| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2009 10:03:32 PM · #3151 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I guess my 'round about' point was that, genetic or environment, the influence is irrelevant. |
Hey! I actually 100% agree. Unfortunately I see the "it's genetic" card played as a defensive shield too often. No moral framework worth its salt could possibly hold that some thing like that (it's genetic!) is wrong. At least that's the implication I see claimed quite often. I think that argument is fallacious and the fact of whether it is genetic or not is immaterial. |
I don't really see the fallacy of the argument. What's fallacious about proposing that something that is likely genetic cannot possibly be "wrong" as you say, or against some or other moral code? Assuming that the condition is genetic, how does it follow that its physical basis is immaterial? Saying so only allows you to also claim it to be morally wrong. There is otherwise some kind of disconnect. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:13:57 PM · #3152 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Science is almost taking on the argument of free will vs. predestination just like Christianity has. |
Genetics ain't free will or choice. If a baby's gene's confer red hair, green eyes, and a tall frame, rest assured the adult is predestined to have those characteristics. |
I'm just saying that many things that have been historically accepted as a free will choice, science is now trying to find a specific gene for. Even if there is no evidence to suggest such a gene exists, science assumes there is and they go to great lengths to find it. It's just like the search for dark matter, or dark energy. There is no evidence to suggest that dark matter exists, there's just a hole in scientific theory, so a new theory was developed so that the previous theory would still make sense.
Message edited by author 2009-12-18 22:16:12. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:26:31 PM · #3153 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Unfortunately I see the "it's genetic" card played as a defensive shield too often. No moral framework worth its salt could possibly hold that some thing like that (it's genetic!) is wrong. At least that's the implication I see claimed quite often. I think that argument is fallacious and the fact of whether it is genetic or not is immaterial. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Genetics. The same thing that determines your sex, hair color, blood type and every other physical and mental attribute. As such, it's not an issue of morality or choice at all, and makes as little sense to bar people from marrying on the basis of their sexual preference as it does for their skin color or left-handedness. |
You're alllllllmost there. A minority with a different skin color exercising the right to vote or southpaw using his left hand has absolutely nothing to do with a moral framework... it's the morality that's immaterial. You might as well say a tree is abhorrent or immoral for being twisted. Just about any unusual physical distinction you can think of has been claimed immoral, abhorrent or evil at some point... signs of the devil, witchcraft, demons, anti-god-du-jour, whatever... and it doesn't make any sense. I submit that such prejudice and hatred toward anyone different is the ultimate immorality, and the direct cause of more death and suffering than all the diseases and wars of history. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:29:01 PM · #3154 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by dahkota:
I guess my 'round about' point was that, genetic or environment, the influence is irrelevant. |
Hey! I actually 100% agree. Unfortunately I see the "it's genetic" card played as a defensive shield too often. No moral framework worth its salt could possibly hold that some thing like that (it's genetic!) is wrong. At least that's the implication I see claimed quite often. I think that argument is fallacious and the fact of whether it is genetic or not is immaterial. |
I don't really see the fallacy of the argument. What's fallacious about proposing that something that is likely genetic cannot possibly be "wrong" as you say, or against some or other moral code? Assuming that the condition is genetic, how does it follow that its physical basis is immaterial? Saying so only allows you to also claim it to be morally wrong. There is otherwise some kind of disconnect. |
The disconnect over how we would view homosexuality and pedophilia should make my point. Neither state is "chosen" and both likely have a genetic predisposition acted on by an environmental trigger. However, nobody I know would claim pedophilia should be ignored because of its genetic origin. By the same token, lots of people would claim the same for homosexuality. I think this indicates that the genetics of something is immaterial and the actual state itself is what is important when people make value judgements about it.
Would anybody seriously make the argument that since homosexuality and pedophilia might have similar developmental processess they should be lumped together as either both right or both wrong? I doubt it.
(and, please!, before someone takes the example all out of context, I am not trying to equate the two as moral equivalents.) |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:33:37 PM · #3155 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're alllllllmost there. A minority with a different skin color exercising the right to vote or southpaw using his left hand has absolutely nothing to do with a moral framework... it's the morality that's immaterial. You might as well say a tree is abhorrent or immoral for being twisted. Just about any unusual physical distinction you can think of has been claimed immoral, abhorrent or evil at some point... signs of the devil, witchcraft, demons, anti-god-du-jour, whatever... and it doesn't make any sense. I submit that such prejudice and hatred toward anyone different is the ultimate immorality, and the direct cause of more death and suffering than all the diseases and wars of history. |
hehehe. you summarized my deleted rant much more eloquently than I wrote it. Thank you. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:37:05 PM · #3156 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's remind ourselves that we can use the word "abnormal" to mean "not the norm". Homosexuality clearly falls in this scientific definition which does not have to imply a moral judgement. But perhaps we should be clear if we mean it one way or the other. |
Not if you accept Louis's premise that "some version of homosexual tendencies is exhibited in virtually the entirety of the population."
Then it would hardly be abnormal, would it?
I certainly don't consider it an abnormality.....it's different than heterosexuality.
Not wrong, not abnormal.....different.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:39:26 PM · #3157 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm just saying that many things that have been historically accepted as a free will choice, science is now trying to find a specific gene for. |
A Google search for "gene discovered" yields 11,500,00 hits. When people with Tourette syndrome or dwarfism historically show a strong tendency to have children with the same trait, that's a pretty good indicator that genetics is involved, even if the specific gene hasn't been found yet. It's a far cry from wild speculation.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There is no evidence to suggest that dark matter exists, there's just a hole in scientific theory, so a new theory was developed so that the previous theory would still make sense. |
There is no evidence to suggest that God exists, just a hole in human understanding of the universe, so new deities are developed to make sense of the world. Are you sure you want to go down this path? |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:45:02 PM · #3158 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Not if you accept Louis's premise that "some version of homosexual tendencies is exhibited in virtually the entirety of the population."
Then it would hardly be abnormal, would it?
I certainly don't consider it an abnormality.....it's different than heterosexuality.
Not wrong, not abnormal.....different. |
Yup... virtually the entire population can demonstrate dexterity with either hand to some extent too, but the vast majority prefer the right. That doesn't make left handedness abnormal or immoral either, just different. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:54:12 PM · #3159 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I submit that such prejudice and hatred toward anyone different is the ultimate immorality, and the direct cause of more death and suffering than all the diseases and wars of history. |
And that's only made worse when instead of just being honest about your feelings and fears and stating that you hate it, you hide behind a convenient interpretation from the Bible which justifies the hatred and discrimination.
That's the part that sticks in my craw so badly......who has any right to impose beliefs on another?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:55:24 PM · #3160 |
| I think my last post got lost up there... |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 10:59:45 PM · #3161 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
that's only made worse when instead of just being honest about your feelings and fears and stating that you hate it, you hide behind a convenient interpretation from the Bible which justifies the hatred and discrimination.
That's the part that sticks in my craw so badly......who has any right to impose beliefs on another? |
I agree again, and the typical response is to deny responsibility— "It's not me imposing beliefs, it's GOD'S will!" The circular nature of that statement is completely lost on those who utter it. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:00:23 PM · #3162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The disconnect over how we would view homosexuality and pedophilia should make my point. |
Please stop conflating these two -- the "problem" with pedophilia is that it involves minors, who are currently judged incapable of possessing the ability/rights to willingly consent to engage in certain activities.
Homosexual activiies between consenting adults ahas been judged -- even by the current "conservative" Supreme Court -- to be legal. By continually referring to these two activities as at all similar is the ultimate in prejudicial rhetoric. It is not illegal to be attracted to children, only to acton those desires. It is not illegal to be attracted to persons of the same gender, nor is it illegal (except in the US military) to act on those desires with the consent of the partner. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:01:22 PM · #3163 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Science is almost taking on the argument of free will vs. predestination just like Christianity has. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Genetics ain't free will or choice. If a baby's gene's confer red hair, green eyes, and a tall frame, rest assured the adult is predestined to have those characteristics. |
There's also that little detail where science is constantly progressing and changing as we learn new truths, yet Christianity still insists on clinging dogmatically to things we know not to be true.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:11:39 PM · #3164 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Would anybody seriously make the argument that since homosexuality and pedophilia might have similar developmental processess they should be lumped together as either both right or both wrong? (and, please!, before someone takes the example all out of context, I am not trying to equate the two as moral equivalents.) |
Of course not. As you [correctly] suggested, they are not moral equivalents. One is a consensual act of love between two consenting adults, while the other is an act of predation against a minor below the age of consent. Society has a right to intervene in the latter case, just as it does with murderers, rapists and psychotics, to protect the victim(s). The analogy is not applicable to homosexuality for the same reason we no longer consider it a crime for two people of different skin colors to be married if they so choose. However, while you claim not to be equating the two as moral equivalents, making such a comparison at all is doing just that. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:14:22 PM · #3165 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The disconnect over how we would view homosexuality and pedophilia should make my point. |
Please stop conflating these two -- the "problem" with pedophilia is that it involves minors, who are currently judged incapable of possessing the ability/rights to willingly consent to engage in certain activities.
Homosexual activiies between consenting adults ahas been judged -- even by the current "conservative" Supreme Court -- to be legal. By continually referring to these two activities as at all similar is the ultimate in prejudicial rhetoric. It is not illegal to be attracted to children, only to acton those desires. It is not illegal to be attracted to persons of the same gender, nor is it illegal (except in the US military) to act on those desires with the consent of the partner. |
Your post makes my point exactly. In your above defense (and it's not a bad one), you weigh each state on its merits (within your framework or perhaps the US legal framework) and never refer to the possible genetic origins of either. This is the argument that should be had. If we do not allow the pedophile to argue "I am the way I am so you must accept me" then it is likewise a poor argument for homosexuality. The argument must be made on other grounds. That's all I'm saying. I'm just tired of the idea that the "it's genetic" card trumps all other arguments. It's not true and we can see that obviously play out in pedophilia. Pedophilia is wrong for the exact reasons you list above and the pedophile cannot claim innocence because he is genetically predisposed.
EDIT to add Shannon made the exact point Paul did. So we are all in agreement.
Message edited by author 2009-12-18 23:15:07. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:34:24 PM · #3166 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we do not allow the pedophile to argue "I am the way I am so you must accept me" then it is likewise a poor argument for homosexuality. |
Oh, but we DO! Having a genetic predisposition toward pedophilia or murder or anything else is not illegal, nor does morality have anything to do with it. Laws and morality only come into play to protect a victim. We can accept the person, but not a crime against another. If this were not true, every convicted murderer or pedophile would automatically get an irrevocable life sentence, and people would be tested for genetic predispositions so they could be locked up.
In the case of gay marriage, there is no victim or even potential for one. Opponents are literally trying to prevent two people from loving each other, so if morality applies at all they're on the wrong side of it.
Message edited by author 2009-12-18 23:35:50. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:40:11 PM · #3167 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
If this were not true, every convicted murderer or pedophile would automatically get an irrevocable life sentence, and people would be tested for genetic predispositions so they could be locked up.
|
Sounds like Minority Report with Tom Cruise. |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:46:39 PM · #3168 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we do not allow the pedophile to argue "I am the way I am so you must accept me" then it is likewise a poor argument for homosexuality. The argument must be made on other grounds. That's all I'm saying. I'm just tired of the idea that the "it's genetic" card trumps all other arguments. It's not true and we can see that obviously play out in pedophilia. Pedophilia is wrong for the exact reasons you list above and the pedophile cannot claim innocence because he is genetically predisposed.
EDIT to add Shannon made the exact point Paul did. So we are all in agreement. |
You know the romans probably got tired too after hoisting so many men up on crucifixes... I like you Jason but man do you come across poorly at times and I know that's not your intent.
Requiring that homosexuals must make their arguments on other grounds is ridiculous. They shouldn't have to make any. You certainly don't yet you're tired? |
|
|
|
12/18/2009 11:52:50 PM · #3169 |
| One could argue that there is just as much evidence to suggest God exists as there is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is genetic. Believing God exists requires faith in the Bible. Believing that a gay gene exists requires having faith in science. There's evidence that suggests the possibility of a gay gene, but no evidence that proves it. Likewise, there's evidence that suggests the possibility that the Bible is correct and that God exists, but no evidence that proves it. It all depends on where you put your faith. |
|
|
|
12/19/2009 12:16:30 AM · #3170 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There's evidence that suggests the possibility of a gay gene, but no evidence that proves it. |
Yep, specific, tangible evidence. We've been down the "science = faith" debate before. Valid experiments that yield specific, repeatable results are the opposite of faith.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Likewise, there's evidence that suggests the possibility that the Bible is correct and that God exists, but no evidence that proves it. |
Actually, there's neither. Not one shred of actual evidence supports the existence of God... at least nothing that wouldn't equally apply to thousands of other gods, and none of those are verifiable or falsifiable. Faith rests upon individual belief alone. |
|
|
|
12/19/2009 12:27:14 AM · #3171 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There's evidence that suggests the possibility of a gay gene, but no evidence that proves it. |
Yep, specific, tangible evidence. We've been down the "science = faith" debate before. Valid experiments that yield specific, repeatable results are the opposite of faith.
I'm not suggesting that science = faith. I'm suggesting that believing scientific results requires faith. I mean... sitting down on a chair even requires faith.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Likewise, there's evidence that suggests the possibility that the Bible is correct and that God exists, but no evidence that proves it. |
Actually, there's neither. Not one shred of actual evidence supports the existence of God... at least nothing that wouldn't equally apply to thousands of other gods, and none of those are verifiable or falsifiable. Faith rests upon individual belief alone. |
Well, technically there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. But there is actually plenty of physical and scientific evidence that supports the Bible.
Faith isn't supposed to rest on science or what can be proven by it. Faith is believing is something that isn't fully known. God wants us to have faith, which is why he hasn't given us all the answers.
Message edited by author 2009-12-19 01:04:43. |
|
|
|
12/19/2009 07:10:32 AM · #3172 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Likewise, there's evidence that suggests the possibility that the Bible is correct and that God exists, but no evidence that proves it. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Actually, there's neither. Not one shred of actual evidence supports the existence of God... at least nothing that wouldn't equally apply to thousands of other gods, and none of those are verifiable or falsifiable. Faith rests upon individual belief alone. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, technically there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. But there is actually plenty of physical and scientific evidence that supports the Bible. |
Umm....
This would be exactly what I was referring to when I said that you'd twist to accommodate the answer when you've been caught out.
And of course there is evidence that supports some of what's in the Bible.......just like there is evidence that refutes some of what's in the Bible, as you well know.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2009 10:29:25 AM · #3173 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, technically there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. But there is actually plenty of physical and scientific evidence that supports the Bible. |
This is incredibly misleading a statement. There may be some evidence that the bible records some events that actually happened. However, the evidence does not relate to any matter of religious significance.
Like the best lies, the fantastical story is lain and interwoven with a backdrop of real history. That might be persuasive for the credulous, but as an argument for anything more meaningful it is non-existent on any deeper analysis.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2009 12:16:04 PM · #3174 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Likewise, there's evidence that suggests the possibility that the Bible is correct and that God exists, but no evidence that proves it. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Actually, there's neither. Not one shred of actual evidence supports the existence of God... at least nothing that wouldn't equally apply to thousands of other gods, and none of those are verifiable or falsifiable. Faith rests upon individual belief alone. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, technically there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. But there is actually plenty of physical and scientific evidence that supports the Bible. |
Umm....
This would be exactly what I was referring to when I said that you'd twist to accommodate the answer when you've been caught out.
And of course there is evidence that supports some of what's in the Bible.......just like there is evidence that refutes some of what's in the Bible, as you well know. |
I didn't do that (what you call twisting) on purpose. I just realized that my first statement needed some clarification, so I clarified it. Is that okay? Perhaps there is some evidence that refutes what's in the Bible, but obviously I personally believe that evidence is flawed, otherwise I wouldn't be able to keep my faith. There is plenty of evidence that refutes scientific theories such as macro-evolution, big-bang, etc. as well. Like I said before, you either put your faith in incomplete scientific theory or in some sort of religion that is perceived as being incomplete because science hasn't proven it. If you think that science is the ultimate truth and that everything in the universe can be explained through science, then you're putting your faith in man and assuming that the human mind is the highest and most advanced intelligence that exists. That's faith too.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Well, technically there is no evidence that supports the existence of God. But there is actually plenty of physical and scientific evidence that supports the Bible. |
This is incredibly misleading a statement. There may be some evidence that the bible records some events that actually happened. However, the evidence does not relate to any matter of religious significance.
Like the best lies, the fantastical story is lain and interwoven with a backdrop of real history. That might be persuasive for the credulous, but as an argument for anything more meaningful it is non-existent on any deeper analysis. |
One could argue that history is the story and the Bible is the backdrop. The Bible told us that the earth was round and suspended in empty space at a time when humanity believed it was flat and standing on a pedestal. Thousands of years later, humanity realized the earth was really round and suspended in space. So what's the fantastical story and what is the fact?
When I look at the facts of the Bible, I can't imagine not believing it. You have 40+ authors writing 66 books over the course of thousands of years. Somehow, these authors who never knew each other, and lived hundreds of years apart, managed to write all these books with the same overall theme. And, somehow, everything that the authors predicted in 1500 B.C. took place 1500 years later. One hundred percent of the predictions from the Old testament authors and prophets took place, with historical and scientific evidence that they did. Many people don't believe that, but the Bible predicted that many people wouldn't believe it. If everyone believed the Bible, then that prediction would be incorrect and the Bible would not maintain its 100% accuracy. So, I suppose that some of you guys are just helping maintain the Bible's accuracy.
Message edited by author 2009-12-19 12:53:07. |
|
|
|
12/19/2009 12:47:26 PM · #3175 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we do not allow the pedophile to argue "I am the way I am so you must accept me" then it is likewise a poor argument for homosexuality. The argument must be made on other grounds. That's all I'm saying. I'm just tired of the idea that the "it's genetic" card trumps all other arguments. It's not true and we can see that obviously play out in pedophilia. Pedophilia is wrong for the exact reasons you list above and the pedophile cannot claim innocence because he is genetically predisposed.
EDIT to add Shannon made the exact point Paul did. So we are all in agreement. |
You know the romans probably got tired too after hoisting so many men up on crucifixes... I like you Jason but man do you come across poorly at times and I know that's not your intent.
Requiring that homosexuals must make their arguments on other grounds is ridiculous. They shouldn't have to make any. You certainly don't yet you're tired? |
I think if we were having this conversation face to face it would come across quite different. Rant, unfortunately, seems to make people assume the worst intentions in the other people conversing. I was only making comment about a specific argument that is presented. It doesn't mean no other valid arguments exist for or against.
EDIT to add:
I think I just get in trouble for thinking out loud too much. I was mainly describing a conversation I had with myself during one of my drives to a photoshoot. Two hours in a car alone at 5:00AM gives one time to think.
The conversation starts out like this. "Hmmm, that IS an interesting argument. My faith holds that homosexuality is wrong. BUT I believe that being gay is partly or even completely determined by genetic or outside forces. Is it OK to hold someone accountable for something they don't have control over?" I think for a while longer. "But wait. I don't think anybody chooses to be a pedophile which indicates that it also is partly or even completely determined by genetic or outside forces. I think pedophilia is wrong and in fact I think almost everybody thinks the same thing." I'm forced then to conclude that we, as people, do hold people accountable for their actions despite their predispositions. At that point I have answered for myself the question, "Is it OK to hold someone accountable for something they don't have control over?" The argument then shifts to other grounds.
I honestly don't know how having an honest conversation like that causes me to come across in a bad light unless you just assume bad things about me. Perhaps it's even surprising that I think about things like this instead of just sticking my fingers in my ears saying, "The Bible says it's bad! The Bible says it's bad! The Bible says it's bad!"
So I ask that you cut me some slack. Assume that the person you talk to outside Rant is the same person posting inside it.
Message edited by author 2009-12-19 13:25:01. |
|
