| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/03/2010 09:15:28 PM · #4851 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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. |
Complete nonsense. You are defending very bad arguing with very bad arguing, or at best, you for some reason are unable to see the very plain analogy scalvert's been offering, But because he's stripped the argument of its needless emotive elements, you have decided to be incapable of checking your emotions at the door. The inevitable follows. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 09:15:31 PM · #4852 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
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? |
If you look at my post Ray, I say that this is the REAL question and not the predisposition. I can address this, but it may seem tangentially. Bear with me.
The religious view (and the judeo-christian view in particular) notes that human sexuality is an extremely strong force. It is very capable of ruining lives just as it is very capable of strengthening relationships. With this in mind, the ethic holds that the optimal way to maximize the potential for good is to keep human sexuality within the confines of a permanent, monogamous relationship between man and woman. Anything outside these bounds is less than optimal. In fact, the power of sexuality is so great that nothing else can be accepted. We do not need to look at the incredible stats of our culture and how human sexuality is running amok. 40% of women report sexual dysfunction. 25% of 16 year old girls have at least one STD. Annual sales of Viagra exceed $1 billion. In 2006 the pornography industry generated $97 billion in revenue.
Where the ethic rubs people the wrong way is when it meets the Western ethic of liberty and hedonism which asks, "but I want to do something else? What then?" The judeo-christian ethic does not take this into account. It does not matter if you are a seventeen year old boy who's hormones make you want to have sex with every girl you meet. No boy decides to have his hormones rage. No boy chooses this. It's a fact of life. But the rule stands.
Your question Ray, is asked from the view of the ethic of Liberty and Hedonism. The judeo-christian ethic says that question does not matter.
EDIT: I actually wanted to expand a bit, but I can't. The steaks are on the grill.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 21:19:48. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 09:28:02 PM · #4853 |
"Hedonism" . Once again, I call bullshit. It is not hedonistic to merely express one's sexuality, regardless of the gender of the partner. Inferring that the mere existence of homosexuality is a kind of hedonism is not simply unsound, it's a vile affront to people who have been in love and committed to their spouses for, oh, I don't know, say sixteen years.
But as was noted, this is incidental, since the real discussion isn't about the paranoid grievances of that flavour of religion, or the anti-life protocols making up its doctrine. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 09:56:37 PM · #4854 |
Jason, after you're done cooking those steaks with the exhaust of your DeLorean would you mind posting some stats that show how hetero marriages/relationships fixes those problems you mention. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 22:01:34.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 10:22:25 PM · #4855 |
Originally posted by Louis:
"Hedonism" . Once again, I call bullshit. It is not hedonistic to merely express one's sexuality, regardless of the gender of the partner. Inferring that the mere existence of homosexuality is a kind of hedonism is not simply unsound, it's a vile affront to people who have been in love and committed to their spouses for, oh, I don't know, say sixteen years.
But as was noted, this is incidental, since the real discussion isn't about the paranoid grievances of that flavour of religion, or the anti-life protocols making up its doctrine. |
The question Ray asked makes the most sense from a hedonistic point of view (the ethic that seeks to maximizes pleasure while minimizing suffering). He implies that practicing homosexuality is pleasurable for people who are gay (which makes sense) and checks it against the possible harm that is done. If no harm is done, and pleasure is present, the activity is obviously "good". What other moral ethic would he be asking from?
Richard. The STD stats are obviously higher than if everybody had a monogamous relationship. The others, however, would be much harder to come up with solid numbers because studying human sexuality is fraught with complications. At the least we should agree things are "not good" as they currently stand. We could then agree that the judeo-christian ethic is hardly to blame because it is seldomly practiced in our culture. I admit the possibility that switching to such an ethic has the possibility of making things worse, but you'd have to explain to me why you think it would do so. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 10:28:33 PM · #4856 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your question Ray, is asked from the view of the ethic of Liberty and Hedonism. The judeo-christian ethic says that question does not matter. |
Liberty surely...Hedonism, I don't think so.
If indeed hedonism was at the forefront of the argument, then why would the gay community battle so valiantly for the right to marry... surely the joys of sex alone would suffice.
On a similar vein, while I wholeheartedly support your views the the christian ethics are of paramount importance to your and your rapport with those in your milieu, why should you (the collective you) have a mandate to dictate how other segments of society should live their lives.
Is it conceivable that what you perceive as a hedonistic approach to life is in truth your inability to fully understand and appreciate the love and commitment expressed by gay couples.
While I can appreciate your commitment to your religious beliefs, I am somewhat inclined to believe that it clouds your judgment somewhat.
Hope the steaks were good. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 10:40:41 PM · #4857 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard. The STD stats are obviously higher than if everybody had a monogamous relationship. |
Sooo logic would suggest you'd be in favor of gay marriage.
|
|
|
|
07/03/2010 10:47:00 PM · #4858 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard. The STD stats are obviously higher than if everybody had a monogamous relationship. |
Sooo logic would suggest you'd be in favor of gay marriage. |
Don't you go throwing logic into this debate young man!!! :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 11:07:50 PM · #4859 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard. The STD stats are obviously higher than if everybody had a monogamous relationship. |
Sooo logic would suggest you'd be in favor of gay marriage. |
Having only purely monogamous hetero/homo relationships would be superior to the current situation.
Truth be told, if someone offered me the deal of removing the influence of pornography on our culture, but in return gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states, I'd take it every day of the week. In my view, if the church is more concerned with stamping out gay marriage than they are in supporting/healing people with sexual addictions (like pornography), then they are missing the boat.
Does that throw you for a loop? ;)
Here's an interesting hypothetical (and I'm sure we don't know the answer). What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life?
Message edited by author 2010-07-03 23:08:10. |
|
|
|
07/03/2010 11:40:25 PM · #4860 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard. The STD stats are obviously higher than if everybody had a monogamous relationship. |
Sooo logic would suggest you'd be in favor of gay marriage. |
Having only purely monogamous hetero/homo relationships would be superior to the current situation.
Truth be told, if someone offered me the deal of removing the influence of pornography on our culture, but in return gay marriage would be legal in all 50 states, I'd take it every day of the week. In my view, if the church is more concerned with stamping out gay marriage than they are in supporting/healing people with sexual addictions (like pornography), then they are missing the boat.
Does that throw you for a loop? ;) |
Yes it does throw me for a loop. What does pornography have to do with the acceptance of gay marriage? I sure hope you're not linking the two.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's an interesting hypothetical (and I'm sure we don't know the answer). What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Now here's a really interesting question. How many more of these hypothetical strawmen starter kits does Jason have left? |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 12:07:21 AM · #4861 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
Um, the goalposts are exactly where they stood before you offered the poor analogy over there in left field. Reducing the comparison of human sexuality to the level of an aptitude or simple preference trivializes the issue. Pretend you have an talent for cooking (*wink*). If some moral majority decided this field was traditionally for women and off-limits to men, you might be upset about it, but there are other interests you could pursue. It's not an imperative. However if the same group declared that it's only permissible for me to write with my right hand, well... not gonna happen (my grandmother certainly tried). Sexuality is even more inflexible. Would you be OK with some outside group determining that you're only permitted to have a relationship with other men? Didn't think so. It crosses a much bigger line than telling you to to find another hobby! |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 12:12:07 AM · #4862 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Erm... about the same as the rate of southpaws if they were only permitted to use one hand for life. :-/
Originally posted by yanko:
How many more of these hypothetical strawmen starter kits does Jason have left? |
Have you seen his backyard? :-O
Message edited by author 2010-07-04 00:18:27. |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 12:44:01 AM · #4863 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Erm... about the same as the rate of southpaws if they were only permitted to use one hand for life. :-/
|
I don't think you are thinking hard enough. Would the environmental trigger change in frequency? It would be quite a change in culture to switch to people only having sex with one person in their life. Would the incidence of the predisposing gene(s) drop? (Presumably fewer phenotypic gays would directly pass their genes on through fewer fumbling attempts at heterosexuality in high school, etc.)
I think you also didn't catch that I didn't exclude exclusive, monogamous homosexual relationships from above. I'm just thinking out loud and it was purely tangential. Richard thinks it was a straw man, but you need to make some sort of argument for that to be a possibility. It was more a stream-of-consciousness sort of "what if" question... |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 12:50:51 AM · #4864 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Erm... about the same as the rate of southpaws if they were only permitted to use one hand for life. :-/
|
Oh, man, it just dawned on me that you are left handed! No wonder this is near and dear. I bet you caught on the wiki that the gene that supposedly predisposes to left-handedness also supposedly predisposes to psychotic mental illness like schizophrenia. Yikes! Sinister indeed! :P
Message edited by author 2010-07-04 00:51:07. |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 03:15:16 AM · #4865 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Richard thinks it was a straw man, but you need to make some sort of argument for that to be a possibility. It was more a stream-of-consciousness sort of "what if" question... |
Actually, I was just playing the odds and being snarky.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In my view, if the church is more concerned with stamping out gay marriage than they are in supporting/healing people with sexual addictions (like pornography), then they are missing the boat. |
If that's the case then why are you so focused on gay marriage? What is driving this urge of yours? Talking about pornography would actually make sense being how this is a photography web site. Perhaps the church isn't the only one missing the boat. |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 08:07:09 AM · #4866 |
A quantum leap...particularly if you consider the comments found Here.
It becomes rather difficult to attach a great deal of credence to something when the very basis of what is being defined is in question.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 10:58:01 AM · #4867 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
A quantum leap...particularly if you consider the comments found Here. |
Left-handedness is also associated with creativity and genius, so he's just cherry picking. Note:
"In Britain, around 13% of men and 11% of women are now left-handed, compared to just 3% of those born before 1910. There are a number of factors driving this increase:
ΓΆ€ΒΆ Left-handers were severely discriminated against during the 18th and 19th centuries and it was often "beaten out" of people
ΓΆ€ΒΆ In adulthood, left-handers were often shunned by society, resulting in fewer marrying and reproducing
ΓΆ€ΒΆ As discrimination was reduced in the 20th century, the number of natural left-handers who stayed left-handed increased
ΓΆ€ΒΆ The rising age of motherhood contributed as, statistically, older mothers are more likely to give birth to left-handed children
So after centuries of beatings and superstitious discrimination against southpaws, what harm came from just letting them live their lives?
"...the increase could produce a corresponding intellectual advance and a leap in the number of mathematical, sporting or artistic geniuses."
To some, of course, it could only mean "more schizophrenic maniacs to terrorize the children." Grab your pitchforks! :-/
Message edited by author 2010-07-04 11:09:12. |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 11:11:17 AM · #4868 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where the ethic rubs people the wrong way is when it meets the Western ethic of liberty and hedonism which asks, "but I want to do something else? What then?" The judeo-christian ethic does not take this into account. |
In the United States, it was decided that, legally, personal liberty trumps religious dogma. You are free to promote your religious ethic, but not to impose it on others. |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 11:55:12 AM · #4869 |
There is no compelling reason within this argument to try to prove handedness is genetic or not, but it has become interesting to me. I had assumed, probably like most people, that handedness was genetic. It appears to be much more complex which is always interesting. Here's a very large twin study which indicates that handedness is probably more incumbent upon environmental factors than genetic ones.
Genetic influences on handedness
"Maximum likelihood analyses incorporating the effects of known covariates (sex, year of birth and birth weight) revealed no evidence of hormonal transfer, mirror imaging or twin specific effects. There were also no differences in prevalence between zygosity groups or between twins and their singleton siblings. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, additive genetic effects accounted for about a quarter (23.64%) of the variance (95%CI 20.17, 27.09%) with the remainder accounted for by non-shared environmental influences."
("zygosity groups" means identical twins versus fraternal twins.)
Message edited by author 2010-07-04 11:55:33. |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 12:45:20 PM · #4870 |
Incidentally, I find it amusing to consider that The Queen is in Toronto attending a church service just a few blocks south of where today's massive 1.2 million strong Pride Day celebrations will be happening, where there will undoubtedly be a few native queens.
(Okay okay, cue groaning.) |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 12:57:58 PM · #4871 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a very large twin study which indicates that handedness is probably more incumbent upon environmental factors than genetic ones. |
...but still biological rather than a willful defiance of God. From a study this year:
"Until some decades ago, left-handed children who attended German schools were forced to learn to write with their right hand. To explore the long-term consequences of switching handedness, we studied the functional neuroanatomy of handwriting in 11 adult "converted" left-handers and 11 age-matched right-handers. All participants had used exclusively their right hand for writing since early childhood. In innate right-handers, handwriting caused a preponderant left-hemispheric activation of parietal and premotor association areas. In contrast, converted left-handers demonstrated a more bilateral activation pattern with distinct activation foci in the right lateral premotor, parietal, and temporal cortex. Moreover, foci in the right rostral supplementary motor area and the right inferior parietal lobule demonstrated a positive linear relationship between the degree of "left-handedness" and normalized rCBF during right-hand writing. Our findings provide evidence for persisting differences in the functional neuroanatomy of handwriting between right-handers and converted left-handers, despite decades of right-hand writing."
Does that sound like free will to you? |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 01:40:31 PM · #4872 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The religious view (and the judeo-christian view in particular) notes that human sexuality is an extremely strong force. It is very capable of ruining lives just as it is very capable of strengthening relationships. With this in mind, the ethic holds that the optimal way to maximize the potential for good is to keep human sexuality within the confines of a permanent, monogamous relationship between man and woman. Anything outside these bounds is less than optimal. In fact, the power of sexuality is so great that nothing else can be accepted. We do not need to look at the incredible stats of our culture and how human sexuality is running amok. 40% of women report sexual dysfunction. 25% of 16 year old girls have at least one STD. Annual sales of Viagra exceed $1 billion. In 2006 the pornography industry generated $97 billion in revenue. |
Then you better start treating each and every relationship outside of this so-called "optimal relationship" every bit as badly as you do gays, or you're nothing but hypocrites. Tell 'em they're all an abomination, oh, and once again, *DO* tell us how your examples, all of which are choices, are comparable on any level to homosexuality.
And once again, you use the word "ethic", when the questions remain.......how is the predisposion of homosexuality, if not a choice, somehow an ethical thing, and once again, though you've spouted a bunch of statistics, what on earth do they have to do with the issue at hand?
PLEASE answer Ray's question with something resembling a coherent reason.argument/justification without using any analogies or referencing something else.
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Just exactly how does the predisposition to being gay and the actual practicing of this behaviour impact anyone's life? |
|
|
|
|
07/04/2010 01:47:30 PM · #4873 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's an interesting hypothetical (and I'm sure we don't know the answer). What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Oh, PLEASE explain where that came from! It's been my experience in the past decade or so that gay marriages seem to be stronger and more long-lived than Hetero relationships.
Sorry......but our peace & free love generation invented the disposable marriage. You don't like the way it's going? Cut your losses, get a divorce, and move on while you can still make a life.
As Ray stated, if that was the only concern, WHY are gays fighting so hard for equal rights when it comes to marriage.
How do you come up with this stuff? Surely, you cannot have thought that through on any level before you posted it. By inference, you're suggesting that if gays couldn't sleep around, homosexuality would die off. That's a pretty offensive stance.
|
|
|
|
07/04/2010 05:31:08 PM · #4874 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's an interesting hypothetical (and I'm sure we don't know the answer). What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Oh, PLEASE explain where that came from! It's been my experience in the past decade or so that gay marriages seem to be stronger and more long-lived than Hetero relationships.
Sorry......but our peace & free love generation invented the disposable marriage. You don't like the way it's going? Cut your losses, get a divorce, and move on while you can still make a life.
As Ray stated, if that was the only concern, WHY are gays fighting so hard for equal rights when it comes to marriage.
How do you come up with this stuff? Surely, you cannot have thought that through on any level before you posted it. By inference, you're suggesting that if gays couldn't sleep around, homosexuality would die off. That's a pretty offensive stance. |
Apparently that question was just a test to see who reads my posts with care. Did you also fail to see that I did not exclude homosexual relationships in the hypothetical? |
|
|
|
07/04/2010 05:59:36 PM · #4875 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's an interesting hypothetical (and I'm sure we don't know the answer). What would the rate of homosexuality in a few generations be if there were only exclusive, monogamous sexual relationships for life? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh, PLEASE explain where that came from! It's been my experience in the past decade or so that gay marriages seem to be stronger and more long-lived than Hetero relationships.
Sorry......but our peace & free love generation invented the disposable marriage. You don't like the way it's going? Cut your losses, get a divorce, and move on while you can still make a life.
As Ray stated, if that was the only concern, WHY are gays fighting so hard for equal rights when it comes to marriage.
How do you come up with this stuff? Surely, you cannot have thought that through on any level before you posted it. By inference, you're suggesting that if gays couldn't sleep around, homosexuality would die off. That's a pretty offensive stance. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Apparently that question was just a test to see who reads my posts with care. Did you also fail to see that I did not exclude homosexual relationships in the hypothetical? |
What does THAT mean??? Of course you didn't exclude it......it was the only thing you specifically mentioned.
I'm guessing that somehow in your mind, you think that if no one ever slept around, whatever it is that "causes" homosexuality would magically go away, and since gays by practice cannot reproduce, you feel the "problem" would be gone. That's kind of what it seems to me that you're inferring.
Jason, I honestly do not understand how you think when it comes to someone being gay. I guess you fundamentally see that as a problem. Going back to your gay/pornography stance......that sounded like a "lesser of the evils" statement, and you seem to make an awful lot of statements, wild conclusions, and some downright hurtful things that indicate to me that you really look down on people who are gay as something aberrant. I guess I'll just never understand what makes some people think that someone who is different is somehow wrong or bad.
Message edited by author 2010-07-04 18:01:13.
|
|
