| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2010 11:13:07 PM · #4026 |
[quote=johnnyphoto
I assure you Jeb, I am not in any way actively participating in trying to deny anyone (in this case homosexuals) equal rights. However, I cannot in good conscience actively support gay rights. Issues like these are not all black and white, as Louis and K10DGuy have stated. Just because I don't actively support gay rights, doesn't mean that I actively oppose them. And it most definitely does not mean that I would ever deliberately cause physical harm to a gay person. [/quote]
...and I am certain that history is replete of examples where the oppressed were filled with glee over the fact that large segments of society sat by idly watching and did nothing to counter existing discrimination.
I seem to recall an adage that says: "If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem".
Ray |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 11:18:29 PM · #4027 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that [God considers] gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control. |
That would be like Walt Disney calling Donald Duck an abomination for not wearing pants.
Message edited by author 2010-01-19 23:19:28. |
|
|
|
01/19/2010 11:56:27 PM · #4028 |
| Didn't we spend lots of posts agreeing that society does not give a "free pass" to many "out of our control" activities? |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 12:09:45 AM · #4029 |
You agreed with yourself. The rest of us thought your poor analogy was absurd.
That said, you're moving the goalposts. The whole religious argument against homosexuality is that it's a sinĂ¢€” a free will decision against God's will. If it's NOT a choice, then the faithful would have to accept that they're vilifying God's willful creation. In the unlikely event that it IS a defiant act of free will, the the faithful face another problem: explaining why many/most mammals also exhibit homosexuality when the the same religion only ascribes free will to humans.
Message edited by author 2010-01-20 00:23:33. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 12:21:21 AM · #4030 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You agreed with yourself. The rest of us thought your poor analogy was absurd. |
Jeb did. At 12/30/2009 08:08:32 PM. Don't worry Shannon, I don't expect you to agree with anything. You are the DPC version of my daughter when she is in one of her moods. Down is up! Black is white! Right is wrong! :P |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 12:26:15 AM · #4031 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
You agreed with yourself. The rest of us thought your poor analogy was absurd. |
Jeb did. At 12/30/2009 08:08:32 PM. Don't worry Shannon, I don't expect you to agree with anything. You are the DPC version of my daughter when she is in one of her mood |
At 12/30/2009 08:08:32 PM, Jeb thoroughly ridiculed your analogy. My condolences to your daughter. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 01:00:44 AM · #4032 |
This is why this thread is so bloody long.
Can I ask for one honest reply to my argument? I will keep it totally academic and abstract and you can tell my how you disagree (without sarcasm).
Some people make the argument "You should not make a moral judgement of X, because the person doing so does not have control over being that way. It's a genetic predisposition." Ray made this exact argument when he said, "If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control." (The obvious implication being Johnny should not do so, unless Ray was going somewhere completely different.)
My argument, is one can prove the statement above false by giving an example where we, as society, do, indeed, make a moral judgement on a genetically predisposed condition. In other words, for the argument to be valid it must be true for all genetic predispositions. If it isn't then we, in fact, are utilizing some other standard which instructs us on which genetic predispositions we should not make judgements on and which we should (and in which case Ray should use THAT argument to counter Johnny and not this one).
So, please, (I'm begging), tell me straight up why you do not buy into this line of thinking? |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 01:11:08 AM · #4033 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhaps you could help this old fella understand the Christian perspective. If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control. |
I will do my best to help you understand. I would respond like this...
We are all sinners for reasons we can't control, but also for reasons we can control. Sin is basically anything that displeases God. We are all sinners from birth because we are born into a state of spiritual deadness to God, and God isn't pleased with the fact that we are spiritually separated from him. That is beyond our control. However, everyone consciously chooses to do things their way instead of God's way sometimes. Therefore, sin is both a state (beyond control) and an action (within control). So, to answer your question, yes. Gays, straights, and everyone else are sinners for reasons beyond control(remember actions are abominations, not people).
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Similarly, if God is angered by what Gays do, do you not find it problematic that this God supposedly loves everyone.
|
No, it's not problematic. God loves sinners (people) and hates sin (action). Sinners are who we are, and sin is what we do. If you love your wife and hate alcoholism, would you automatically stop loving your wife if she became an alcoholic?
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I seem to recall an adage that says: "If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem". |
So if my car breaks down and I choose to leave it in the garage instead of fixing it, that somehow makes me responsible for it's breakdown? Silly old saying... |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 06:26:20 AM · #4034 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhaps you could help this old fella understand the Christian perspective. If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I will do my best to help you understand. I would respond like this...
We are all sinners for reasons we can't control, but also for reasons we can control. Sin is basically anything that displeases God. We are all sinners from birth because we are born into a state of spiritual deadness to God, and God isn't pleased with the fact that we are spiritually separated from him. That is beyond our control. However, everyone consciously chooses to do things their way instead of God's way sometimes. Therefore, sin is both a state (beyond control) and an action (within control). So, to answer your question, yes. Gays, straights, and everyone else are sinners for reasons beyond control(remember actions are abominations, not people). |
Except for two things......one, you didn't answer Ray's question.
If homosexuality is not a choice, then how is it an abomination?
Secondly, you seem to be lost about the fact that you cannot project your beliefs on another when it comes to deciding whether or not someone is to be deprived of their rights.
Not to mention that I don't give a rat's ass what your beliefs are, don't attach your version of sinner tome. I don't live by your standards, so save your judgement as to who's a sinner to your own kind.
I refuse to be branded for what someone supposedly did a couple of thousand years ago, which of course, you cannot prove in the first place.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Similarly, if God is angered by what Gays do, do you not find it problematic that this God supposedly loves everyone.
|
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
No, it's not problematic. God loves sinners (people) and hates sin (action). Sinners are who we are, and sin is what we do. If you love your wife and hate alcoholism, would you automatically stop loving your wife if she became an alcoholic? |
Oh, another stellar choice! I guess you're unaware that alcoholism is a disease with a genetic predisposition?
Yes, it's something that can be dealt with, but saying that it's predominantly a behavioral thing sort of flies in the face of the medical community.
An alcoholic has no control over the effects of alcohol on his/her system, and the accompnaying aberrations that go with it.
Again, it seem like you really don't know much about people.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I seem to recall an adage that says: "If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem". |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
So if my car breaks down and I choose to leave it in the garage instead of fixing it, that somehow makes me responsible for it's breakdown? Silly old saying... |
If you choose to be deliberately obtuse, then you won't be taken seriously. You know exactly what Ray is referring to with his remarks. So long as you condone the discrimination, by your beliefs or otherwise, then you are tacitly supporting the more radical steps taken by fundamentalists. You may not like it, but that's pretty much the way it is.
It seems to take us all too long to accept what to many of us seem to be issues of basic human rights, yet otherwise seemingly reasonable people come up with these concepts that just make no sense to deny them in others. And when their beliefs shift over into others' lives, then it's a direct violation of their rights.
What I cannot understand is why those of you who have these beliefs insist that despite all evidence to the contrary that it somehow affects your lives.
No one yet has remotely been able to address that. And as long as this country is based on the precepts of freedom of, and from, religion, you are encroaching on other citizens.
And that, is wrong.
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 06:27:52 AM · #4035 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Didn't we spend lots of posts agreeing that society does not give a "free pass" to many "out of our control" activities? |
Yes.
What's your point?
Didn't we also agree that someone's religious beliefs in this country don't give them the right to dictate how another lives based on those beliefs?
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 06:36:07 AM · #4036 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My argument, is one can prove the statement above false by giving an example where we, as society, do, indeed, make a moral judgement on a genetically predisposed condition. In other words, for the argument to be valid it must be true for all genetic predispositions. If it isn't then we, in fact, are utilizing some other standard which instructs us on which genetic predispositions we should not make judgements on and which we should (and in which case Ray should use THAT argument to counter Johnny and not this one). |
But we do make judgements on dealing with genetic predispositions on a case by case basis.
Using one of Johnny's examples, alcoholism. There was a time when that was a sweep-it-under-the-rug and don't talk about it klind of thing. Now most major companies will actually subsidize treatment programs for their employees and give them the necessary time to dry out and get a handle on it, so long as the person then changes their behaviors to accomodate their alcoholism. But that's a destructive predisposition on many levels, so if the issue becomes chronic, and the person refuses to work at it, then it's considered to be the choice to make bad judgements, and all bets are off.
But it's certainly not considered to be immoral, and help is available. But this isn't the case with being gayu. It's not destructive, it doesn't affect your friends and co-workers, it doesn't alter productivity, and there are no adverse effects. So, like being left-handed, how is this an issue?
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 06:43:00 AM · #4037 |
Show of hands from those who feel that depriving someone of their rights is immoral?
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 09:34:04 AM · #4038 |
.
Message edited by author 2010-01-20 12:22:53. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 09:37:12 AM · #4039 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I'd answer your question, Jason, but I can't quite figure out what you're asking and no one pays attention to anything I say here anyway. In fact, I cannot find a post I'm quite sure I made awhile back. I think it is to the point that my posts are eliminated from the thread entirely.... |
And I thought you were another drive-by like me! :)
|
|
|
|
01/20/2010 09:49:22 AM · #4040 |
...Someone just told me that Melethia apparently made a post to this thread. Can anyone tell me if indeed that is the case? I truly would be interested in what she had to say. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 09:55:14 AM · #4041 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My argument, is one can prove the statement above false by giving an example where we, as society, do, indeed, make a moral judgement on a genetically predisposed condition. |
Your argument is moot because we don't judge every trait as a moral issue, and you haven't established that homosexuality is immoral. When others are harmed (murder, pedophilia, etc.) then you will find agreement that the behavior is wrong, but that's simply not the case with homosexuality. No moral judgement is warranted any more than for left-handedness, dwarfism or red hairĂ¢€” they're just people minding their own business and the only moral issue (as Jeb suggested) is that some people feel they can dictate how others should live when it's none of their business.
Message edited by author 2010-01-20 09:55:45. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 10:39:51 AM · #4042 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I certainly agree with the impact on the gay population, I disagree with your "zero impact" statement. Not when people do boneheaded things like taking their first grade class on a fieldtrip to witness a lesbian wedding in the heyday before Prop 8 in California. Not when the photographer in New Mexico lost her case to not photograph a gay marriage. We can debate on the severity of these impacts, but I don't think it is "zero" and this is only the forefront. |
I might as well revisit this lame comparison now since you're going here to show some "harm" that would justify comparing homosexuality with murder. In both cases, you'll trying to equate a restriction against practicing discrimination with harm. NO! Wrong. Error. Fweeeet... personal foul: #40718 defense. I finding it appalling that this would even require explanation, but so be it...
OK, so allowing gay marriage is harmful because children with parental consent might actually witness it and a photographer could be sued for refusing service to gays. This is the crux of your claim. Therefore... interracial, and interfaith marriages must also be harmful because children might witness those, too. Likewise, someone who is black must be inherently harmful to society because a business owner could be sued for refusing service. *sigh* I hope to see the day when people finally move past such stone-age prejudices and learn to accept each other as human beings. :-/ |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 10:40:21 AM · #4043 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My argument, is one can prove the statement above false by giving an example where we, as society, do, indeed, make a moral judgement on a genetically predisposed condition. |
Your argument is moot because we don't judge every trait as a moral issue, and you haven't established that homosexuality is immoral. When others are harmed (murder, pedophilia, etc.) then you will find agreement that the behavior is wrong, but that's simply not the case with homosexuality. No moral judgement is warranted any more than for left-handedness, dwarfism or red hairĂ¢€” they're just people minding their own business and the only moral issue (as Jeb suggested) is that some people feel they can dictate how others should live when it's none of their business. |
I don't disagree with the rationality of your argument Shannon, but can you see you are not countering mine? Rather you are saying, "well, homosexuality is one of those traits we should not consider to be moral or immoral." Which is a position you are fine to take, but it doesn't speak to Ray's argument that just because it is genetic we should not judge it. Your real rule for judgement above is "when others are harmed" not "when it is genetic".
Can we agree on this? |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 10:45:51 AM · #4044 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Rather you are saying, "well, homosexuality is one of those traits we should not consider to be moral or immoral." |
I think you've been given a pass so far concerning your rationale for considering homosexuality immoral. Time to explain. Why should the civil rights of certain individuals doing no observable harm to anyone be curtailed to satisfy your moral indignation? Why is homosexuality immoral? This is a seminal question, and we should be given the opportunity to address the base cause for your position. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 10:49:17 AM · #4045 |
I saw your reply up there Deb. You can PM me if you want.
Louis, that moves completely beyond this little bit and truthfully has been addressed in the 4000 posts above. I'd first like to come to some consensus with Shannon because I felt wrongfully mocked above when he said nobody agreed with my argument but myself. (my argument not being that homosexuality is wrong but rather that the statement "we should not judge X because it is a genetic condition." is false) |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 10:55:01 AM · #4046 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't disagree with the rationality of your argument Shannon, but can you see you are not countering mine? |
No counter is necessary when the point is not applicable. Sorry, but the onus is on you to show why homosexuality should be treated differently than left-handedness or red hair.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your real rule for judgement above is "when others are harmed" not "when it is genetic". |
My real rule for judging others is, don't. I believe that personal rights should be restricted when they have the potential to cause actual harm to others, but I'm not in the judgment business. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:08:38 AM · #4047 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I felt wrongfully mocked above when he said nobody agreed with my argument but myself. (my argument not being that homosexuality is wrong but rather that the statement "we should not judge X because it is a genetic condition." is false). |
The statement does not apply UNLESS you're making a moral judgement. "We should not judge redheads because it is a genetic condition," makes no sense whatsoever because being a redhead isn't a moral issue. What is there to judge? You attempted to compare homosexuality to murder and pedophilia as a moral issue, and were roundly criticized for the offense. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:14:45 AM · #4048 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I felt wrongfully mocked above when he said nobody agreed with my argument but myself. (my argument not being that homosexuality is wrong but rather that the statement "we should not judge X because it is a genetic condition." is false). |
The statement does not apply UNLESS you're making a moral judgement. "We should not judge redheads because it is a genetic condition," makes no sense whatsoever because being a redhead isn't a moral issue. What is there to judge? You attempted to compare homosexuality to murder and pedophilia as a moral issue, and were roundly criticized for the offense. |
So can you address your post to Ray then, who made the very argument I was saying was invalid? The statment very much applies if Ray uses it.
Originally posted by Ray:
If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control. |
Message edited by author 2010-01-20 11:15:19. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:26:02 AM · #4049 |
Time out.
Can I point out an example of what really frustrates me about arguing with you Shannon? I'm not doing this to belittle you, but rather to explain why sometimes I get my panties in a knot.
Last night Ray made the argument that Johnny was a boob for judging homosexuality because it was genetic.
Your first response on the issue was a "pile on" comment which infers that you agreed with him Johnny was, indeed, quite a boob for doing exactly what Ray accused him of doing.
I came on and said, wait, we've been over this before and I thought we had come to the conclusion that that argument was a bad one.
Your replied that my argument (or analogy) was "absurd".
I take the time to restate my argument and perhaps do a better job (leaving out the provocative words).
Now without blinking you say, "oh, not applicable." It's like everything you said above is suddenly gone. Poof. Your agreement with Ray, your calling my argument "absurd"...gone. Now the argument is logically sound but completely does not apply.
Why didn't you say that in the first place? This is why I think your debate style is disingenuous compared to that of Louis, Shutterpuppy, and Matthew. I much prefer to hear their arguments because I don't feel they are suddenly going to change midstream. |
|
|
|
01/20/2010 11:28:50 AM · #4050 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So can you address your post to Ray then, who made the very argument I was saying was invalid? The statment very much applies if Ray uses it. |
Ray used it in a completely different context:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Perhaps you could help this old fella understand the Christian perspective. If indeed sins are are abominations, and considering that a gay lifestyle is not a choice, does it not follow that you are calling gays an abomination due to factors beyond their control. |
The Christian perspective is not the same as a secular one. Religious objections to homosexuality are based upon the idea that it's a sinĂ¢€” a conscious choiceĂ¢€” because if a perfect God actually created people that way, then it obviously couldn't be an abomination in His eyes. I already addressed Ray's point. You didn't.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The whole religious argument against homosexuality is that it's a sinĂ¢€” a free will decision against God's will. If it's NOT a choice, then the faithful would have to accept that they're vilifying God's willful creation. In the unlikely event that it IS a defiant act of free will, the the faithful face another problem: explaining why many/most mammals also exhibit homosexuality when the the same religion only ascribes free will to humans. |
|
|
