Forgive me for speaking out of my ****, but I overhear my girlfriend spouting a lot of this stuff so I'm going to try to bring it up for those of you that actually know what the hell I'm yammering about.
Rhuadin: In the case of the Catholic church, isn't it true that a long, LONG time ago, they actually had no real stance on homosexuality whatsoever, and that there were actually several Popes that were admittedly homosexual (in the sense that they understood and were documented as stating so, not that they went ahead with homosexual activity).
As for media declaring homosexuality as 'okay', I'd have to disagree. It's not that they think it's okay, it's that they know that it's still a fairly controversial issue, gets viewers and is seen as entertaining by many. Homosexuals have been in movies and such for quite some time, it's just that only recently have they been portrayed in at least something of a non-hyperstereotyped manner.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 10 2003, 04:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 10 2003, 04:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yeah yeah yeah, I'm sure everything is just peachy with your own set of created morals.
However, it then becomes impossible to call anything morally wrong. You cant criticise the Nazi's for killing Jews, that was perfectly justified with their own little set of made up morals.
Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does.
So, prove to me, using your own set of morals and logic, that what the Nazi's did was wrong. Keep in mind that you cant criticise the Nazi's morals based on your own. Both of you made your own rules up, so whose to say whose is right and whose is wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who ever said that we have to reason with other peoples morals? How the hell does that make any sense at all? I said that it is certainly possible to create your own set of morals, I didn't say that since everybody creates their own set of morals we have to judge them based on THEIR morals.
Consider it a mental exersize, logically derive some reason why homosexuality is bad without quoting the big book. That means, there has to be some justification for your argument besides "God said so". I know its hard having to think for yourself, not being able to end the argument with a quoted passage from scripture, but that was the point of keeping religion out of this thread.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As a side note, as acceptance of homosexuality pervades society, we may find in the future that the 'moral' correctness of such as dictated by the church may change -- but such an occurrance has happened before, albeit slowly. We find nothing morally wrong with believing that the earth revolves around the sun, but we all remember what happened to Galileo for his dissemination of his radical heliocentric theory of the solar system.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all comparable. Galileo had been asked by the Inquisition to teach heliocentrism not as truth but as hypothesis because his proof was considered insufficient. This had nothing to do with morals though, and Inquisitors are fallible. Their handling of the Galileo case was admittedly sub-optimal.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has been infallibly condemned by authority of the living magisterium. Infallible declarations cannot change.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 10 2003, 02:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 10 2003, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Secular moral discussion does not preclude the notion of objective moral truth.
Your religion does NOT have the copyright on rational moral discussion based on a set of objective morals. <b>Get over it.</b>
Honestly - why do I keep seeing this? People say things like "you need a set of objective morals in order to make valid moral judgements" and then act like that's sufficient proof that THEIR conception of objective morals is the right one.
<!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Sep 10 2003, 06:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Sep 10 2003, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting point of view. The Nazi's "reasons" to kill Jews were kind of irrational. Now give me a rational explanation of why God hates homosexuality.
"made up morals" aren't necessarily the most absurd... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just for the sake of argument, I'll say this: In Genesis, it says that God made woman because "it was not good for man to be alone." Note the fact that it doesn't say he made another *man*, it says he made a woman. Therefore, logically you could argue that by going against the "system" that he created, you are in effect disobeying God. *shrug*
However, if you're not a big fan of that, or are merely deist/agnostic, there's no reason to think that God would be against homosexual immorality any more than he would be against heterosexual immorality.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 10 2003, 01:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 10 2003, 01:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Stakhanov+Sep 10 2003, 06:43 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Sep 10 2003, 06:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting point of view. The Nazi's "reasons" to kill Jews were kind of irrational. Now give me a rational explanation of why God hates homosexuality.
"made up morals" aren't necessarily the most absurd... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just for the sake of argument, I'll say this: In Genesis, it says that God made woman because "it was not good for man to be alone." Note the fact that it doesn't say he made another *man*, it says he made a woman. Therefore, logically you could argue that by going against the "system" that he created, you are in effect disobeying God. *shrug*
However, if you're not a big fan of that, or are merely deist/agnostic, there's no reason to think that God would be against homosexual immorality any more than he would be against heterosexual immorality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Right and that would be a direct violation of the no relegious references as a base for an argument rule in this thread.
Basically what has been established, and I don't mean to be offensive, is that the people taking a relegious stance on this topic are just posting and stating that they can not argue from a relegious stand point so they won't. They've also admitted that their morals come directly from God and that they have no indvidual morality? That seems a bit odd to me, if you have no morals or ethics outside of your relegion how can you argue about anything without having a solely relegious standpoint?
As has already been brought up, it's very easy to discuss morals without relying on references to one specific religion or holy book. I suppose the drawback is that it forces you to defend your positions rationally instead of saying "my religion told me so". <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
oh wait, but when you draw your morals from your religion, i guess that automatically makes them invalid in a rational argument. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> It was for the sake of argument anyway. Read the second part D:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> oh wait, but when you draw your morals from your religion, i guess that automatically makes them invalid in a rational argument. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does when you can't back them up. You are obviously a member of your religion simply because you were born to it. If this were not the case you would have had to decide for yourself that your religion is true, and in doing so, evaluate the values of siad religion. If you had done that, you would have evaluated the anti-homosexual stance, and formed some argument as to why it is right, or rejected it.
Anyway, the topic of this thread seems to have run its course, Wheeee admits that without making religious references he can't find anything wrong with homosexuality, and unless someone else can there really isn't much more to discuss.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 10 2003, 04:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 10 2003, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> oh wait, but when you draw your morals from your religion, i guess that automatically makes them invalid in a rational argument. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> It was for the sake of argument anyway. Read the second part D: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The reason there is a problem with this is accurately spelled out here <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43988&st=15' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...8&t=43988&st=15</a>
When a tenet of your religion is that homosexuality is wrong there can be no more discussion. If its an axiom its inherently undebatable within the system. The only way to argue with an axiom is to make the person who believes it say something that is a logical conclusion of their axiom that they are uncomfortable with saying. After seeing the discussions on these boards I've lost any hope that christians can be made uncomfortable by the conclusions derived from their axioms. There's just a basic difference in world view. Things that I find to be abhorrent are treated tautologies all the time by christians. But that is a subject for another thread. I think the reason why religious arguments aren't allowed in this thread is that no one wants to try to get inside the head of the person making them to try and find a contradiction that they would be willing to admit. Its fruitless and not enjoyable. People just won't follow you. Religion doesn't play by the same rules.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are obviously a member of your religion simply because you were born to it. If this were not the case you would have had to decide for yourself that your religion is true, and in doing so, evaluate the values of siad religion. If you had done that, you would have evaluated the anti-homosexual stance, and formed some argument as to why it is right, or rejected it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, I did form an argument as to why it isn't right...perhaps you should read my post. Just because it's based on my religion doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument; I think what you're trying to say is that I should reject my faith if I cannot rationally agree with its tenets? That is some highly circular reasoning, and would prevent anyone from believing anything at all. You cannot a priori develop a code of morality and then use it to critique a religion, and then turn around and discredit the religion based on your morality; you can only say "I don't believe that's true."
Religions aren't tailored to fit your "sense of morality" on every point. They require you to accept their beliefs as the ultimate truth (which is kind of ironic in the case of agnosticism), and if you decide not to accept a religion in a holistic sense, then you've gone and created your own sub-religion.
If you disagree with a religion on the basis of personal morals, then generally you just say "oh, well, i don't believe that religion." However, in the case of homosexuality, you cannot state that it is acceptable without some sort of utilitarian or libertarian beliefs as premises; I think everyone here would agree that homosexuality is a defect and, in a purely naturalistic sense, is an undesirable trait, based on the fact that it hinders reproduction. Therefore, I would say that in general homosexuality is a bad thing.
Does this mean that we should spurn homosexuals? By no means, present circumstances of the human population and society dictate that homosexuals can live normal lives with no adverse effects (besides perhaps rejection by certain groups). Thus the impact of homosexuality's negative side is for the most part irrelevant.
The question we have to ask now is: does societal change invalidate religious beliefs or morals? Personally, I don't think it does. By saying that societal change invalidates religious beliefs, you are by extension denying the existence of any sort of absolute truth, and if there are no absolute truths then there would be no point to discussing this topic. Using the viability of homosexuality in an argument about whether it's good or bad isn't proper unless you're utilitarian, and then I really don't have anything to say to you, because that falls into the realm of subjective morality (who knows, in 200 years homosexuality could be inviable - world war 3, etc etc).
It is important that rational thinking must have premises. Often these premises, especially on this particular issue, are based on one's personal moral beliefs. Therefore I find it hard to accept that someone can use utilitarianism to "back up" his "rational" argument for homosexuality being acceptable, whereas someone cannot use a religious text as his source of argument.
P.S. I was born into a family that was a member of a Southeast Asian folk religion mix between Buddhism and Confuscianism. Thanks for assuming.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 10 2003, 05:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 10 2003, 05:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is important that rational thinking must have premises. Often these premises, especially on this particular issue, are based on one's personal moral beliefs. Therefore I find it hard to accept that someone can use utilitarianism to "back up" his "rational" argument for homosexuality being acceptable, whereas someone cannot use a religious text as his source of argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I realise that you probably started writing before I posted, but I addressed that above. (Just trying to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->P.S. I was born into a family that was a member of a Southeast Asian folk religion mix between Buddhism and Confuscianism. Thanks for assuming. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not the first time I've been wrong and it won't be the last. I appologize for my rather irrational assumption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Erm, I did form an argument as to why it isn't right...perhaps you should read my post. Just because it's based on my religion doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I assume we are talking about your "Just for the sake of argument" post? The problem with that argument is that it is based on the assumption that God created Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis. Since this is unproven, it can't be the basis of a rational argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You cannot a priori develop a code of morality and then use it to critique a religion, and then turn around and discredit the religion based on your morality; you can only say "I don't believe that's true."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see the point your trying to make here. I think you're saying that I can't use my moral judgements to discredit a religion. And I'm not quite sure where thats coming from either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think what you're trying to say is that I should reject my faith if I cannot rationally agree with its tenets? That is some highly circular reasoning, and would prevent anyone from believing anything at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How so? seems perfectly logical to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think everyone here would agree that homosexuality is a defect and, in a purely naturalistic sense, is an undesirable trait, based on the fact that it hinders reproduction. Therefore, I would say that in general homosexuality is a bad thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do my eyes decieve me? A non-religion based argument against homosexuality? It looks similar to something you said earlier, but I don't recall and I'm too lazy to go look. Anyway, your your premis, and thus your argument, can be invalidated if 'hindering reproduction' can be argued to be a good thing. Currently the world is more or less overpopulated, and so 'hindering reproduction' isn't immoral at all.
There are religiously supported morals that have rational beliefs behind them.
For example:
Muslims and Jews are forbidden to eat pork by their religions. (Technically, in Deuterotomy 14:8 the bible also says you can't eat pork, but iirc later in the Bible God cleanses the flesh of all animals and made them fit to eat)
So where it would be against the forum rules to say, 'Eating pork is bad because my religion says so.' You could look into the reasons why those particular religions forbade the consumption of pork. They said it was 'unclean.' And indeed, the rational behind it is that pigs share many diseases with humans, and improper consumption can give other ailments as well.
So say that a Muslim or Jew wanted to say that eating pork was bad. They could do so by saying, 'Well, eating pork is bad because it's unclean -- eating it could cause you to get sick.'
See the difference? That's how you can argue points coming from a religious stand point. Now get in there and argue against homosexuality, gosh darnit. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Sep 10 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Sep 10 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 10 2003, 02:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 10 2003, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Secular moral discussion does not preclude the notion of objective moral truth.
Your religion does NOT have the copyright on rational moral discussion based on a set of objective morals. <b>Get over it.</b>
Honestly - why do I keep seeing this? People say things like "you need a set of objective morals in order to make valid moral judgements" and then act like that's sufficient proof that THEIR conception of objective morals is the right one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not using an attack against subjective morals to try and claim mine are right, but I am definately using it to say that subjective morals are flawed.
But then, there is a great thread just a few cm below this for discussion that as well.
Once again for the 5-6th time, this arguement has reached a moot point. Outside of religion, there really is no decent arguement for the condemning of homosexual practise.
Comments
Rhuadin: In the case of the Catholic church, isn't it true that a long, LONG time ago, they actually had no real stance on homosexuality whatsoever, and that there were actually several Popes that were admittedly homosexual (in the sense that they understood and were documented as stating so, not that they went ahead with homosexual activity).
As for media declaring homosexuality as 'okay', I'd have to disagree. It's not that they think it's okay, it's that they know that it's still a fairly controversial issue, gets viewers and is seen as entertaining by many. Homosexuals have been in movies and such for quite some time, it's just that only recently have they been portrayed in at least something of a non-hyperstereotyped manner.
However, it then becomes impossible to call anything morally wrong. You cant criticise the Nazi's for killing Jews, that was perfectly justified with their own little set of made up morals.
Made up morals are insane. It makes it impossible to condemn anything anyone does.
So, prove to me, using your own set of morals and logic, that what the Nazi's did was wrong. Keep in mind that you cant criticise the Nazi's morals based on your own. Both of you made your own rules up, so whose to say whose is right and whose is wrong? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who ever said that we have to reason with other peoples morals? How the hell does that make any sense at all? I said that it is certainly possible to create your own set of morals, I didn't say that since everybody creates their own set of morals we have to judge them based on THEIR morals.
Consider it a mental exersize, logically derive some reason why homosexuality is bad without quoting the big book. That means, there has to be some justification for your argument besides "God said so". I know its hard having to think for yourself, not being able to end the argument with a quoted passage from scripture, but that was the point of keeping religion out of this thread.
Not at all comparable. Galileo had been asked by the Inquisition to teach heliocentrism not as truth but as hypothesis because his proof was considered insufficient. This had nothing to do with morals though, and Inquisitors are fallible. Their handling of the Galileo case was admittedly sub-optimal.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, has been infallibly condemned by authority of the living magisterium. Infallible declarations cannot change.
Secular moral discussion does not preclude the notion of objective moral truth.
Your religion does NOT have the copyright on rational moral discussion based on a set of objective morals. <b>Get over it.</b>
Honestly - why do I keep seeing this? People say things like "you need a set of objective morals in order to make valid moral judgements" and then act like that's sufficient proof that THEIR conception of objective morals is the right one.
Interesting point of view. The Nazi's "reasons" to kill Jews were kind of irrational. Now give me a rational explanation of why God hates homosexuality.
"made up morals" aren't necessarily the most absurd... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just for the sake of argument, I'll say this: In Genesis, it says that God made woman because "it was not good for man to be alone." Note the fact that it doesn't say he made another *man*, it says he made a woman. Therefore, logically you could argue that by going against the "system" that he created, you are in effect disobeying God. *shrug*
However, if you're not a big fan of that, or are merely deist/agnostic, there's no reason to think that God would be against homosexual immorality any more than he would be against heterosexual immorality.
Interesting point of view. The Nazi's "reasons" to kill Jews were kind of irrational. Now give me a rational explanation of why God hates homosexuality.
"made up morals" aren't necessarily the most absurd... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just for the sake of argument, I'll say this: In Genesis, it says that God made woman because "it was not good for man to be alone." Note the fact that it doesn't say he made another *man*, it says he made a woman. Therefore, logically you could argue that by going against the "system" that he created, you are in effect disobeying God. *shrug*
However, if you're not a big fan of that, or are merely deist/agnostic, there's no reason to think that God would be against homosexual immorality any more than he would be against heterosexual immorality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right and that would be a direct violation of the no relegious references as a base for an argument rule in this thread.
Basically what has been established, and I don't mean to be offensive, is that the people taking a relegious stance on this topic are just posting and stating that they can not argue from a relegious stand point so they won't. They've also admitted that their morals come directly from God and that they have no indvidual morality? That seems a bit odd to me, if you have no morals or ethics outside of your relegion how can you argue about anything without having a solely relegious standpoint?
It does when you can't back them up. You are obviously a member of your religion simply because you were born to it. If this were not the case you would have had to decide for yourself that your religion is true, and in doing so, evaluate the values of siad religion. If you had done that, you would have evaluated the anti-homosexual stance, and formed some argument as to why it is right, or rejected it.
Anyway, the topic of this thread seems to have run its course, Wheeee admits that without making religious references he can't find anything wrong with homosexuality, and unless someone else can there really isn't much more to discuss.
The reason there is a problem with this is accurately spelled out here <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43988&st=15' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...8&t=43988&st=15</a>
When a tenet of your religion is that homosexuality is wrong there can be no more discussion. If its an axiom its inherently undebatable within the system. The only way to argue with an axiom is to make the person who believes it say something that is a logical conclusion of their axiom that they are uncomfortable with saying. After seeing the discussions on these boards I've lost any hope that christians can be made uncomfortable by the conclusions derived from their axioms. There's just a basic difference in world view. Things that I find to be abhorrent are treated tautologies all the time by christians. But that is a subject for another thread. I think the reason why religious arguments aren't allowed in this thread is that no one wants to try to get inside the head of the person making them to try and find a contradiction that they would be willing to admit. Its fruitless and not enjoyable. People just won't follow you. Religion doesn't play by the same rules.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, I did form an argument as to why it isn't right...perhaps you should read my post. Just because it's based on my religion doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument; I think what you're trying to say is that I should reject my faith if I cannot rationally agree with its tenets? That is some highly circular reasoning, and would prevent anyone from believing anything at all. You cannot a priori develop a code of morality and then use it to critique a religion, and then turn around and discredit the religion based on your morality; you can only say "I don't believe that's true."
Religions aren't tailored to fit your "sense of morality" on every point. They require you to accept their beliefs as the ultimate truth (which is kind of ironic in the case of agnosticism), and if you decide not to accept a religion in a holistic sense, then you've gone and created your own sub-religion.
If you disagree with a religion on the basis of personal morals, then generally you just say "oh, well, i don't believe that religion." However, in the case of homosexuality, you cannot state that it is acceptable without some sort of utilitarian or libertarian beliefs as premises; I think everyone here would agree that homosexuality is a defect and, in a purely naturalistic sense, is an undesirable trait, based on the fact that it hinders reproduction. Therefore, I would say that in general homosexuality is a bad thing.
Does this mean that we should spurn homosexuals? By no means, present circumstances of the human population and society dictate that homosexuals can live normal lives with no adverse effects (besides perhaps rejection by certain groups). Thus the impact of homosexuality's negative side is for the most part irrelevant.
The question we have to ask now is: does societal change invalidate religious beliefs or morals? Personally, I don't think it does. By saying that societal change invalidates religious beliefs, you are by extension denying the existence of any sort of absolute truth, and if there are no absolute truths then there would be no point to discussing this topic. Using the viability of homosexuality in an argument about whether it's good or bad isn't proper unless you're utilitarian, and then I really don't have anything to say to you, because that falls into the realm of subjective morality (who knows, in 200 years homosexuality could be inviable - world war 3, etc etc).
It is important that rational thinking must have premises. Often these premises, especially on this particular issue, are based on one's personal moral beliefs. Therefore I find it hard to accept that someone can use utilitarianism to "back up" his "rational" argument for homosexuality being acceptable, whereas someone cannot use a religious text as his source of argument.
P.S. I was born into a family that was a member of a Southeast Asian folk religion mix between Buddhism and Confuscianism. Thanks for assuming.
I realise that you probably started writing before I posted, but I addressed that above. (Just trying to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not the first time I've been wrong and it won't be the last. I appologize for my rather irrational assumption.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Erm, I did form an argument as to why it isn't right...perhaps you should read my post. Just because it's based on my religion doesn't mean that it's not a valid argument;<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I assume we are talking about your "Just for the sake of argument" post?
The problem with that argument is that it is based on the assumption that God created Adam and Eve as stated in Genesis. Since this is unproven, it can't be the basis of a rational argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You cannot a priori develop a code of morality and then use it to critique a religion, and then turn around and discredit the religion based on your morality; you can only say "I don't believe that's true."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see the point your trying to make here. I think you're saying that I can't use my moral judgements to discredit a religion. And I'm not quite sure where thats coming from either.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I think what you're trying to say is that I should reject my faith if I cannot rationally agree with its tenets? That is some highly circular reasoning, and would prevent anyone from believing anything at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? seems perfectly logical to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think everyone here would agree that homosexuality is a defect and, in a purely naturalistic sense, is an undesirable trait, based on the fact that it hinders reproduction. Therefore, I would say that in general homosexuality is a bad thing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do my eyes decieve me? A non-religion based argument against homosexuality? It looks similar to something you said earlier, but I don't recall and I'm too lazy to go look. Anyway, your your premis, and thus your argument, can be invalidated if 'hindering reproduction' can be argued to be a good thing. Currently the world is more or less overpopulated, and so 'hindering reproduction' isn't immoral at all.
For example:
Muslims and Jews are forbidden to eat pork by their religions. (Technically, in Deuterotomy 14:8 the bible also says you can't eat pork, but iirc later in the Bible God cleanses the flesh of all animals and made them fit to eat)
So where it would be against the forum rules to say, 'Eating pork is bad because my religion says so.' You could look into the reasons why those particular religions forbade the consumption of pork. They said it was 'unclean.' And indeed, the rational behind it is that pigs share many diseases with humans, and improper consumption can give other ailments as well.
So say that a Muslim or Jew wanted to say that eating pork was bad. They could do so by saying, 'Well, eating pork is bad because it's unclean -- eating it could cause you to get sick.'
See the difference? That's how you can argue points coming from a religious stand point. Now get in there and argue against homosexuality, gosh darnit. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Rhuadin
Secular moral discussion does not preclude the notion of objective moral truth.
Your religion does NOT have the copyright on rational moral discussion based on a set of objective morals. <b>Get over it.</b>
Honestly - why do I keep seeing this? People say things like "you need a set of objective morals in order to make valid moral judgements" and then act like that's sufficient proof that THEIR conception of objective morals is the right one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not using an attack against subjective morals to try and claim mine are right, but I am definately using it to say that subjective morals are flawed.
But then, there is a great thread just a few cm below this for discussion that as well.
Once again for the 5-6th time, this arguement has reached a moot point. Outside of religion, there really is no decent arguement for the condemning of homosexual practise.