| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/02/2010 09:53:06 PM · #4826 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well look at everybody all getting along! :) |
It's great, ain't it? Every so often the peaceable kingdom crops back up to tantalize us.
R. |
 |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 12:27:17 AM · #4827 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have never intimated that people "choose" to be gay. |
Then what's the basis for religious objection if it's not a choice? |
See, God's testing people. He makes them feel irrestistible biological urges they have no control over to see whether or not they can ignore them because he said so. It's a test, like when he put all the fossils in the ground and made it look like they were millions of years old. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 12:32:36 AM · #4828 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I gotta take back my objection LOL. |
Hey, I took it as an accidental compliment... it's flattering that you're interested in reading my posts so carefully, but sort of skim over his. ;-)
I'm sure if Jason and I actually met it would be more entertaining than adversarial. I was actually amused at his post because it brought back memories of a design school professor who gave me a similar finger wagging about how he was vastly more experienced and knowledgeable after I dared to contradict his claim that a certain technique couldn't be done... and then I did it. After a couple of weeks I went to the dean and demonstrated that I knew more about the subject than the nut teaching it, and he waived me through the class with full credit (I'm not saying I know more about Jason regarding medicine, but that's why it made me smile). |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 12:59:44 AM · #4829 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hey, I took it as an accidental compliment... it's flattering that you're interested in reading my posts so carefully, but sort of skim over his. ;-) |
I assure you, I read his as carefully as I do yours. I just hadn't made the fairly subtle mental connection that you were answering him in a similar vein. So actually, it was YOURS that I wasn't reading "carefully" in this case; I just reacted to it entirely out of context, as Jeb was quick to point out. I didn't understand what JEB meant at the time either, but now I do :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 01:00:10.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 02:08:50 AM · #4830 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I gotta take back my objection LOL. |
Hey, I took it as an accidental compliment... it's flattering that you're interested in reading my posts so carefully, but sort of skim over his. ;-)
I'm sure if Jason and I actually met it would be more entertaining than adversarial. I was actually amused at his post because it brought back memories of a design school professor who gave me a similar finger wagging about how he was vastly more experienced and knowledgeable after I dared to contradict his claim that a certain technique couldn't be done... and then I did it. After a couple of weeks I went to the dean and demonstrated that I knew more about the subject than the nut teaching it, and he waived me through the class with full credit (I'm not saying I know more about Jason regarding medicine, but that's why it made me smile). |
You don't actually think you had a valid point on epigenetics do you? Please tell me you don't think that. PLEASE, tell me you don't think that!
But I do agree. If we met in person, I bet we'd get along just fine. I'm sure you are a nice guy when we aren't engaged in some pissing contest.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 02:09:59. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 02:19:23 AM · #4831 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But I do agree. If we met in person, I bet we'd get along just fine. I'm sure you are a nice guy when we aren't engaged in some pissing contest. |
Singular? It's gotten chest deep. :P
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 02:21:19. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 12:47:54 PM · #4832 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Singular? It's gotten chest deep. :P |
LOL- he changed it to "we" (WEE?).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You don't actually think you had a valid point on epigenetics do you? |
Wash your hands and scroll back to "Jeb's post (which is what started it all off)"...
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You seem to be missing a fundamental point, or intentionaly ignoring it again, and that harkens back to that whole choice thing and your amazing tendency to lump being gay in with bad behaviors and choices. |
The issue you're trying to tap dance around is fairly straightforward: religious grounds for objection depend upon the notion that homosexuality is a choice— a free will decision to sin. After all, it wouldn't make any sense for God to declare a particular trait taboo if it was genetically inherent (the person was "made" that way). Despite your side show distraction, this is not a matter of whether everything that is natural should be permitted (a naturalistic fallacy), but challenging the religious contention that homosexuality is a willful choice subject to contempt as an act against God's will.
Whether the trait is a result of DNA, epigenetics, hormones, decisions made during pregnancy or early childhood, etc. is irrelevant to the question. Just like handedness, a trait generally determined by biophysics (whether nature OR environment) is not a choice. For God to declare homosexuality wrong thus makes as little sense as favoring my left hand or having eyebrows. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 01:07:05 PM · #4833 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
For God to declare homosexuality wrong thus makes as little sense as favoring my left hand or having eyebrows. |
I hadn't realized that whether or not the Christian God is a *logical* God was part of this discussion...
R.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 02:01:08 PM · #4834 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I hadn't realized that whether or not the Christian God is a *logical* God was part of this discussion... |
God never wrote anything down, so we can only question the logic of the authors/believers. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 03:25:43 PM · #4835 |
Hello goalpost mover! That's a totally different argument and one of opinion and not fact. I was pointing out quite correctly that you failed when you said: "common knowledge will suffice for embarrassing you on this point: even if the environmental factor was a case of chicken pox or overexposure to Barry Manilow during pregnancy, [u]the resulting traits would still be genetic[/b] regardless of how the genes were modified." The failure, in this case, is by using the word "genetic" in a totally unsophisticated and inappropriate manner.
The point you are also ignoring is that I have clearly and concisely stated that homosexuality is likely to be a combination of BOTH genetic predispositions AND environmental triggers. Even if we were to adopt your unsophisticated use of "genetic", it does nothing to deny an environmental trigger. The point still stands.
This is the great thing about you. You somehow are completely comfortable with the idea, "Man, when we were discussing topic X, I totally schooled him because he didn't refute topic Y! He must not know anything about X OR Y! I rock!"
The point you say I'm tapdancing around is also one we've discussed and one you are distorting. Religious positions I am familiar with would distinguish between being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. The first, whether genetic or environmental or both, appears to be beyond choice. The second, of course, is a choice. In the same manner, I don't think we would castigate the kleptomaniac for being prone to stealing, but we would still hold her responsible if she did steal something. And here the argument arrives at familiar ground. One side says, "how can you blame me for doing something I'm prone to doing?" and the reply is, "we do it all the time." The reply is, "but I'm not HURTING anybody". And then we arrive at the REAL argument after all the rabbit chasing you have taken us on. The genetics isn't an excuse. The predisposition isn't an excuse. The real question is whether the activity itself is moral. And THEN the question becomes, "which moral system do you want to use to judge?" The final answer about homosexuality, of course, changes upon your answer to this question.
Ta-da! |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 03:49:33 PM · #4836 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religious positions I am familiar with would distinguish between being homosexual and practicing homosexuality.
Ta-da! |
Yep... Reasoning like this reminds of the days where people suspected of engaging in witchcraft would be weighed down and cast into a river...if they floated they were witches and if they didn't they weren't.
Just out of curiousity, just what would call a homosexual NOT engaging in homosexuality?
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 04:20:57 PM · #4837 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just out of curiousity, just what would call a homosexual NOT engaging in homosexuality? |
A celibate homosexual?
R.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 04:29:41 PM · #4838 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religious positions I am familiar with would distinguish between being homosexual and practicing homosexuality.
Ta-da! |
Yep... Reasoning like this reminds of the days where people suspected of engaging in witchcraft would be weighed down and cast into a river...if they floated they were witches and if they didn't they weren't. |
That's silly, nothing like that is being implied. Doc's trying to make a distinction between the predisposition towards a specific behavior, and the actual practicing of it. Try flipping the position: if an individual were, say, genetically predisposed to a high level of musical artistry, would you *praise* that person as a musician if she or he chose not to play an instrument?
Look, I'm NOT making the case that we should be discriminating against gays on any moral ground whatsoever. I do not believe that we should be. I do not believe that homosexuality is in any way immoral. And I wouldn't believe it was even IF it could be PROVEN that homosexuality was entirely a matter of choice. That's not the issue I'm defending Doc's position on.
No, what I'm trying to do is support his contention that the arguments people are using against him don't hold water; they are emotionally driven, not logically driven.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 04:46:09 PM · #4839 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
That's a totally different argument... |
Yes, and it was the argument in question when you chimed in with an attempt to conflate the issue.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I was pointing out quite correctly that you failed when you said: "common knowledge will suffice for embarrassing you on this point: even if the environmental factor was a case of chicken pox or overexposure to Barry Manilow during pregnancy, [u]the resulting traits would still be genetic[/b] regardless of how the genes were modified." The failure, in this case, is by using the word "genetic" in a totally unsophisticated and inappropriate manner. |
If some physical factor- gene splicing, chemicals, radiation, or Froot Loops in a petri dish- yields a strong correlation to a particular trait, then that trait must be physically based. Whether genes are unmodified, mutated, manipulated, amplified, or suppressed, their expressions are still completely genetic. It doesn't even matter whether we're talking about DNA, hormones, neurons, stem cells, genes, markers on genes, or little plaid elbow patches on the markers— it's still not a choice. If claiming victory over terminology rather than the actual debate gives you comfort, then yay for you, but "the point you are also ignoring is that I have clearly and concisely stated that homosexuality is likely to be a combination of BOTH genetic predispositions AND environmental triggers" doesn't change the fact that it's not a choice by the person in question.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religious positions I am familiar with would distinguish between being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. |
This ranks among the dumbest things you've ever posted. Essentially, "You can be a woman, but if you don't act like a man it's an affront to nature." How is that a better position?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"but I'm not HURTING anybody"... The genetics isn't an excuse. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Despite your side show distraction, this is not a matter of whether everything that is natural should be permitted (a naturalistic fallacy), but challenging the religious contention that homosexuality is a willful choice subject to contempt as an act against God's will. |
If you want to argue morality, then that's a rabbit chase you're trying to lead, and it has little to do with whether religion declares being gay a sinful choice.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 16:54:38. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 04:52:23 PM · #4840 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's trying to make a distinction between the predisposition towards a specific behavior, and the actual practicing of it. Try flipping the position: if an individual were, say, genetically predisposed to a high level of musical artistry, would you *praise* that person as a musician if she or he chose not to play an instrument? |
More like, "You may be gifted at music, but playing an instrument is an offense to our god and we'll do everything in our power to prevent it." Why then would the "gift" exist? |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 04:56:31 PM · #4841 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's trying to make a distinction between the predisposition towards a specific behavior, and the actual practicing of it. Try flipping the position: if an individual were, say, genetically predisposed to a high level of musical artistry, would you *praise* that person as a musician if she or he chose not to play an instrument? |
More like, "You may be gifted at music, but playing an instrument is an offense to our god and we'll do everything in our power to prevent it." Why then would the "gift" exist? |
Isn't it more like "you may be gifted at playing violin -- too bad playing anything but the harp is an abomination"? |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 05:44:07 PM · #4842 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc's trying to make a distinction between the predisposition towards a specific behavior, and the actual practicing of it. Try flipping the position: if an individual were, say, genetically predisposed to a high level of musical artistry, would you *praise* that person as a musician if she or he chose not to play an instrument? |
More like, "You may be gifted at music, but playing an instrument is an offense to our god and we'll do everything in our power to prevent it." Why then would the "gift" exist? |
This is such a straw man. Are you contending that all genetic predispositions are carte blanche "gifts"? Ridiculous.
I already gave an example you and Paul have ignored. If you have the predisposition to steal, does that make the stealing suddenly "good" just because of your predisposition? Of course not. Stealing is wrong no matter if you are predisposed to such activity or not.
You asked why the "gift" existed? Don't think of the genetic component of geing a on/off "gay gene". It's likely the gene(s) manifest in a completely different way when not triggered by the environmental trigger. In fact, it's likely the gene(s) are protective somehow to make up for the reproductive handicap of the times the gene(s) manifest in homosexuality. If they weren't, if it were just an on/off switch that lies dormant until triggered, it would have been removed from the gene pool by now as it would only be detrimental to reproductive fitness.
I shoud preempt things by saying that is also a conversation that has already been had. We don't need to go there again. I entered the thread again to reject the genetic argument again, but I don't need to defend each and every other point. It serves no purpose other than to have people wind up offended etc. Let's all just go and enjoy a good 4th of July. Straight. Gay. or Whatever.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 18:09:35. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 06:41:52 PM · #4843 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I already gave an example you and Paul have ignored. If you have the predisposition to steal, does that make the stealing suddenly "good" just because of your predisposition? |
Posting for the third time (and ignoring your latest fallacious comparison to harmful actions): Originally posted by scalvert:
Despite your side show distraction, this is not a matter of whether everything that is natural should be permitted (a naturalistic fallacy), but challenging the religious contention that homosexuality is a willful choice subject to contempt as an act against God's will. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It's likely the gene(s) manifest in a completely different way when not triggered by the environmental trigger. |
How it manifests doesn't make it any less genetic. If some environmental trigger modifies a genes or genes for brown eyes to suddenly create green, it's still not the decision of the person to have green eyes. The point is *not* that everything should be OK because it's natural, but that religious opponents consider being green eyed/homosexual/left-handed (or "practicing left-handedness" if you prefer) to be a willful sin against God. Argue the morality somewhere else. That's a different debate. The person is not choosing to defy God by being left-handed or gay any more than a woman acting like a woman would be choosing not to act like a man. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 06:44:53 PM · #4844 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are you contending that all genetic predispositions are carte blanche "gifts"? |
No, I was hinting at the irony of Bear's choice of the word "gifted." The implication is that the trait or talent is God-given, so how could he be offended? |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 06:48:02 PM · #4845 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are you contending that all genetic predispositions are carte blanche "gifts"? |
No, I was hinting at the irony of Bear's choice of the word "gifted." The implication is that the trait or talent is God-given, so how could he be offended? |
Oh, come ON! You can't get any more nit-picking than that. Just substitute "incredibly talented" and move on, willya? Sheesh...
(And I know that can be construed as another way of saying "Jesus" and I don't care. Neither should you. Vernacular is vernacular.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 07:07:03 PM · #4846 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Oh, come ON! You can't get any more nit-picking than that. Just substitute "incredibly talented" and move on, willya? |
Are you not reading my posts again? I said I was was only hinting at it. Doesn't matter though... homosexuality isn't a "talent" any more than left-handeness or green eyes, so the comparison is moot. Better analogy: if an woman were genetically predisposed to masculine behavior, should she be condemned by God for not acting like a woman? Be sure to extend any answer to transgender individuals. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 07:14:05 PM · #4847 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are you not reading my posts again? I said I was was only hinting at it. Doesn't matter though... homosexuality isn't a "talent" any more than left-handeness or green eyes, so the comparison is moot. Better analogy: if an woman were genetically predisposed to masculine behavior, should she be condemned by God for not acting like a woman? Be sure to extend any answer to transgender individuals. |
There you GO again! Moving the goalposts! The great, the all-knowing Shannon has decreed there's a qualitative difference between a genetically-disposed "talent" and some other, genetically-disposed trait. Can't you SEE how ridiculous that sounds?
R.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 20:02:54.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 08:46:34 PM · #4848 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Are you not reading my posts again? I said I was was only hinting at it. Doesn't matter though... homosexuality isn't a "talent" any more than left-handeness or green eyes, so the comparison is moot. Better analogy: if an woman were genetically predisposed to masculine behavior, should she be condemned by God for not acting like a woman? Be sure to extend any answer to transgender individuals. |
There you GO again! Moving the goalposts! The great, the all-knowing Shannon has decreed there's a qualitative difference between a genetically-disposed "talent" and some other, genetically-disposed trait. Can't you SEE how ridiculous that sounds?
R. |
It's a shame that you of all people Robert needs to resort to name calling.
I'm enjoying this debate, can please leave the petty name calling at the door.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 08:47:18 PM · #4849 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Religious positions I am familiar with would distinguish between being homosexual and practicing homosexuality.
Ta-da! |
Yep... Reasoning like this reminds of the days where people suspected of engaging in witchcraft would be weighed down and cast into a river...if they floated they were witches and if they didn't they weren't. |
That's silly, nothing like that is being implied. Doc's trying to make a distinction between the predisposition towards a specific behavior, and the actual practicing of it. Try flipping the position: if an individual were, say, genetically predisposed to a high level of musical artistry, would you *praise* that person as a musician if she or he chose not to play an instrument?
Look, I'm NOT making the case that we should be discriminating against gays on any moral ground whatsoever. I do not believe that we should be. I do not believe that homosexuality is in any way immoral. And I wouldn't believe it was even IF it could be PROVEN that homosexuality was entirely a matter of choice. That's not the issue I'm defending Doc's position on.
No, what I'm trying to do is support his contention that the arguments people are using against him don't hold water; they are emotionally driven, not logically driven.
R. |
One of the primary issue of contention in the analogy proffered by Doc is that there is being gay has a negative impact and that it has an undesirable effect on the community as a whole. The kleptomaniac's actions are frowned upon because they do impact in a real way on society... not so for being gay, and therein lies the difference.
Just exactly does the predisposition to being gay and the actual practicing of this behaviour impact anyone's life?
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 08:56:21 PM · #4850 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I'm enjoying this debate, can please leave the petty name calling at the door. |
This isn't a debate anymore, it's a joke. And what you're categorizing as my "name calling" is entirely in keeping with the level this discussion has been brought to, and not by Doc I might add.
I need to back away from this one.
R.
|
|
