WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

Having a reason doesn't automatically make something rational. Nor does having faith make something rational. Just because you've been taught by the Catholic Church that homosexuality is wrong does not make that belief rational.

No he didn't.

I'm sure you wouldn't but would you like to try and support that claim with a rational argument?

 

M7ck, the problem here is that you're using circular reasoning. This is a kind of logical fallacy, and pretty much fits the bill for irrational. Nevertheless, I am still curious about why you feel it is wrong.

Is it because you feel emotions which are negative at the thought of people dying, is it because you were taught and you trust those who taught you? Do you have reasons which you've thought through which lead you to feel this? I am curious.

 

Nothing about them is wrong. I don't dislike a person anymore because they are gay. I simply do not agree with it! But calling me a homophobe for my personal opinion is WRONG!

 

It's just a label; as you say, they are tricky because they mean one thing to one person and something slightly different to another. But just for the record, I wouldn't call you a homophobe, so don't worry about it.

 

That question wasn't aimed at you.

That feeling is ok, if you read all of the thread you will see that the conversation has progressed and a consensus has been reached about the word homophobe in the context of this argument.

 

There's nothing wrong, but you don't have any negative feelings towards someone who chooses it? All is not right here. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is completely fine but that its not for you? Or are you saying something else? By disagree, does that mean you think they are doing something wrong? Please, elaborate.

 

I had written a huge reply but god knows what happened to it. In short, I surrender I am not a great debater, but the fact is that I will never change my opinion. It is part of who I am. I have given my reasons (as best as I am capable of) and am getting a little pissed off at repeating myself. I realise that I am unable (incapable?) of changing your minds and I hope you guys realise that my mind will not be changed. I believe my faiths and beliefs are rational, is this because I don't know any better? Or is it because I don't want to know? Who knows,who cares? I have been up since 3am and am absolutely knackered so perhaps my posts are affected by this (meaning my explanation attempts not my beliefs).

And yes I did misread Nexxo's post, again more than likely due to my tiredness. Now I am going to go kick the **** out of a poof to make me feel better then go to bed.








Joking of course

 

You aren't going to change our minds without explaining your answers in more detail than "That is what I think so there".

 

I do. This is irrationality at its core. The refusal to change ones beliefs under any circumstances. That is not levelled as an insult, I just want you to know that you are irrational. Most people are. This is not uncommon.

Hint for the future: When people ask simple questions in this it's because they want to know your answer to what seems like a simple question. It's not to be annoying. Only by starting properly from square one and defining terms can we ever hope to truly change those with different beliefs than our own.

 

I know mate.

Maybe your right mate, we will come back to this thread in a few years and see if my opinion has changed. Perhaps circumstances outwith my control will dictate a new path for me to take.

 

The problem with the "serious" section is that most people don't spend any time IRL thinking about these issues so when it comes time to post something. The only thing they are able to come up with is "because I said so".

And when it comes to matters of personal opinion. Once someone has formed an opinion they aren't going to be quick to change it. And with attention spans that exist these days, most people can't even be bothered to read someone elses opinion let alone think about what they are really saying.

 

Sorry to dig up such an old post, a lot has happened since my last visit but it should still be relevant.

AmEv has stated his beliefs in a fairly calm manner. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, but nowhere does he claim that other people shouldn't live their lives as they choose. It's fairly common for people to think various activities are wrong (smoking, drinking, liking Justin Beiber) without dictating the lives of others. Why get aggressive just because it's homosexuality this time?

But the reason I really wanted to bring up this old post is that it's an example of how it's extremely common to throw around claims of other people's sexuality based on very little information. He's always hanging around other guys, I wonder if he's gay. Why does he never have a girlfriend, maybe he's gay. Look how short her hair is, she's probably a lesbian. And the very worst one is the situation where anyone who says anything anti-homosexual or disputes their own homosexuality is immediately just a closet homosexual because once you've been labeled you can only dig yourself deeper by denying it. Plain and simple is that sexuality is a very personal issue and stereotyping based on observed behaviour is likely to be wildly innacurate and possibly harmful.

 

We're not looking to change your mind; we are just asking you to rationally argue your position. I think you have not been able to do so. I therefore conclude your belief on this issue is irrational. That's no biggie; I have a lot of irrational beliefs myself. As long as you don't impose them on others (which you don't) it's all good.

 

If we look back over the history of humans, animals and all living things, of life if there is only one thing that has so far been proven, it is that it will end. Death has been a fundamental aspect of life. So, based on your reasoning above, if you're saying death is wrong then you are also saying life is wrong. If you think life is right then you must also say that death is right.

Please may I remind you of this?

That is you rationalising your belief in the context of your upbringing, that does not mean it is rational per se. Elsewhere on the planet people are having other things taught to them by their parents, teachers, friends, priests (or equivalent), siblings and peers that will conflict with what you've been taught. It's commonly referred to as indoctrination and I personally am not its biggest fan.

 

Did you read the post I was referring to? It was the "I intend to find a wife, and nothing will change my mind" part that triggered my gaydar. If he thinks his mind could be changed, then he's obviously not 100% straight.

 

Reading all this from the outside, M7ck and longweight although speaking a common language, the translation and interpretation between what each reads and understands from the others posts is lost - it is equally likely that statements are being made which assume foreknowledge of a decent amount of stuff.

I'm going to take a hack at explaining M7cks standpoint to you LW, and perhaps a bit of vice versa, feel free to both shout at me for getting things wrong.

Due to his upbringing M7ck believes that there is good and evil, right and wrong. Naughty doesn't make an appearance, one could possibly divide things up into "a little wrong, a big wrong, a very big wrong." etcetera, but even that would be stretching things. It's yes or no, not maybe.

His upbringing further predicates the rightness and wrongness of a large number of things, including but not limited to homosexuality.

I think everyone got this, it's not an unusual persona to come across, I have a dose or two of it myself, understanding the reason that it's so is a bit more complex, circular logic it sort of is spec, but not exactly...

I'm momentarily going to take god out of the equation, so hold onto your hats. Somebody wrote a book, it was copied by hand, over generations, translated time, and time again, and at some point it was decided that homosexuality was wrong (also the black and white simplistic approach to right and wrong was shoe horned in, but that probably crept in even earlier) this likely sprung out of either fear, or a subtler politic reasoning. Regardless, this book was considered holy by many, and as a book of laws by others and that many of the episodes related within were to be taken as how one should behave and react in the world at large. We now have something that is - in essence - a narrative code of laws and morality, with a rhythm and structure such that it could easily be recited and passed on orally in a time when many were illiterate. It seems a perfectly logical and ordered way to arrange things, and presumably it worked quite well - see first the spread of judaism, then the spread of christendom.

Let's mix god back in for a minute, we now have something that doesn't make quite as much sense, one set of precepts readily contradicts another - gods omnipotence etcetera. However, we have fear, retribution, punishment, fervor, and (now this is important) longevity.

M7ck's way of thinking, his world view, is steeped in something very ancient, with set constraints for keeping a people in line and directing their thoughts and actions down a set path with a great amount of inertia. The internal logic being partly circular, but having a final irrefutable barrier (or two) of god's infallibility, and one's faith in the same. I'm not going to tackle this point any further, having probably insulted you both (and slighted spec in passing) sufficiently for one morning.

Finally, to question the relevance of a roughly 4000 year old idea (within the bible) that homosexuality is wrong. One must ask oneself, what are the common points, then, and now, where is the relevance in the bible, both in particular and in general? Now... I'm not saying that homophobia wormed it's way into the bible as a slanderous method of pressuring a trade embargo against a group of rival city states who may or may not have practiced those supposedly nefarious deeds quoted in your good book. However, that's pretty much what modern evidence seems to point to, the ancient equivalent of bush pointing at Iraq and dumbly shouting WMDs.

 

I immediately regret reading the backlog And yet after all that I feel compelled to post something.

In my experience, once a discussion becomes mostly about the fundamental nature of subjectivity, rationally and right/wrong rather than the subject itself, it tends to go round in a rather unenlightening circle for a bit and then dies.

 

Interesting attempt, asura, but there's really more to it.

Here's where your generalizing is breaking down. You've got the wrong fundamental assumption. It's technically about right and wrong, but it's about the concept of absolute truth versus relative truth. And it's an issue that until terms are defined is simply going to result in both sides being unable to understand each other.

Most belief systems are predicated upon the concept that there is a universal set of guidelines that is true. They don't all match, but they share the common thread of they are always true. In cases where common knowledge is against truth (say, heliocentrism) the fact didn't change, how we understood it did. This is all in opposition to the concept that I hear many people without a faith mention, which is relative truth. What's true for you. It's not too difficult to see what causes the disconnect there.

What I fail to see is how anyone could state that what's true for one could be false for another. It's a logical fallacy. While there's the concept of perception, that still doesn't mean one's perception isn't skewed. I'm not (for the sake of saving arguments) deciding whose view is skewed. Lord above knows enough of mine have been.

Case in point. Heliocentrism. Galileo had proven the earth was not the center of the universe with math. The Catholic church didn't like this, as it upset their commonly held view of being the most important thing in the universe. Who was right? Galileo-the other side simply didn't have as much information. In fact, they lacked enough information to hold an informed opinion. The facts didn't change, the amount of knowledge did. This is the concept that many people speak of when they talk about right and wrong, though, and it's kinda getting missed by the opposition. Nobody seems to have been able to logically state why what is "right' for one person is "wrong" for another, as if somehow 2+2=7 for some people. This is what I'm confused by personally-in logic, there are true, false and conditionally and false, but the conditionals are dependent on actions, which are other true/false statements. The common boolean statement (if/then) is an example. I find the postulate that truth is conditional to return a non-functional argument.

I'm leaving out whose truth is right as well. Remember the statement about knowledge and revelation? I spend a lot of time learning, trying to refine both my knowledge and my worldview. I haven't been able to learn enough that I could invalidate my worldview (which kind of renders the ignorance remarks moot in this case) but I have learned things that have caused me to examine my attitudes and behaviors and change them so as to greater exemplify that which I believe. In fact, I think it's the habit of keeping company that doesn't share my beliefs that helps me keep on top of the process of attempting to live what I believe. There are so many people willing to call my hand.

I'm sure there's more to this conversation, but I could use a rebuttal before we continue in defining terms.

 

Homosexuality being natural, has also been kept at a low percentage of any species. Primarily due to the aversion to the opposite sex and the lack of procreation, the genes for homosexuality are kept rare. Modern science and society has enabled homosexuals to increase their numbers as a percentage slightly.

Not much to worry about for much longer. As genetics advance, parents will be able to abort babies that have homosexual genes, a la "Gattaca". Really, what rational parent would want to bring a child into this world to face the pain and suffering that a homosexual child would face, not unlike any other deformed child discovered en utero?

 

Not to mention that most parents want grand children. Which is a normal want as it goes along with keeping the species alive. So having a child that won't ever have any children won't be something that the majority of parents want. I think we are a long long way away from that though.