The ethics of homosexuality.
- Thread starter Undecided
- Start date
Baron Max said:
Not really, since your response does not demonstrate any understanding of the question.
Seriously, if canceling people from the human species in order to find a reason to disrespect them is the best you can come up with, try for something better.
Seriously:
• So my cat, before I had her fixed against reproduction, was human? I always thought she was feline, but as you pointed out: "I think that's true of other animals, isn't it?"
• Additionally, when I call my mother tonight and inform her that she's not human, should I just tell her that Baron said so, or would you like me to cite you by your real name?
• Additionally, when I call my mother tonight and inform her that she's not human, should I just tell her that Baron said so, or would you like me to cite you by your real name?
In the future, try an argument with some shred of integrity, Baron.
You're the one that said homosexuals are not human....why would I say that?...why would you say that Tiassa??...I could care less about you anyway...as you keep stating I'm a bigot....I just don't agree with letting homo's adopt children...just my personal opinion....opinion and facts are just that...you're stating your facts and I'm giving you my opinion...yet all you can do is call names and put people down...but you want to raise children....that's just sadd....did you notice that you keep comparing homosexual adoption to child molesters and murderers...why is that???? how am I blaming my sloth on someone....I just said I have nothing else to say about this to you because your post are wayyyy tooooo longgggggg, Oh wizard please give me a brain and Tiassa a new set of balls...please oh please detach the v@3$^&&a in his mouth!! 
ReighnStorm said:
Check your own words, ReighnStorm. You want perfection. You want a superhuman standard. And until that standard is met, you don't want to treat homosexuals equally as human beings.
Indeed you could.
And given the chance to take your opinion into a voting booth and act on it?
Are you of voting age? Are you registered? Do you vote? Do you think opinions are actionable if they're based on presuppositions contrary to fact? If, for instance, I don't like you because you're a child molester, but you've never molested a child in your life, is my opinion valid and actionable?
How so? You're damn near the last person at this forum who should be slinging that complaint at anyone.
I'll be proud to teach my child to resist empty-headed bigotry.
Say huh?
Nearest I can figure to what you might possibly mean, the answer is simple: because for over a decade that's been at the forefront of homophobia.
Such as the case in Florida, where a judge was so worried that a lesbian might abuse her daughter that he placed the girl with her father, who was convicted of murdering his first wife, and whose elder daughter accused him of molestation.
Given your suggestion that we ought to do more studies, hey ... first it doesn't matter what the studies say inasmuch as homophobes will continue to believe whatever satisfies their egocentrism; secondly, would you accept it if Christians were forbidden from adopting children until millions of families could be studied to determine how those kids are doing? The vast majority of child molesters are Christians; the vast majority of sexual assaults are by Christians; children of Christians are more prone to believing erroneous assertions of fact; children of Christians who remain Christians will grow up to be less successful than their atheistic neighbors. And they're very likely to pass on their Christianity to their children, just as their parents did.
And no, Christians don't get to hide behind the Constitution on this one. Because when you come right down to it, gays have the Constitution, too. It's just a matter of whether or not a flock of bigots intends to base their opinions on something real and actionable.
Consider the principle behind a number of the anti-marriage amendments passed last November: There's no law against it, so we, the People, must approve it.
There's no law for or against your right to cook dinner in your own home. Better get out the petitions.
It's obviously too much to ask of you that you consider facts in forming your opinion; don't blame that on the length of my posts.
Yes, Wizard, please give her a brain. And hey, I am a fan of The Family Guy, so a new set of balls would great on my chin. Of course, there are other ways to get balls on my chin; I don't even have to ask the Wizard--he can ask me.
(cue funk)
(fade to black)
ReighnStorm said:
The main problem with a statement like this (well the condition of which it is an admission) is that rational functioning human beings don't try to keep facts and their opinions separated. Opinions are reshaped and newly formed by new facts, ignoring them does nothing but make a fool of you as you continue on with behaviors and beliefs that you honestly should know better than to trust.
Tell me, ReighnStorm, what is so virtuous about your opinions, which you admit are not based on fact, and apparently not swayed by the real world, that you feel it is okay when they (or ones like them) are used to govern real people with real consequences and real oppression? I could say that my opinion is that people who have such blatant disregard for grammar ought to be taken into the street and publicly flogged, yet somehow I take comfort in the fact that I know I'd never have a leg to stand on in terms of forcing this policy on others.
If you need it put into some sort of folksy colloquialism (though I suspect this will help Baron Max more than anyone, he seems to take great pride in his substandard reading comprehension skills): If you can’t find any worldly basis for your views, then why should your views be imposed on the world?
Mystech said:
because the question was asked.......duhhhhh......it's my right to an opinion and your right to read it or not....never have to base it on facts...that's my choice....it's T's choice as well to rely on his own opinion and/or facts....trying to persuade me with your personal convictions or belief....I'm free to say and do whatever I want, when I want, how I want and to whom I want....you feel me....... :bugeye:
tiassa said:
Why would I think that homosexuals are not human...again I ask...I would not want an ex-con adopting kids as well...he is still a human though....makes me realize how much you actually think of yourself and others like you
Yes, and I will make damn sure that I vote on everything from now on....
How am I a child molester If I've never molested a child?????????????where would the opinion actually come in to play...are you stating facts........do you think I'm a child molester because someone told you so....or???????what
Uhh....You tooo...... :bugeye:
Aren't you human....don't you live in the U S A ????because I thought the constitution was for everyone anyway?????????????
My point...again.......T.....is that I have the right to form an opinion....anyway I see fit...my reasons are my own...they do not have to be justifiable to you or anyone else....that's why it's an opinion......I've never tried to disuade you of yours........unlike what you're trying to do to me.......
And you want to raise children....shame on you......
Just fade..........................................
Last edited:
ReighnStorm said:
That's my question to you, too. Why do you hold homosexuals to a different standard than other humans?
See? You've already convicted homosexuals of whatever your irrationally-formed opinion fears.
Do you have any obligation whatsoever, when you choose to affect your neighbors' lives, to have a rational reason for your action?
Exactly.
I'll just borrow that answer from you:
I have the right to form an opinion anyway I see fit. My reasons are my own. They do not have to be justifiable to you or anyone else; that's why it's an opinion.
I mean, that's fair, right? That's how you think things should be, right?
Oh, poor you ...
I'll ... give my daughter the last word on that.
tiassa said:
I don't hold homosexuals....what you're obviously not seeing is the Heterosexual/homosexual...key word difference...sexual...children already have a hard time with sexual identity.....I don't feel that someone such as yourself even know your true identity.....why add more trauma man..I mean woman....or...????I don't know.......
.
My opinions are not irrational....my opinions have sound judgement and reason...you just don't like them or agree....and yes it's true you're stating your beliefs on FACTS (knowledge or information based on real occurrences,something demonstrated to exist).......http://www.narth.com/docs/endorses.html
1. I know, personally, people that have been raised by homo's...which I so kindly stated before......didn't grow up so well...that's a FACT.......
the AAP did not come to their homes or ask them to participate in any surveys about being reared by a homo.........statistics aren't sound proof
,
I have 2 sons and 1 daughter.....need I say more......
That's not an opinion, that would be a lie, an untruth....it would be an opinion if you stated something like: because you were raised with homosexuals it is more likely that you will become a child molester.....that's an opinion without facts...
Are you even paying attention?????
By the way Tiassa.....I am APPALLED at you for telling that horrific so called joke about
BLACK CHILDREN I hope your daughter never hears it.....for all of you who don't know.....
Tiassa stated his joke - "Why can't little black kids play in the sandbox?"
......"Because the cats keep burying them."
meaning he thinks black children smell and look like SH!1T....how you would even have that in your mind or even repeat something so horrible....how you would even engage in such a disrespectful manner.........you have clearly made my point...................you lummy
Ahh yes NARTH, that bastion of credibility and respectable opinions backed up by uuh. . . eer. . . oh yeah, that's right, not a damn thing.
Note that in your link ReighnStorm, this organization witch tries to call itself credible and even *snort* scientific cites no specific studies or even any numbers. There is nothing here but wild unsubstantiated accusations on the part of a bunch of self-hating homosexuals and homophobes. Remember that the two men who founded this organization eventually left it to run off and get married.
Do the research, from actual studies done by actual psychology and health experts and you'll find that the existing body of data goes quite against what NARTH claims. This is why the APA and AAP are supporting same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples.
We've looked at NARTH at least a half dozen times in this forum alone, and I believe even considered banning posting resources from it in a serious attempt to substantiate an argument. It's not a scientific organization, just a political one, take a look at it's mission statement - it started out trying to act on a conclusion who's premises simply didn't even exist.
Also, bravo on changing your tune on the whole concrete rational argument vs. vaporous untethered opinion. You're starting down the right road now, and I urge you to keep walking down it. We can work on reading comprehension and spelling and grammar later.
Note that in your link ReighnStorm, this organization witch tries to call itself credible and even *snort* scientific cites no specific studies or even any numbers. There is nothing here but wild unsubstantiated accusations on the part of a bunch of self-hating homosexuals and homophobes. Remember that the two men who founded this organization eventually left it to run off and get married.
Do the research, from actual studies done by actual psychology and health experts and you'll find that the existing body of data goes quite against what NARTH claims. This is why the APA and AAP are supporting same sex marriage and adoption by same sex couples.
We've looked at NARTH at least a half dozen times in this forum alone, and I believe even considered banning posting resources from it in a serious attempt to substantiate an argument. It's not a scientific organization, just a political one, take a look at it's mission statement - it started out trying to act on a conclusion who's premises simply didn't even exist.
Also, bravo on changing your tune on the whole concrete rational argument vs. vaporous untethered opinion. You're starting down the right road now, and I urge you to keep walking down it. We can work on reading comprehension and spelling and grammar later.
Are you stress testing your keyboards period key for its manufacturers, or are you just and idiot?ReighnStorm said:
This late in the thread I think ReighnStorm has sufficiently discredited herself and been discredited that I can get that off my chest. I could add some point about how she keeps contradicting herself and how her source of 'facts' was already debunked earlier in the threat without a peep out of her, if anyone thinks I'm bringing down the conversation.
DOTDOTDOTDOT FROWNYFACE I AM MAKING A POINT!
Is she still here? Ack. Well, it cannot be helped. Can she booted(from this thread at least) for trolling or someo such nonsense?
This is an if then type of thing- IF being gay is NOT part of genetics, but a choice, then it is wrong, because it is an "evasion(as I so like to say)" of reality. Some people of said something along these lines, and I agree-the human anatomy is not made to do that, so to pursue them would be contradicting. However, IF being gay is some symptom of genetics and something that happens to your chromosomes, THEN it is fine, because this is your anatomy coming back to say you SHOULD do that, even though it is really out there. It is no longer an evasion, because that is what you have been "programmed" to do.
This is an if then type of thing- IF being gay is NOT part of genetics, but a choice, then it is wrong, because it is an "evasion(as I so like to say)" of reality. Some people of said something along these lines, and I agree-the human anatomy is not made to do that, so to pursue them would be contradicting. However, IF being gay is some symptom of genetics and something that happens to your chromosomes, THEN it is fine, because this is your anatomy coming back to say you SHOULD do that, even though it is really out there. It is no longer an evasion, because that is what you have been "programmed" to do.
ReighnStorm said:
Look at your stuttering bigotry seize up and answer me a simple question, please:
Why do you demand, and how can you expect, of homosexuals a standard that you and every other human being on the planet is incapable of meeting?
ReighnStorm, you're citing NARTH, which is an organization similar to the Institute for Creation Research. ICR, for instance, is a place where scientists go when they're tired of dealing with testable hypotheses and want to stand on the knowledgeable authority deferred to their role as a scientist without being scientific. Similarly, NARTH is a place for doctors who place themselves above their patients. They feel their politics are more important than science or medicine. It's a common conservative trick to pretend that any objective source that disagrees with the basis of conservative political assertions must necessarily be a deliberate liberal movement; this is how they attempt to justify scientists standing on scientific authority in order to promote nonscientific ideas, and doctors standing on medical authority to promote political ideas.
Much like you, they think opinions without factual basis are valid and actionable.
The same can be said of heterosexuals, but as I understand it, you don't care since you hold homosexuals to an inhuman standard. And nor did the AAP come to their homes or ask them to participate in comparative studies.
No wonder Jesus weeps. Yes, you need to say more. You need to try answering the whole question again. Here, I'll repeat it, and also rephrase it based on the information you just gave:
• Do you have any obligation whatsoever, when you choose to affect your neighbors' lives, to have a rational reason for your action?
• Do you have any obligation whatsoever, when considering the best interests of your children, to base your decisions on something rational?
• Do you have any obligation whatsoever, when considering the best interests of your children, to base your decisions on something rational?
As it stands, your opinion says no, you don't need to be rational, and people can call whatever they want the best thing for their kids.
And? After all, that doesn't affect the standard you've offered: "I have the right to form an opinion anyway I see fit. My reasons are my own. They do not have to be justifiable to you or anyone else; that's why it's an opinion.
Yes, you're correct. That is an opinion without facts. It's a lie.
Yes. What's your excuse?
Got a link? Cough it up. Go on. What's the matter, ReighnStorm? I'm not afraid of it. Why are you?
C'mon ... you want this discussion? Provide a link. You afraid of it? Then just move on and find another straw to grasp.
Dare you. In fact, I double-dare you. I triple-super-mondo-dare you to cough up that link.
Piece of unsolicited advice: You would have been better off, strategically, to not add on your own interpretive tag-line. As it is, you've transferred the pressure onto yourself. If you want an answer to your sentence fragment ("how you would even engage ...")--although I understand entirely why you wouldn't want that answer--it's now to you to demonstrate the accusation in order that I might respond.
What example do you think your dishonesty sets for your children? Are you, as a liar, a positive role model for children? Why are you not obliged to be perfect?
JohnGalt said:
The model you describe here is inherently flawed, which I'll get to in a minuet, however even if this were the case I don't exactly see what would make it immoral. I don't see anything inherent in the act that makes it wrong. Man wasn't built to walk across hot coals or jump out of planes, doing so makes him shiver shake and wake up at night in a cold sweat, but he still does it anyway. If homosexuals still felt some sort of repulsion to sex with members of the same sex but did it anyway (maybe for some other sort of thrill) then who cares? I don't really understand this idea of morality as an objective, and any deviance from a morphous and inconsistent social standard of normalcy being some sort of arbiter of behavior who's intentions for us are unquestionable.
Perhaps you could elaborate.
JohnGalt said:
I don't see why it necessarily needs to be Genetics, though it could well be a factor. Remember that genetics alone aren't the only biological factors which determine a person's physiology or psychology, trust me on that one, I've got a Twin brother (identical) and we've got plenty enough differences that I can see that DNA isn't the end all be all of everything.
Anyhow, this model also seems a bit silly to me. It seems as though you're suggesting that homosexuals might actually be faking an attraction to the opposite sex? Do you suspect that perhaps they don't really mean it, and are just doing it to piss people off? I guarantee you that homosexuals feel the same way about members of the same sex as heterosexuals feel about members of the opposite sex, that's a fact, it comes as natural as it does with you, just directed at different people.
I absolutely did not suggest what you said in the last paragraph. I'm not sure how you came up with it, but knowing me, I probably did say something along those lines.
Hmm. Psychology is a factor. Didn't look at that one, but I guess I originally intended it as part of the first category. But, isn't psychology, in a way, derived from genetics? And, why(I should ask how) on Earth would they be able to find something on a chromosome suggesting one to be gay, if it wasn't part of genetics?
As to how I said an evasion of reality, I guess you are correct. But, I claim that man is to live by standards of reality and reason-and the reality of human anatomy is that you are not to do that, and it is immoral, as it contradicts the reality. But, if you cut to the chase, lots of things could be considered as a similar evasion. Depends on how you define it.
Whether I consider it immoral or not has no influence on whether someone does it. It doesn't bother me in its entirety, immoral is merely a label for it, and I would personally not do it. However, my desires don't control another's life. Their choice, and it's not mine until I consider doing it. That seems like it would be a rather rare occurence, so, not my choice.
Hmm. Psychology is a factor. Didn't look at that one, but I guess I originally intended it as part of the first category. But, isn't psychology, in a way, derived from genetics? And, why(I should ask how) on Earth would they be able to find something on a chromosome suggesting one to be gay, if it wasn't part of genetics?
As to how I said an evasion of reality, I guess you are correct. But, I claim that man is to live by standards of reality and reason-and the reality of human anatomy is that you are not to do that, and it is immoral, as it contradicts the reality. But, if you cut to the chase, lots of things could be considered as a similar evasion. Depends on how you define it.
Whether I consider it immoral or not has no influence on whether someone does it. It doesn't bother me in its entirety, immoral is merely a label for it, and I would personally not do it. However, my desires don't control another's life. Their choice, and it's not mine until I consider doing it. That seems like it would be a rather rare occurence, so, not my choice.
tiassa said:
the link is on Sciforums you lummy....go to cesspool.........lummy