Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
This is a flagrantly inaccurate assessment, as usual, and an ad hominem attack, apparently for its own sake.
One needn't even address the question of where a behavior comes from to understand that you, and others in this thread, are demonizing homosexuals. The evidence for that is in how you conduct yourselves. For instance, your refusal to acknowledge the mountains of research suggesting that sexuality is an in-born trait. Or your insistence upon ignoring the causes of the increased risk of disease and mental illness in homosexuals. And your rather lame attempt to hide behind a misinterpretation of meta-ethics to avoid making the claim that would likely see you gone from this place. Your actions--without any reference whatsoever to the nature of sexuality, and therefore, to reductionism--are enough to out you and your friends in this thread, as homophobes.
Should we even get into the reductionist stuff? I mean, we could, but it seems like another red-herring, just like your brief and ill-fated tryst into ethics.
Then a father isn't a father, a businessman isn't a businessman, a fighter isn't a fighter, a rapist isn't a rapist, a murderer isn't a murderer, a caregiver isn't a caregiver, etc., etc..
For one, it's ridiculous to assume that one's sexuality is somehow apart from them. Just based on how much of one's life it affects, (it could be argued that sex is our only real purpose on the planet) it's impossible to remove it from one's identity. That isn't to say it's all that defines them--that's a red herring Syne is attempting to distract us with--but it's certainly part of the story. And criticizing someone's behavior based on such an intrinsic aspect of their nature is to criticize the person themselves.
To add - it is generally accepted that the gendrr by which a person identifies is a large, intrinsic part of who they are...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGFaIxd1YJeXNDA3R7cAqUQaWZOTg
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGFaIxd1YJeXNDA3R7cAqUQaWZOTg
The context of such opinions is typically in the vein of behavior which the person does not consider intrinsic. Keep in mind that those who espouse dualism (which is fairly central to the Christianity you claim) would generally consider all strictly biological behavior as extrinsic to the identity (ever remember reading anything about "sinful flesh"?).
Labels are not identities. Labels are, at best, descriptions, approximations and/or caricatures of identities. To say that I am an artist is a description of what I do, not who I am. Behavior is what you do, while identity is who you are. Now if you are a reductionist, you consider who you are to be reducible to what you are composed of (what you are), as a physical organism and perhaps believe that behavior is largely a matter of stimulus/response mechanisms.
It's a little more complex than that, even if we only limit our view to the Bible...
1. Polygynous Marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.
2. Levirate Marriage
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).
3. A man, a woman and her property — a female slave
The famous “handmaiden” sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).
4. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their “husband,” but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).
5. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.
6. A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.
7. A male and female slave
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.
and of course …
8. Monogamous, heterosexual marriage
What you might think of as the standard form of marriage, provided you think of arranged marriages as the standard. Also remember that inter-faith or cross-ethnic marriage were forbidden for large chunks of biblical history.
Again, that's not reductionism. Reductionism is not saying "You are your actions." That's (another) misunderstanding on your part. What's more, no one is saying that a person is reducible to their actions. That's not being argued.
What is being argued is that by condemning gay sex, you're condemning homosexuals. Sex isn't like theft, or gambling; it's an intrinsic part of our nature. It is a part of who we are.
roger_pearse
Registered Member
Rather a lot of posts, all reducible to one statement:
No..that ISN'T how it's seen.The majority now views homosexuality as totally morally acceptable.
According to the Bible it is a sexual perversion. Am I correct?
So if ''sexual perversion'' is mentioned in it's pages, do you think it's possible it would include homosexuality?
jan.
billvon,
Did you read the context of the discussion you pulled this from?
I'll be sure to keep that in mind if I do become racist, homophobic, or mysogynistic.
Show where I made this comparison.
jan.
Did you read the context of the discussion you pulled this from?
I'll be sure to keep that in mind if I do become racist, homophobic, or mysogynistic.
Show where I made this comparison.
jan.
I don't think it's complex at all.
Two questions. Are all these marriages between man and woman (en), male and female?
Do you see any same sex marriage in this list?
jan.
Dualism...
You are using Dualism to try and substantiate your claim... but Dualism is, at its best, inherently flawed. If the mind and body are not interconnected (and are, instead, separate) then how do you explain such things as psychosomatic disorders (such as psychosomatic pregnancy or Pseudocyesis, in which a woman so fervently believes she is pregnant that her body presents every sign of being pregnant, including the cessation of menstruation, beginning of lactation, enlargement of the breasts and stomach, morning sickness.. hell, some of them even report positive on pregnancy tests... the only symptom of pregnancy missing tends to be, well, the fetus!). There is also the whole idea of a self-fulfilling prophesy (you believe something is going to happen, and thus you subconsciously and inadvertently cause it to happen) or those that simply give up the "will to live" and thus die, despite being physically healthy otherwise?
Likewise, why is it that it is so important to keep a patient undergoing treatment for an extreme condition (such as cancer) in good spirits? Simple- a happier person has been proven to recover faster and more fully than someone who has resigned themselves to die from it... if they have the will to beat it, they generally fair better.
Of course, you state that you feel all biological behavior is separate from ones identity... does this mean that rape, and the person committing the act, should be considered as 'not a part of who they are' and should be pardoned as simply an 'act of the flesh' rather than a conscious decision to violate someone else's person-hood?
No, but after being labeled so long, you start to wear that label as your identity. Hell, there is an entire psychological theory and area of study devoted to just such a process! Not only do the people being labeled end up afflicted because of this, but others (such as yourself) who accept these labels (such as unnatural or homosexual) find it incredibly difficult, verging on impossible, to change their opinions of such labeled people even in the face of overwhelming evidence and fact (sources here here and here, not to mention the damage that this kind of labeling does to both the mental health and self esteem of the people being labeled!
You are joking, right? You are saying that, because the bible gives us all these horrible, terrible ways a woman can be considered married to a man (rape, sexual perversion through selling the body, slavery, etc) that we should consider all THOSE perfectly fine, but the one they don't mention at all is somehow "wrong"? That is... well, beyond words to be honest.
You are not expressing an opinion, you are expressing homophobia. If you had an opinion on it, you would educate yourself, first. The Bible is not an education.
That is because religions cause good people to do bad things. I suspect you are a good person, but your religion causes you to be homophobic, for example.
No, you are homophobic because of your opinions. There isn't anything better than that as proof.
Because, you wish to deny the rights of others while demanding your right to believe and practice your religion. How would you like it if we demanded your religion be prohibited?
Bells
Staff member
Here's a tip for you Jan.
Don't try to copy me, because when I ask for proof about something, I only do so with absolute knowledge of the subject matter. When people like Roger make extraordinary claims that homosexuality is an "unnatural vice", then he has to be able to back this up with scientific proof.. Which I am still waiting for...
Q's claim, for which you attempted to copy me and demand scientific peer reviewed proof like I did with Mr Pearse, is one that is widely known and understood (you'd only have to have read Freud to know the history behind religious belief being connected to mental illness..).. The plethora of papers which discuss mental illness and its connection to religion and vice versa available online.. really, you actually ask for proof for something that is so easily found?
BTW, you of all people here are one of the few who don't have the right to ask for peer reviewed papers in science especially when you are incapable of providing that yourself for any of your beliefs and claims.
But, but but... that's the fundamental way religious zealots argue their case! By demanding absurd levels of "proof" for opposing views (which they then toss out at the slightest technicality) whilst claiming they don't have to provide evidence for their own beliefs! You can't take that away from them, or else people might begin to be swayed by... by... oh the humanity... by actual facts! *faints*
But on a more serious note
Bells
Staff member
So why is Jessica Dutro being sent to jail?
After all, the Leviticus is clear.. If a man lies with another man as though with a woman, then he must be killed. It also has passages about killing children.. So why is Ms Dutro being sent to jail?
A 25-YEAR-OLD mother has been found guilty of murdering her 4-year-old son because she believed he was gay.
The Oregon jury took a little more than an hour to reach its verdict Wednesday in the trial of Jessica Dutro. Sentencing was set for April 18.
The Oregonian reports that Zachary Dutro-Boggess died on August 16, 2012, of intestinal tears caused by abdominal trauma. He collapsed at the homeless shelter where his family was living southwest of Portland at which point Dutro called 911. His birthday was just a day earlier.
Zachary died two days after the beating.
In a Facebook message to her boyfriend, Brian Canady, Dutro said the boy was going to be gay and it made her angry.
After all, if the Bible is going to be used as the definitive book in such matters, it would mean Ms Dutro was correct to kill her son, wasn't she?
So why is she being sent to jail?