posted
Dag, I'm curious as to where you think the line should be drawn. Given that we can now produce zygotes without men, does that mean that men are less essential to the creation of life -- since, from a purely technical standpoint, they aren't essential -- or that science has sidestepped God?
On a larger, hypothetical issue, what happens when -- as will inevitably happen, and probably within our lifetimes -- science both manages to create basic lifeforms from chemical reactions and/or create human beings with no actual parents at all?
Do we say that God has stepped in and made these processes possible, or that these processes produce abominations? If the former, how do we reconcile their origins with the origins used to provide excuses for official censure of certain lifestyles and processes; if the latter, what do we do with people and animals who are all "accident" and no "substance?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Somehow I doubt sperm banks are going to dry up tomorrow, Geoff.
In fact, I would have to dig more to find the numbers but there is a theory that there is enough in sperm banks to ensure the survival of the human race even if every man were to suddenly disappear from the planet. We have, as a gender, donated ourselves in to obsolescence!
quote:Lalo, where did Dag state that he wants to take any rights away from homosexuals or deny them any? From what I remember (I'm not going back and reading this whole thread again), he supports civil unions for everyone.
If he does, it's my mistake. I agree with civil unions for all -- however, I'm under the impression that Dag supports marriage rights for heterosexuals and seperate-but-equal civil union rights for homosexuals.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmm. Maybe I should re-consider. Rob, do you consider people bigots who believe all interracial relationships are immoral?
If they aren't, neither are people who consider homosexual sex sinful. Both condemn loving relationships they have no familiarity with on basis of the skin or sex characteristics of the parties involved. Both believe the parties in the relationship should date another race/sex, based on nothing but pre-determined judgement that any sexual action between the two is immoral.
. . .
Good question. Does mere belief that interracial sex is immoral make one a bigot?
Before I spend time on this, I want to be clear that this is the heart of your remaining issue regarding whether mere belief in the sinfulness of homosexual actions is bigotry. That is, is there a difference between designating as sinful sexual actions based on sexual preference v. doing so based on race.
quote: You're right, I'm assuming you hold now the position you held then, that homosexuals deserve seperate-but-equal civil unions -- but not marriage. Segregation was unequal in the fifties, and I hold the same holds true today.
This thread is linked on page 3 or 4 of this thread. Here’s the quote:
quote:Then you haven't been paying attention. I've said this on this board MANY MANY MANY MANY times. In fact, I've argued that the law call all unions of couples "civil unions," and that "marriage" be reserved for the participants individual interpretation of the word.
In that resepct, we have gay marriages now, just not in most churches. We don't have equally available civil unions now. I think we should.
Dagonee
Later post by me in that thread to clarify on adoption aspects:
quote: BTW, in the interest of being complete, the adoption right I favor attaching to this is the adoption right which arises out of marriage now - the near-automatic right to adopt the spouse's children when the children's other parent has either died or somehow lost parental rights.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I've said this on this board MANY MANY MANY MANY times. In fact, I've argued that the law call all unions of couples "civil unions," and that "marriage" be reserved for the participants individual interpretation of the word.
In that resepct, we have gay marriages now, just not in most churches. We don't have equally available civil unions now. I think we should.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TomDavidson:
"In fact, I've argued that the law call all unions of couples 'civil unions,' and that "marriage" be reserved for the participants individual interpretation of the word."
*nod* I've proposed eliminating legal marriage myself, often -- both here and on Ornery -- for exactly the same reason. Frankly, though, this is not a conservative position, and you'll find that most people calling themselves "conservatives" won't accept it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dagonee:
OK, fair enough, but that's different from what you said above. Unless you don't think I'm conservative? That'd be an interesting post to read. [Smile]
My mistake, Dag. I've maintained the position you just advocated for quite some time, and was under the impression you were for civil unions but against full equality -- what most conservatives in my experience consider compromise on the issue.
Then we agree on the legal aspect of homosexual equality, if we still disagree on sin.
quote:Before I spend time on this, I want to be clear that this is the heart of your remaining issue regarding whether mere belief in the sinfulness of homosexual actions is bigotry. That is, is there a difference between designating as sinful sexual actions based on sexual preference v. doing so based on race.
I have several problems with declaring homosexuality -- or homosexuals, or homosexual activity -- immoral or sinful, but discrimination between Bible passages is a good place to start. Why choose to believe homosexuality is immoral and not, say, wearing clothes sewn of more than one fiber? Both are condemned in the Bible -- only one is still a cherished tradition. If someone wishes to consider the Bible relevant and accurate and dictated by whichever god they choose, more power to them. But I do ask consistency, at least if that someone intends to apply I-say-God-says-so arguments to political causes.
That's my problem with choosing Biblical passages which declare homosexuality immoral -- you really need to reach to declare both that God does consider homosexuality an abomination, but that you aren't obligated to kill people who work on the Sabbath.
Now, as to the actual application of that carefully selected law -- most people would consider me a bigot if I declared interracial relationships immoral based on the skin of the parties involved. Am I suddenly redeemed if I discriminate by sex rather than race? Does declared divine mandate ensure morality for whatever discrimination I decide to practice?
I consider discrimination to be discrimination, even if someone calls down God's Will on his side. Declaring homosexual sex immoral would be laughably arbitrary -- why was that chosen? -- if it weren't so disturbingly similar to rationale against interracial relationships. So disturbingly similar to arguments against racial integration. And given how carefully most people have to pick and choose among the wackier Biblical laws to find passages that condemn homosexuality, call me cynical but I'm not exactly convinced they're simply doing their duty to fulfill God's Will.
Can you provide logical reasons which show why homosexual sex is immoral? Can you provide any evidence which shows homosexuality to be inherently more harmful or dangerous than heterosexuality? Exactly what makes homosexuality -- or homosexuals, or homosexual sex -- sinful? You can't fall back on the Bible without being horribly inconsistent (unless you feel homosexuality and eating shellfish and getting haircuts are all abominations), and I know of no secular reasons why homosexuality is any more immoral than heterosexuality is. Can you explain why homosexuality merits condemnation?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why choose to believe homosexuality is immoral and not, say, wearing clothes sewn of more than one fiber?
As Rivka once taught me, many of the ordinances in the OT are set aside for Jews, and the rest of us aren't directly affected by them. Not positive on the fiber one, though, but I wouldn't be surprised if it fit in the category.
quote: (unless you feel homosexuality and eating shellfish and getting haircuts are all abominations)
These too (shellfish and haircuts).
In fact, most of the "inconsistencies" that get quoted in arguments like this are things that Gentiles were never asked to do in the first place, and the people [edit: the Jews] that WERE asked to do it, do it. Where is the inconsistency?
edit: Because it looked like I was saying homosexuality was an ordinance for Jews. o_O
quote:I have several problems with declaring homosexuality -- or homosexuals, or homosexual activity -- immoral or sinful, but discrimination between Bible passages is a good place to start. Why choose to believe homosexuality is immoral and not, say, wearing clothes sewn of more than one fiber? Both are condemned in the Bible -- only one is still a cherished tradition. If someone wishes to consider the Bible relevant and accurate and dictated by whichever god they choose, more power to them. But I do ask consistency, at least if that someone intends to apply I-say-God-says-so arguments to political causes.
...
You can't fall back on the Bible without being horribly inconsistent (unless you feel homosexuality and eating shellfish and getting haircuts are all abominations), and I know of no secular reasons why homosexuality is any more immoral than heterosexuality is. Can you explain why homosexuality merits condemnation?
This portion of the argument has ben dealt with countless times. But when it is, the explanation is dismissed as nit-picking.
It stems from the concept of the New Covenant. It's a matter of theology. Here's the thing, though: You don't believe any of the hundreds of concepts leading up to it.
The brief answer as to why sex should be confined to marriage (which is what the teaching actually is) is that humans are made in the image of God. One of the attributes of God is the Trinity, in which God, Christ, and th Holy Spirit are separate entities but also one ("one in being with the father").
One of the ways humans are formed in God's image is that, through the sacrament of marriage, we are able to participate in a reflection of the Trinity, in which a man and a woman are "one flesh" but still separate individuals. Another way we are formed in the image of God is by the fact that we are given a portion of God's creative power in the ability to reproduce. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fill different roles in the Trinity, so do husband and wife fill different roles in marriage and the creative power of marriage.
The kicker is that, in the Catholic view, sex is reserved for the marital relationship (as defined above). Sexual acts must carry with them the possibility for natural reproductive processes to occur. This eliminates a large variety of actions from the sphere of acceptable sexual acts. This is also why natural family planning and sex between married, non-fertile couples do not violate Church teaching on the subject.
But no, you're right. There's no reason that will convince you homosexual actions are sinful that doesn't rely on articles of faith to which you do not subscribe.
Nor am I going to try to convinve you of my view. I'm asking you to accept that, for reasons you can't understand because you don't believe the necessary antecedent propositions, the prohibition is not based on discrimination.
quote:Geoff, do you always feel it's necessary to misconstrue your opponent's argument when debating over this topic?
Ha ha! Lalo, you're always co cute when you try to take the high road.
It has taken you fifteen pages of posts to acknowledge Dagonee's argument for the first time, after he has restated it again and again. And you're getting on me for "misconstruing and argument"?
And in this case, it isn't a restatement of your argument that you're criticizing. It's a characterization of your argument. I called your position illogical, and said that you were blinding yourself. And that's all you had to complain about I'd say that I nailed it pretty well. Matter of opinion, I suppose.
Here is where my argument applies. The crux of your argument against Dagonee is this tenuous correllation you have drawn between homosexual relationships and interracial relationships. The entire point of my post was to show you that this correllation is invalid because the differences between sexual preferences are clearly vastly more pronounced than the differences between human races. My argument does not go directly to the issue of whether or not gay marriage is a good idea, and in fact, I explicitly shied away from doing so.
You have just made such a career of writing posts that make their point only by ignoring the positions taken by your opponents, attacking straw men, and steamrolling over everything with flaming passion for your idealogy. It really bothers me to watch someone preach the way you do with an utter lack of integrity or comprehension of what you are doing. It's the same feeling I get when I watch hyper-fundamentalists preach against other religions, so blinded by their own ideas that they can't even comprehend what is being said to them.
I just want to see you discuss issues in a rational, intelligent way, like most everyone else here seems capable of doing. I'd like you see you treat other people with the respect you DEMAND for yourself.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This portion of the argument has ben dealt with countless times. But when it is, the explanation is dismissed as nit-picking.
It stems from the concept of the New Covenant. It's a matter of theology. Here's the thing, though: You don't believe any of the hundreds of concepts leading up to it.
It's not dismissed as nit-picking, it's dismissed as still inconsistent. Unless, of course, you also believe the New Testament's misogynism:
quote:1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)".
1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV)
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)
Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)
1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV)
1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV)
1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)
Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV).
Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands."
1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands
If you believe women should be submissive to men, that "the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (read: veils, burqa), I applaud you on your religious consistency.
It's worth noting, though, that homosexuality is denounced in, what was it, two-to-four blurbs throughout the New Testament, all of them by Paul. If you don't believe New Testament misogynism, I'll ask why you believe the much less emphasized ban on homosexuality.
quote:The brief answer as to why sex should be confined to marriage (which is what the teaching actually is) is that humans are made in the image of God. One of the attributes of God is the Trinity, in which God, Christ, and th Holy Spirit are separate entities but also one ("one in being with the father").
One of the ways humans are formed in God's image is that, through the sacrament of marriage, we are able to participate in a reflection of the Trinity, in which a man and a woman are "one flesh" but still separate individuals. Another way we are formed in the image of God is by the fact that we are given a portion of God's creative power in the ability to reproduce. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit fill different roles in the Trinity, so do husband and wife fill different roles in marriage and the creative power of marriage.
The kicker is that, in the Catholic view, sex is reserved for the marital relationship (as defined above). Sexual acts must carry with them the possibility for natural reproductive processes to occur. This eliminates a large variety of actions from the sphere of acceptable sexual acts. This is also why natural family planning and sex between married, non-fertile couples do not violate Church teaching on the subject.
As a Catholic, I've heard these arguments before. I consider them fairly intellectually dishonest -- claiming sex is for marriage, then denying homosexuals marriage, then denouncing them as immoral because they're having sex outside of marriage is a great catch-22.
I've never quite understood why it takes a husband and a wife "to participate in a reflection of the Trinity, in which a man and a woman are 'one flesh' but still separate individuals." Wouldn't this be true of any two lovers, not simply heterosexual ones? You fail to specify how and why gender matters in this aspect of marriage.
Procreative ability is another strange criterion. If a man has a deficient sperm count or the woman is incapable of having children, there is no "possibility for natural reproductive processes to occur." And yet, as you say, heterosexual infertile couples are allowed to marry. Why? They have no more chance of conceiving than two homosexuals do.
I've never really bought into the "natural law" bit. This isn't a natural world we live in. If the Church were serious about natural law, it would ban unnatural hospitals with unnatural drugs and unnatural equipment -- if the baby's born with trouble breathing, it's unnatural to put it on machines. God's will be done. If you get pregnant by God's decision and thus it's sinful to use condoms, surely your baby will live if God wants him to and it would be sinful to use machines to contradict God's will, right?
Gah.
And even then, homosexuality is natural. It's found throughout the animal kingdom. Exactly why does it then contradict natural law?
quote:But no, you're right. There's no reason that will convince you homosexual actions are sinful that doesn't rely on articles of faith to which you do not subscribe.
Nor am I going to try to convinve you of my view. I'm asking you to accept that, for reasons you can't understand because you don't believe the necessary antecedent propositions, the prohibition is not based on discrimination.
Except that the arguments you just listed don't have any particular reason to exclude homosexuality. A homosexual couple can love each other and become "one flesh" while remaining individual persons. A homosexual couple, given homosexuality is a naturally occuring trait, can have sex in accordance with true natural law -- if anything, given homosexual couples don't need to use sexual protection (if in a committed relationship), they're often more obedient to that law than heterosexual couples who use birth control.
I was baptized Roman Catholic and still register myself as such, but while I have tremendous respect for individual Catholics I'm friends with, I take serious issue with edicts passed down from Rome.
All that said, though, while you've explained why you believe homosexuality's a sin and clarified that there are no secular reasons for opposition to homosexuality, I don't yet know if you'd consider me a bigot for denouncing interracial relationships for their virtue of being interracial. Would I be any more justified if I condemned them with what I claim to be God's will? Or is condemnation of relationships I have no knowledge of or familiarity with only moral when I judge them by sex, not by race?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh. Geoff, I'm not going to bother dissecting your post, given you ignored the questions I posed in my last reply to your post in favor of dishonestly attacking, albeit high-lariously, my intelligence, my integrity, and my knowledge of reproductive biology.
If you can muster up the civility or even rationality to respond to my reply to you on the previous page, I'd love to hear it. For now, though, I'll just appreciate the incredible irony in you ranting about "ignoring the positions taken by your opponents, attacking straw men, and steamrolling over everything with flaming passion for your idealogy." Or will you pretend you haven't done exactly that with your past two posts on this page?
Have some shame, guy.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So is this going to devolve into both of us saying "Man, I can't believe YOU would criticize ME after all the stuff you've said!" Sounds kind of lame Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is a person's value judgment against gay people less discriminatory because it is based on his adherence to religious doctrines rather than personal bias?
From an atheist's perspective, there is little difference between disliking an act based on personal bias and disliking an act based on religious bias.
From the atheist's perpsective, religion is not an unchanging, monolithic truth. For example, Christians used to burn people at the stake for supporting Copernican astronomy.
In a more contemporary example,
quote:In 1968, 338 annulments were granted in the United States; in 1995, 54,013 were granted. (Declarations of Nullity, 73,108 of them, were granted for the entire Church throughout the world, revealing the disproportionate number in the United States.) Catholic Exchange Dot Com
Religion, like all social institutions, evolve with the times. Such evolution is a product of human intervention, driven by human biases.
This is why atheists get frustrated when religious people say, "I'm against gay marriage because God said it is wrong."
While this statement is probably sincere, it fails to consider the fact that religious interpretion of what "God said" has changed over the years, and the unwillingness to change religious doctrines to embrace gay marriages is as much a reflection of human bias as it is an adherence to Divine will.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you believe women should be submissive to men, that "the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (read: veils, burqa), I applaud you on your religious consistency.
It's worth noting, though, that homosexuality is denounced in, what was it, two-to-four blurbs throughout the New Testament, all of them by Paul. If you don't believe New Testament misogynism, I'll ask why you believe the much less emphasized ban on homosexuality.
Lalo, let me be clear on this. I am not going to debate the correctness of my faith with you. I will explain it; I will correct misperceptions, but I’m not going to let you define what I believe and use that definition as a basis for attacking it.
Based on many of your posts on religion, it is clear you don’t believe in many basic doctrines of Christianity. The doctrines on sexual morality are not at the core of Christianity. This is not to say they are not important, but rather to say that they are not at the core of what differentiates Christianity from many other faiths.
First of all, the Catholic faith does not believe Scripture to be the only source of teachings of the Faith. So I’m not dependent on 4 mentions in Paul for this belief. Second, marriage is instituted by Christ in the Gospels as a sacrament, clearly in the context of a man and a woman. The heart of the teaching is not, “homosexual actions are wrong” but rather “marriage is defined as X – sex outside marriage is prohibited.”
quote: As a Catholic, I've heard these arguments before. I consider them fairly intellectually dishonest -- claiming sex is for marriage, then denying homosexuals marriage, then denouncing them as immoral because they're having sex outside of marriage is a great catch-22.
Why is that intellectually dishonest? Because you disagree with it? And it’s not a catch-22 – read the book again. Claiming someone can’t be married until they have sex, and can’t have sex until they get married, would be a catch-22.
quote:I've never quite understood why it takes a husband and a wife "to participate in a reflection of the Trinity, in which a man and a woman are 'one flesh' but still separate individuals." Wouldn't this be true of any two lovers, not simply heterosexual ones? You fail to specify how and why gender matters in this aspect of marriage.
No, and that’s a matter of faith. You don’t believe it. I have no way to convince you nor will I try. Note that this works in conjunction with the other aspects of marriage.
quote:Procreative ability is another strange criterion. If a man has a deficient sperm count or the woman is incapable of having children, there is no "possibility for natural reproductive processes to occur." And yet, as you say, heterosexual infertile couples are allowed to marry. Why? They have no more chance of conceiving than two homosexuals do.
Certain acts carry with them the possibility of procreation in the intended fashion. Certain acts do not. It is the nature of the act, not the possible consequences that determine the acceptability.
quote: I've never really bought into the "natural law" bit. This isn't a natural world we live in. If the Church were serious about natural law, it would ban unnatural hospitals with unnatural drugs and unnatural equipment -- if the baby's born with trouble breathing, it's unnatural to put it on machines. God's will be done. If you get pregnant by God's decision and thus it's sinful to use condoms, surely your baby will live if God wants him to and it would be sinful to use machines to contradict God's will, right?
Gah.
And even then, homosexuality is natural. It's found throughout the animal kingdom. Exactly why does it then contradict natural law?
This is a HUGE misstatement of what natural law entails. It’s not “Don’t interfere with nature.” It’s that there is an underlying moral scheme inherent in Creation. The one has nothing to do with the other.
And morality is NOT determined by what animals do.
quote: Except that the arguments you just listed don't have any particular reason to exclude homosexuality. A homosexual couple can love each other and become "one flesh" while remaining individual persons. A homosexual couple, given homosexuality is a naturally occuring trait, can have sex in accordance with true natural law -- if anything, given homosexual couples don't need to use sexual protection (if in a committed relationship), they're often more obedient to that law than heterosexual couples who use birth control.
Lalo, they’re disobeying the EXACT SAME LAW in that case. Your argument fails on it’s face.
quote:I was baptized Roman Catholic and still register myself as such, but while I have tremendous respect for individual Catholics I'm friends with, I take serious issue with edicts passed down from Rome.
That’s fine. But if the way you take issue with them is similar to the way you’ve discussed this issue, don’t pretend to yourself that you’ve fully considered those edicts.
quote:All that said, though, while you've explained why you believe homosexuality's a sin and clarified that there are no secular reasons for opposition to homosexuality, I don't yet know if you'd consider me a bigot for denouncing interracial relationships for their virtue of being interracial. Would I be any more justified if I condemned them with what I claim to be God's will? Or is condemnation of relationships I have no knowledge of or familiarity with only moral when I judge them by sex, not by race?
There are two principle issues. First, race is an artificial, ill-defined concept. It’s literally impossible to tell what race someone is just by looking, making it unlikely we would bear responsibility for obeying a law with no given means to do it. Given this fact, I find it doubtful that such a law would actually come from God. So I’d have to consider alternative reasons for your espousal of this law, including possible bigotry.
Second, the underlying justification for barring interracial relationships would have to be such that it does not deny the intrinsic worth of people of one or more of the races at issue. I can’t conceive of such a justification. If you care to propose one I’ll be happy to give specific thoughts on whether I consider that justification to be bigoted.
And this illustrates why I’m taking the time to deal with this issue: I’m trying to get you to acknowledge the entire interrelated belief system, not one particular rule within that system you happen to dislike. I’m not asking you to believe it. If I were trying to get you to believe it, I wouldn’t be starting with sexual morality.
Dagonee P.S., I want it to be clear that I do NOT generally go around and pointing out sins to people, homosexual or otherwise unless an issue of justice is involved. I have enough trouble dealing with my own sins. This is part of an ongoing discussion, not an attempt by me to preach.
I believe what I believe. Some of those beliefs call for advocating prohibitions in the legal system (being against abortion or slavery, for example) and some do not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is a person's value judgment against gay people less discriminatory because it is based on his adherence to religious doctrines rather than personal bias?
For me, it is a question of motive. Let me use a story that my pastor told to illustrate the point.
Pretend there is a group of people that show their love by clubbing you over the head. Your family is visiting the group of people when one kindly lady clubs your lovely daughter over the head, raising an ugly welt. You have to understand why she hit your daughter. It makes you upset, and you are justified in keeping your daughter far away from the woman, but to hate the woman is not fair. She's doing something cultural, and all she knows is that she loves your cute little girl and wants to show it.
To me, this is the same. You may think it's stupid that they club people over the head, and if they come into your country and insist on doing it, even after they've been warned that it's illegal, you are justified in putting them someplace where they won't club your children anymore. (ie Jail or a Loony Bin )
But to hate the woman or be resentful isn't going to help anything. She is trying to show love in the way she was taught, and in the way that people around her show love. It should only be your concern for your child's developing brain that makes you lock the woman up.
The problem is that there's nothing illegal about dissention, so you can't lock people up for claiming that homosexuality is wrong. Nor can you lock someone up for being homosexual or vouching for them in the gay marriage debate.
So keep yourself safe from the old lady with the love club, but empathize with her, and allow yourself to love her, even though you don't understand her.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a Catholic, I've heard these arguments before. I consider them fairly intellectually dishonest -- claiming sex is for marriage, then denying homosexuals marriage, then denouncing them as immoral because they're having sex outside of marriage is a great catch-22.
Not really. It's completely consistent. You are to control your urges and direct your sexual energy towards man-woman marriage. Pre-marital sex violates that. So does gay sex. So does adultery or multi-partner sex or anything else other than what the Catholic church believes to be a marriage.
I disagree with it, but not because it's intellectual dishonest.
I don't think anyone is going to convince a religion to change their core beliefs, and picking out scripture to laugh at doesn't help a bit. It's not like you can browbeat a religion into saying, okay, go ahead, marry gay people, and then suddenly society will go along. What will have to happen is for society to accept it and let the churches either follow along or continue to speak against it, as they will.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frustrating. I simply cannot take the arguments against gayness much longer... Of course, this doesn't prevent me from posting in gay topics... Idiotic of me. The fact is that the existence of homosexuality and bisexuality knocks certain solid ideas out of the water. For example, is sex completely, just for reproduction in humans if gays and lesbians experience that same strong physical pull towards sex? *throws hands up.* I'm thoroughly tired of the whole issue!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is frustrating is reading, over and over, attempts to convince religionists that their religion is wrong. It really doesn't work.
"I'm a vegetarian." "But hot dogs are good for you! Look, here's a study that proves it." "But then I wouldn't be a vegetarian." "You don't have to give up your beliefs, just ease up on the whole hot dog thing. I've got lots of friends who eat hot dogs and most of them turn out fine." "But the whole point of being a vegetarian is that..." "Where does it say you can't have hot dogs? Show me the rule!"
You may believe that gays should be able to join in unions (I do) and that's fine. And, as has been pointed out several times, there are churches that will perform a marriage ceremony. But please realize that when you attack the basis of someone's religion to make your point, especially when you don't believe in that religion, you're not likely to be welcomed with open arms. In my view -- and I am one who has played the "Scripture Cherry Pick" game plenty of times before -- it is better to work on society's acceptance and let the churches follow or fall away.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you don't seem to understand, Lalo, is that point-by-point post dissection is an exercise in frustration with you. The posts get longer and longer, your tone becomes increasingly angry, and the entire process becomes repetitive as you ignore the progression of arguments in your opponent's posts, and instead prefer to repeat the same mischaracterizations and personal attacks again and again, ad nauseaum.
If you're asking for one more chance, I'll give you one. But please have a little shame and shy away from demanding that I show you respect that you have never shown me or earned yourself.
quote:What you've -- surprisingly enough -- failed to answer is why this matters at all. If I have an accident at work and become impotent, would you recommend I never be allowed to marry?
How did I know you were going to go right here? It's like a ritual in this debate. Whenever marriage is linked to family and reproduction, the immediate reaction is for the pro-gay-marriage side to say, "Well, then infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, either!"
I wasn't recommending any political course of action in my post. My original post was entirely aimed at citing the problems with your interracial analogy. A more appropriate reaction from you here would be, "So if I was maimed in an accident, and could no longer have sex with a woman, then whatever sex-related acts I performed instead would be irrelevant to human reproductive process?" my answer would be "yes"
quote:In this thread about homosexual equality, you enter and declare that humanity perpetuates itself through reproduction ... And that's where you left it. Exactly what was your point, Geoff?
I have stated my point several times. Maybe it is your inability to acknowledge criticism of your own opinions that makes it so difficult for you to comprehend other people's posts?
I'll say it again. My point is that your interracial analogy is flawed, because the mating of men and women is a substantially, biologically different act than sex-related action between men and men, or women and women ... while mating between interracial couples is biologically indistinguishable from mating between same-race couples, and is entirely a matter of culture and perception.
quote:I pointed out how inane your declaration of reproductive biology is ... Your declaration that children can be produced only through heterosexual "coupling" is wrong and, frankly, inane ...
This is what makes you a frustrating person to talk to, Lalo. You get upset and indignant when I say your point defies logic. Yet you have no problem with calling my point inane. It's as though, in your personal world, criticizing YOU is some kind of crime against nature, while you criticizing and insulting OTHER people is simply the order things, and is to be expected. This is a common perception for children under the age of ten, but anyone older than that is really supposed to know better.
And in reference to the second quote above, all you are showing is that homosexual couples must go through a lot of medical gymnastics to acquire a sperm cell or an egg cell from a member of the opposite gender in order to have kids. I don't see why you're arguing this point. Of course homosexuals can adopt, and of course they can have children of their own if they involve a member of the opposite sex. That is all true. My point wasn't that homosexuals should not marry because they cannot have their own kids together. That is an argument you created, apparently, because it's easier to argue against an opponent when you get to make up his opinion My point was that your analogy was flawed. That's it.
quote:Heh. Yes, you can't go anywhere these days without hearing some jackass carrying on about reproduction.
So, wait, who exactly are you calling a jackass?
quote:I agree. So let's encourage stable, happy homes for these children to grow up -- there are a lot of homosexual couples waiting for the legal right to adopt children to raise as their own.
I was under the impression that homosexual couples already had this right, and exercise it all the time. Wasn't that the crux of some of your arguments above? Now suddenly, they don't have the right to do it at all?
quote:What you don't seem willing to understand is that heterosexual sex is not a fundamental necessity or characteristic of love,
This is getting really tiresome, Lalo. Please explain to me why you keep characterizing my position this way. I have never said anything like this. I'm not going to keep discussing this with you like an adult until you either justify to me why you make this statement again and again, or tell me you are going to stop making it. I'm waiting to hear from you.
quote:nor of raising a family.
Okay, FINALLY, we get on the subject of my posts. Homosexuals can, indeed, raise families. That is true. People have questioned whether or not it is as healthy for children to grow up with role models of only one gender, etc, but I won't go into that now, because frankly, I'm not an expert on the subject, and haven't been shown any convincing evidence of such harm. It's something I can imagine, but I hesitate to make solid declarations about it in either direction without proof. But certainly, a stable homosexual couple would be vastly preferable to a struggling single-parent home or an abusive heterosexual marriage, or a series of foster homes, regardless of whatever hypothetical problems might or might not exist with the arrangement. Homosexual couples are legally allowed to adopt, and I see no reason to curtail that right.
But, to repeat, my only point was that your analogy was flawed. Not that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt.
quote:Are you so incapable of defending the position that homosexuals don't deserve equality with heterosexuals that you'll resort to insulting my intelligence and, albeit high-lariously, my knowledge of sexual biology?
I'm sorry you didn't think it was funny I was having a good time with it. It's sad when someone takes themselves so seriously that they can't abide a few harmless jokes.
But I'll agree with one point. I definitely am completely incapable of defending the position that homosexuals don't deserve equality with heterosexuals. That's an indefensible position that I would never take, except in the fantasy world within your mind.
My position is simply that we need to be more wary and less idealogically blind on BOTH sides of this debate if we are going to determine the correct course of action. Since the obnoxious, hateful idealogues of the right are not represented on this board, I'm directing my efforts towards the obnoxious, hateful idealogues of the left
The fact is that we have a significant and prominent minority of homosexuals living within our culture, many of whom have a strong desire to belong to mainstream America, including the privilege of legal marriage.
I'm hesitant about this issue because social programs and customs like marriage can have a huge impact on our culture's ability to perpetuate itself, raise healthy new generations and survive into the future. This has only been a hot issue for a few years, and I don't believe we have thought this through enough to make an intelligent decision. Social institutions like marriage, welfare, religion, and parental custody are applied judiciously for a reason, and should not be thrown around at the whims of irrational idealogues on either side of a debate.
You've decided that defining marriage is a fundamental right that should be open to all. I consider it a social institution with a purpose and a function in society, and we absolutely MUST be certain that we have examined the value and process of the current institution before we redefine it.
This is a thought process that you are studiously avoiding, and that disturbs me. I don't want this decision to be made by people who are too impassioned to think. Though I usually disagree with Tom Davidson on this sort of thing, I would be far more comfortable with him making this kind of ruling than I would with you, because he does know how to critically examine his ideas, and does not simply sign on wholeheartedly to an idealogy without thinking it through.
I believe that our culture is suffering from an ailment right now that is much larger and deeper than this very narrow, focused issue. This could really fall either way, and the inertia of our society would probably continue headlong in the same direciton. That is why I am not engaging in the debate strongly on either side. My purpose here is to try to encourage people to think and discuss this sort of thing with intellectual honesty and forethought, before we cause irreparable damage to our children's inheritance.
[ September 06, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexual couples are legally allowed to adopt, and I see no reason to curtail that right.
Actually, that's not true. In Virginia, it's not allowed, and they've attempted to interfere with such adoptions finalized in other states when one of the parties moves to Virginia.
I know it's not central to your agrument - just wanted to clarify.
I'm assuming this happens in at least some other states, although it may not.
posted
I recall a debate that went on in Florida recently, where people were trying, unsuccessfully, to curtail the currently-existing rights of homosexual couples to adopt. Chris could probably tell me if I'm remembering correctly. But my impression is that homosexuals, single people, and really anyone who can show the ability to support a child can legally be considered as potential adoptive parents in most places in America. I could be wrong, but given the fact that Lalo's argument was founded in the idea that homosexual couples can adopt, I figure the argument is pretty safe
Though I am curious, if anyone has more specific information on the matter. Either way, I think disallowing homosexual adoption would be a stupid and pointless thing to do, and would be just as idealogically blind and counterproductive as anything Lalo might say
[ September 06, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your analogy, Chris, is that pro-gay rights folks aren't trying to make their opponents "eat meat", or in this case -- become gay themselves. They're trying to get them to recognize homosexuality's "nutritional value"...or, its right to be legally recognized when it comes to civil unions.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. You know, I think we're ignoring a really interesting issue I brought up on the top of this page. Any input?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:On a larger, hypothetical issue, what happens when -- as will inevitably happen, and probably within our lifetimes -- science both manages to create basic lifeforms from chemical reactions and/or create human beings with no actual parents at all?
Do we say that God has stepped in and made these processes possible, or that these processes produce abominations?
The first. Life is life, however twisted the path to creation, and knowledge comes from God.
In the vein, I've always enjoyed the discovery of calculus. After centuries of staring at the same mathematical processes, calculus is born in the same decade on two different ends of the world. Looks like it was time.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that almost any of these techniques will require the creation and destruction of vast numbers of human lives makes them morally repugnant to me.
Any other issues these techniques give rise to are secondary to that.
posted
That's a nice dodge, but tehcnology does improve. What if (when) we learn how to do this without destroying fetuses?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I think you misunderstand. The process to which I'm referring involves the creation of a zygote; no pre-existing zygote needs to exist. Nothing is fertilized prior to this step; no fetus and no fertilized matter is destroyed. Rather, a gamete is changed from female to male and joined with another gamete; a fetus, then, is created with no male parent but with a biologically male zygote.
Again, no fetus -- or fetal matter -- is involved, and certainly not destroyed, as an essential part of this process.
So is it immoral? If so, why? And would a human fetus created in this manner be unholy?
(The "creation of cellular life from chemicals" bit is in a similar vein; no fetuses are involved in this process, either. I selected both these examples precisely to AVOID that specific moral quandary.)
posted
Tom, what happens to the zygote at that point? If this is anything like in-vitro fertilization, then the vast majority of zygotes thus created will die.
posted
Well, since it does not seem unlikely that such a technique will be perfected in the near future, and since it at least tangentially relates to the discussion, why not state a position even if it is hypothetical?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the moment, in current research, I believe most scientists have been actually letting the zygotes die to "avoid" moral dilemmas. However, there's no reason to assume that this must necessarily be the case. At the moment, in-vitro fertilization kills most zygotes due to technology limitations which require that multiple "backups" be created; I'd imagine that this number will dwindle as other techniques are developed.
I understand that you object to killing a human zygote once it's developed -- but do you object to MAKING a human zygote with no direct human parents? Would this zygote produce a human with a soul?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand that you object to killing a human zygote once it's developed -- but do you object to MAKING a human zygote with no direct human parents? Would this zygote produce a human with a soul?
Probably. I think the limitations placed on the need to destroy zygotes currently will always be limiting factors.
If such a zygote did develop into a human being, I'd say we have to treat him/her as such, with full civil rights, precisely because we can't know what his status would be.
posted
Well, what you've ACTUALLY stated is your objection to current methods of in-vitro fertilization. What you haven't stated is why (or if) you'd object to the procedure actually being discussed, which is something altogether different.
Again, the creation of zygotes in this manner would occur before any in-vitro technique, and are thus not dependent upon this technique. It's like asking someone's opinion of a road and hearing, "Well, I hate Buicks. So this road is bad."
-------
Edit: thanks for the clarification. But I'm still confused, then, as to your RELIGIOUS position on this matter. If a human has been created without a male parent, does that mean that humans do not in fact -- from a religious as well as strictly technical standpoint -- need a male parent, or that we've created something that is not, technically, human in the eyes of God? This is a question that I think is especially relevant to Catholics, who as a group believe in undetectable but vitally important qualities that distinguish otherwise identical objects and creatures; would something make this "human" less human in substance? Could he take communion?
posted
Well, I'm not averse to take a stand on the issue: when it is possible to combine the genetic material from two people of the same sex and create a zygote with at least equal chance of survival and healthy development as one created naturally today, I do not see any moral difficulties in accepting such a practice for couples that has trouble concieving in other ways.
quote:Again, the creation of zygotes in this manner would occur before any in-vitro technique
Tom, where exactly will this procedure be carried out? in-vitro just means "in glass." Wouldn't this procedure occur in laboratory facilities.
My position is that I don't know what the status of such a being would be. The fact that it's immoral to produce them does not affect the moral status of those beings. Because we can't know, we'd have to treat them as human.
This is as far as I need to go in my thinking, because I know God will get it right.
posted
The thing, though, is that in-vitro fertilization only results in wasted zygotes nowadays because we haven't perfected the fertilization, and because ALL pregnancies have a number of statistical failures; consequently, most such techniques produce "extra" zygotes in case one attempt fails. There's no actual NEED for this; in theory, a lab could just produce one zygote at a time in an agonizingly slow process to be repeated every time the pregnancy terminates early -- and, again in theory, the lab could refine its technique so that its success rate approaches or surpasses that of natural implantation. There's no waste inherent to the technique, in other words; it's just that most people availing themselves of the process (and the labs meeting that need) don't hold the same priorities you do regarding the preservation of zygotes. I'd imagine that, as the cost of the procedure drops, some labs will spring up that advertise "wasteless" fertilization precisely to appeal to markets concerned with that topic.
----
How do you believe, BTW, that God would get this process "right?" I'm not sure what you mean by that, insofar as there are other situations out there -- like abortion and in-vitro fertilization -- which raise ethical questions which have not so far been "gotten right," as far as I can tell, by God. Why do you suppose that God would resolve the "is this guy a human being" issue any more than He's definitively resolved the abortion debate?
The reason I'm intrigued by the possibilities here is that so many of the arguments against homosexual parenthood fall back to genetic "nature" -- but once "nature" itself becomes a custom option, I wonder which lines will be drawn (and where).
posted
I mean that God would know if these beings are human or not. Since WE can't know, we take the safe course and treat them as if they are. Since this line of reasoning tells me how I need to act, I don't need to solve the ultimate question.
We're speaking about state policy. As state policy, the truth is that there shouldn't be any mention of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Let all denominations have their own little marriages.
And yes, if a gay club wants to have their own marriage club, it should be as valid as a Church's marriage. (Read: both should be meaningless in terms of law.)
The point is that both hetrosexual couples and gay couples should be given Civil Unions.
This makes sense to me. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that we can now produce zygotes without men, does that mean that men are less essential to the creation of life -- since, from a purely technical standpoint, they aren't essential --or that science has sidestepped God?
This question reminds me of the creationist vs evolution debates.
I've never had a problem combining science and God. In many ways, I consider science an explanation of "miracles".
According to the Bible, neither man nor woman is essential for the creation of a human being. But once life has been given or created, it is sacred.
I agree with Dag that it seems wrong to destroy a life that has been created for the sake of discovering the mysteries within the miracles. Then again, I hate killing spiders and avoid stepping on flowers.
Man has played with creating new plant for years. We've created new species, mixed species and in some cases, bred the flavor right out of some of the most delicious fruit.
This brings me to my biggest concern about the new technology. What kind of life will these new beings have? Men and women may seem to be from different planets, but I think they need that difference to be whole. Even within the homosexual relationships I know, one partner has the "feminine" and the other has the "male" role. What will happen to children who don't have a "male" and "female" side to their beings? Will they be "tasteless"?
::BTW-I apologize for rambling:
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Do you expect that they will be? Remember that the zygote would in fact still have a male gamete; that gamete would just have been female shortly beforehand. So while no male ancestor exists, the zygote still has "maleness" -- albeit maleness that's been artificially created.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:albeit maleness that's been artificially created.
It should be obvious whether the zygote is viable and without life threatening deformities, but it won't be until the being is in it's early childhood that we find out if artificial maleness is genuine enough to allow for a personality within the range of normal.
For me the question is, "Is it worth it?" Do we have a lack of male or female gametes? Why do we need to do this? Just to say that it can be done? I think that it is a self-indulgent risk to take with a child's life
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. IIRC, one of the objections to cloning humans is the risk involved to the created life-form--that cloned organizms have a higher chance of something being wrong with them. So if you are going to artificially create a human, there are other options that are safer for the human being produced. The "gee-whiz" factor does not justify cloning as things stand now because of the risk involved.
Conceivably one day creating people without "sperm and egg" may be very safe. Then the above objection is unnecessary.
So, I ask myself how I feel about that. I agree that any life created is sacred regardless of how it is created. But I have strong religious convictions on the purpose of family that may be threatened by asexual reproduction.
I can't think of a reason for asexual reproduction to become more popular than sexual reproduction, since the second is probably always going to be easier, so it may never be *much* of a threat to the formation of families. But my that doesn't remove the "squick" factor or the hesitation entirely.
And I will always believe that males have value beyond being sperm doners. *gives all males a big group-hug*
quote: Beren: For example, Christians used to burn people at the stake for supporting Copernican astronomy.
Dag: Please source this. i think you'll find it's not true.
Dag, I was taught by two professors in college that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because of his support of Copernican theories.
But these were science professors, not history professors. Bruno is a kind of a cult hero among scientists so it is entirely possible that Bruno's sacrifice for science might be more myth than fiction.
Example:
quote: Galileo had cause for concern, because in 1600, Giordano Bruno, a philosopher who supported Copernicus's theories, was burned at the stake.
quote: "Innumerable suns exist, innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds"
The Italian philosopher-astronomer Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for these words in the year 1600, just a few years before Galileo began using his telescopes.
quote: The sixteenth century Italian monk Giordano Bruno suggested publicly that an infinite universe was filled with planets that harbor life. For these thoughts he was burned upside down and naked at the stake.
On the other hand, The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Bruno explicitly states that "Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy" but rather for his other theological errors.
Some sources take the middle ground. Wikipedia points out that "while [Bruno's] Copernicanism was undoubtedly a factor in his excommunication and execution, his theological beliefs were also sufficiently unorthodox to earn him condemnation, and probably played a larger role in the matter than his cosmology."
Given that I cannot positively prove my statement is correct, I apologize for that assertion.
Is it too late to change my statement to "Christians used to imprison and intimidate people (Galileo) for supporting Copernican astronomy"?
[ September 07, 2004, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Galileo was imprisoned for refusing to cease publishing his interpretations of the Scriptures. Not that this makes the Church look better, but it is a significant difference.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Galileo was imprisoned for writing Dialogue on Two World Systems? Wasn't that a book about Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy?
edited to add:
Sorry, wrong title. It was Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems:
quote:In 1624 Galileo began a book he wished to call “Dialogue on the Tides,” in which he discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican hypotheses in relation to the physics of tides. In 1630 the book was licensed for printing by Roman Catholic censors at Rome, but they altered the title to Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (trans. 1661). It was published at Florence in 1632. Despite two official licenses, Galileo was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition to stand trial for “grave suspicion of heresy.” This charge was grounded on a report that Galileo had been personally ordered in 1616 not to discuss Copernicanism either orally or in writing. Cardinal Bellarmine had died, but Galileo produced a certificate signed by the cardinal, stating that Galileo had been subjected to no further restriction than applied to any Roman Catholic under the 1616 edict. No signed document contradicting this was ever found, but Galileo was nevertheless compelled in 1633 to abjure and was sentenced to life imprisonment (swiftly commuted to permanent house arrest). The Dialogue was ordered to be burned, and the sentence against him was to be read publicly in every university.
posted
I posted a link a while back. The charge was related to his interpretation of Scripture, based on his heliocentric beliefs.
In other words, he was free to say that the earth orbits the sun, but not to say that a particular scripture passage meant that the earth orbits the sun.
Like I said, it doesn't make the Church necessarily look better, but it's a far more accurate summary of the proceedings.
Dagonee P.S., Galileo was wrong, you know. He thought the sun was the center of the Universe, not just the solar system.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Lalo, you're always co cute when you try to take the high road.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
