges in that area of sexuality. They dont want that kind of "tolerance" forced down their throats, nor their children's throats. They dont want gay parades in their towns and gay marraiges in their Churches and synagogues and mosques. They are not going to have it, and you and all the other lefts, gays and atheists and politicians are not going to force it on them.
It comes down to Fundamentalists being bigots and holding up the Bible to try to justify their bigotry.
...as opposed to Atheists condemning all who are religious as ignoramuses and holding up pink invisible unicorns to show the strength of their logical analysis? Bigotry works both ways.
Of course I already tried to show that this debate was over before it started. Even if one shows evidence based on scientific analysis that Homosexuality is damaging to the individual person or another shows evidence supported by science to show the opposite, they wont be believed anyway. You're beating a dead horse.
BTW: I posted some stuff on the Bigfoot thread. Maybe you should have a look at them...

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Nuggin, posted 07-18-2007 2:54 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Nuggin, posted 07-18-2007 8:25 PM LudoRephaim has replied
 Message 77 by jar, posted 07-19-2007 12:03 AM LudoRephaim has not replied
 Message 85 by nator, posted 07-19-2007 7:33 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 218 (411053)
07-18-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by LudoRephaim
07-18-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
quote:
Im not sure I understand you; are you debating against the proposed idea that Homosexuality leads to pedophilia? I
Not really, although I do reject the idea. Rather I am discussing the signficiance of the majority of paedophiles being heterosexual in the context of that argument. A point you seemed to ready to dismiss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 4:02 PM LudoRephaim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 5:10 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 74 by kongstad, posted 07-18-2007 5:34 PM PaulK has not replied

LudoRephaim
Member (Idle past 5084 days)
Posts: 651
From: Jareth's labyrinth
Joined: 03-12-2006


Message 70 of 218 (411055)
07-18-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
07-18-2007 4:58 PM


gays vs Pedophiles; film at 11
well, i understand fully now, but why go on over an argument that is false? Even if Homosexuality leads to pedophilia yet the majority of pedophiles are straight, what does that prove? where are you going with this? Are you saying that heterosexuality leads to pedophilia far more than homosexulity leads to it? It would seem that the way you argue against that theory, that it simply just disproves the idea that Homosexuality leads to pedophilia and nothing more.
In order to prove that on average you would have a far greater chance of being or becoming a pedophile if you are gay or are straight or that the majority of pedophiles are straight or gay, you need more than just argument. You need facts. It's not like the OP; evidence would be evidence, as opposed to whether homosexuality is and of it'self wrong morally, in which evidence might be worthless given the skepticism both sides would have. One's psycology, the other is religion and morality.
Edited by LudoRephaim, : No reason given.

"The Nephilim where in the Earth in those days..." Genesis 6:4

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 4:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 5:18 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 71 of 218 (411058)
07-18-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by LudoRephaim
07-18-2007 1:17 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
Ludo writes:
I doubt that gay men make up the majority of the male population in the United states or the world for that matter, or even half or near as such.
Of course not. I wasn't saying they are the majority. I was questioning your "far outnumbering" claim.
and even up to 30%, that still leads up to 70% of men being straight. that's a big difference in numbers.
I said of the total population, I didn't say only the population of men.
then bisexuals and asexuals (people who have no sexual drive at all) have to be considered, and are no doubt far, far fewer than gay or straight men.
Again, you are making unfounded assumptions based on your preconceived notion of lalaland. There is no way anyone can know just how many bisexual and asexual people there are. It's not like the department of statistics have asked every single person in the country and came up with a number or two. You are basing your assumption on the fact that people are not lining up in front of you to tell you they're bi or gay or asexual. You therefore conclude that there really aren't that many around.
which still leads up to the conclusion that straight men make up the mahjority of the criminal male population because they are in the vast majority period.
That's not what you said before. You said before that the straight men "far outnumber" the gay men. While common sense would tell me that the gay population certainly doesn't make up the majority, there is no way for me to know just how many there are. I don't know and you don't either.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 1:17 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 07-19-2007 12:50 PM Taz has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 72 of 218 (411059)
07-18-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by LudoRephaim
07-18-2007 5:10 PM


Re: gays vs Pedophiles; film at 11
I didn't say that it proved anything. My points are:
1) You cannot say that the number of heterosexual paedophiles will automatically be higher than that of homosexual paedophile.
2) If it is true that the majority of paedophiles are heterosexual it is some evidence against the idea that homosexuality automatically leads to paedophilia as was claimed. Note that it depends on the incidence of paedophilia in heterosexuals and so it is far from proving anything but it is a relevant datum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-18-2007 5:10 PM LudoRephaim has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 73 of 218 (411060)
07-18-2007 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
07-18-2007 4:36 PM


Re: Applicable thread
If you feel our discussion is more relevant in that thread I do not mind if you reply to me there.
Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-18-2007 4:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 74 of 218 (411063)
07-18-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by PaulK
07-18-2007 4:58 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
This article discusses the myth that homosexuals are overrepresented in childmolesters.
As an example, extremely few molesters selfidentify as homosexuals. They may molest children of their own sex, but if they have adult relationsships almost every one of them are in heterosexual relationsships. In fact in a controversial test (selfidentified) homosexual males tested for less attraction to prepubescent boys than (selfidentified) heterosexuals. The homosexuals cited the feminine qualities of boys as turn offs.
None of this proves that straight men are more prone to abuse children than gay men. But it indicates at least that there is no reason to believe that a man molesting a child is "homosexual" in any way related to gay marriage, or indeed to self identified homosexuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by PaulK, posted 07-18-2007 4:58 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taz, posted 07-18-2007 7:04 PM kongstad has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 75 of 218 (411079)
07-18-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by kongstad
07-18-2007 5:34 PM


Re: Homosexuality vs Drugs
kong writes:
This article discusses the myth that homosexuals are overrepresented in childmolesters.
I just read the entire article. I don't know if people like Ludo has the patience to read such a long article.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by kongstad, posted 07-18-2007 5:34 PM kongstad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by LudoRephaim, posted 07-19-2007 11:14 AM Taz 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