quote:"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," he said. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.
"But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion."
According to the singer-songwriter, 59, his solution would be to "ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it".
I wouldn't want to see the government ban organized religion, cause I don't like the government banning anything. But I do agree with his sentiment. I'd love for people to simply practice whatever religion they practice in private. I also realize that there's no way in heck it would ever happen. Community is a large part of any religion.
I wonder if there's a way to disorganize religion while retaining the community part of it and still allowing people to practice it to their hearts content.
Find some way for the people to remove the hierarchical structures of it maybe? Democratic religion?
posted
Well, I'd say one of the main arguments against that are that banning religion isn't going to end hatred of gay people. People don't need religion to hate anyone, they can it just fine without it.
Besides, if we're going to argue that banning religion will make homosexuality more acceptable, we might as well argue that banning homosexuality will make religion more acceptable. It's a silly suggestion. I see where he's coming from, but it's still silly, for the purposes he's attempting to achieve anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if your heart's content includes open religious practice?
And it is an overgeneralization to say that religion promotes hatred towards gays. Yes, most religions disagree with homosexuality, but this is different than hating the actual people who are gay (excepting those few religions that actually do promote gay hatred. And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
To ban organized religion would go against the very foundation of this nation. Sure, it may not bother you if you don't practice in an organized religion, but for someone like me, banning it would be banning me from my constitutional right to free worship.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To ban organized religion would go against the very foundation of this nation.
Note, I said I wouldn't want to see the government ban it. Cause I agree with you, banning anything goes against the foundations of this nation.
I just think organized religion does a hell of a lot of harm. A lot more harm than good in many cases. And I think finding some way to remove the organization, the hierarchical structure, but still retaining the community and practice might help nullify the bad in future. Probably is I can't come up with any way to do that realistically.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That, Alcon, is what the Founding Fathers were worried about more than there being a national religion. They were far more worried about laws being made, and Kings fiddling around with the doctrine and rules of religion than they were with a president openly saying he was Christian and we were a Christian nation.
Religious freedom isn't just about being able to openly pray and safety from prosecution, it's a sacred protection of their religion against being lobotomized by kings, other religions, or secularists who think they are doing something for the good of the nation.
We, as Americans, don't get to "fix" religion in any way other than by going to church and discussing it with fellow churchmembers (or mosque members, or etc etc), and deciding as the followers of that religion what to put in and leave out of their doctrine. Their hierarchy, the establishment within that religion, is also off limits. Perhaps equally so to the doctrine itself in terms of importance.
"Laissez-Faire Religion in America." I can see the bumper stickers now.
Now to address the OTHER side,
Marlozhan -
No, the major religions don't promote hating gays, or gay violence, but I think you'd have to agree that religion is a huge contributing factor to where anti-gay sentiment comes from. It isn't the fault of the religion, it's the fault of the man who fails to follow his religion entirely, and instead only half listens and goes on a personal crusade. A man can carry a cross with him at all times, as a sign of faith, and choose to use that cross as a weapon, but that isn't the Cross' fault, it's the fault of he who wields it so. In other words, I don't blame Christianity for gay hatred. But when I hear on the news that a gay kid in some Bible Belt state was tied to a tree and stoned to death, while being made to say "Hail Marys" I have to wonder, not about the faith, but about the people PREACHING the faith.
I think in the same sense that it is considered logical to religious folk to love the sinner and hate the sin, it's perfectly rational by the same logic to blame the believer and not the belief.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be awesome if religion were practiced by whoever wanted to, but didn't have such a centralized power structure. How does having a congressional lobby help anyone build a deep, personal relationship with their God?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That, Alcon, is what the Founding Fathers were worried about more than there being a national religion. They were far more worried about laws being made, and Kings fiddling around with the doctrine and rules of religion than they were with a president openly saying he was Christian and we were a Christian nation.
Religious freedom isn't just about being able to openly pray and safety from prosecution, it's a sacred protection of their religion against being lobotomized by kings, other religions, or secularists who think they are doing something for the good of the nation.
We, as Americans, don't get to "fix" religion in any way other than by going to church and discussing it with fellow churchmembers (or mosque members, or etc etc), and deciding as the followers of that religion what to put in and leave out of their doctrine. Their hierarchy, the establishment within that religion, is also off limits. Perhaps equally so to the doctrine itself in terms of importance.
How many fracking times do I have to say it? I don't support the government doing anything like this. I don't like governmental control of much on the personal liberty scale. I'm damn near libertarian! I think to a degree it's necessary in the economic arena, but not much.
What I mean is that the people of the religion find a way to remove their power structures with out losing the community. I don't mean anyone force it on them in any way, I mean they find a way to do it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always figured that religion should really be about helping YOU figure out how to live your life, not telling OTHER people how you think they should live their lives.
I really did like some of the things I learned from Christianity. I find it difficult to believe that so many religious folks have managed to fully remove the beam from their eye.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That, Alcon, is what the Founding Fathers were worried about more than there being a national religion. They were far more worried about laws being made, and Kings fiddling around with the doctrine and rules of religion than they were with a president openly saying he was Christian and we were a Christian nation.
Religious freedom isn't just about being able to openly pray and safety from prosecution, it's a sacred protection of their religion against being lobotomized by kings, other religions, or secularists who think they are doing something for the good of the nation.
We, as Americans, don't get to "fix" religion in any way other than by going to church and discussing it with fellow churchmembers (or mosque members, or etc etc), and deciding as the followers of that religion what to put in and leave out of their doctrine. Their hierarchy, the establishment within that religion, is also off limits. Perhaps equally so to the doctrine itself in terms of importance.
How many fracking times do I have to say it? I don't support the government doing anything like this. I don't like governmental control of much on the personal liberty scale. I'm damn near libertarian! I think to a degree it's necessary in the economic arena, but not much.
What I mean is that the people of the religion find a way to remove their power structures with out losing the community. I don't mean anyone force it on them in any way, I mean they find a way to do it.
Apologies. My diatribe wasn't pinpointed soley at you, despite the fact that I named you. You may not be in favor of government getting into the business of faith management, but others are. Clearly, from Elton John's statement, and subsequent statements that refute his method, but agree with both his statement and his endgame, those thoughts are alive in the world, and I think have some representation on this board. My comments are aimed at those people much, much more than at you Alcon. I wasn't rebuking you personally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apologies. My diatribe wasn't pinpointed soley at you, despite the fact that I named you. You may not be in favor of government getting into the business of faith management, but others are. Clearly, from Elton John's statement, and subsequent statements that refute his method, but agree with both his statement and his endgame, those thoughts are alive in the world, and I think have some representation on this board. My comments are aimed at those people much, much more than at you Alcon. I wasn't rebuking you personally.
Fair enough. I'm with you up to here:
quote:and subsequent statements that refute his method, agree with both his statement and his endgame
His statement is that an awful lot of organized religion promotes hate (specifically of gays) rather than the love it's supposed to. His endgame is lack of organized religion.
I support his end game. I don't support anyone forcing it on them. I hold (naive, impossible, pipe dream) hope that one day the members of the various organized religions will realize that the organized structures they support do more damage than good and find a way to disorganize. That would achieve the same end game, with out forcing a thing.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at his statement, he said "ban religion completely," not "ban organized religion completely."
His method is the state sponsored banning of religion. His endgame is a world without ANY religion at all, for the sake of tolerance. His statement, and subsequent statements by you, is that religion is incredibly intolerant of homosexuality and promotes hatred.
I agreed insofar as I thought religious followers fell within that group, but not religion by nature.
What I was saying above, when I tried to apologize to your taking offense, was that the belief held that religion is dangerous and should be changed to make it more docile is a slippery slope. It's good that you don't want to have the government get rid of religion. But support for the endgame, of a world without religion, and rhetoric about the ills and dangers of religion, is what I caution against. If you fall within that group, then I don't apologize, as I think it warrants cautioning. If you don't, then consider the apology in force.
Edit to add: I know that in the article it mentions his support for banning "organized religion." But two things on that:
1. His quote omits the word "organized."
2. I'd contend that "religion" and "organized religion" have few if any differences. Religion is by it's nature organized in some way or form. Even if you got rid of every church, pastor, and preacher in this world, and left only individuals with their Bibles, there would still be organized religion, just without the hierarchy of clergy. Anything involving worship that has a set doctrine is by it's nature organized.
I think the reason the clergy exists at all is to make sure that a million people don't read the Bible and pick it apart until there are a million different doctrines. Clergy are a guiding force in religion, they keep everyone on the same page. If you stray, they will do their best to get you back on the path. Remove the clergy and there is still the path, only now you have millions of people interjecting whatever they want into, and extracting whatever they want out of, their faith.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remove the clergy and there is still the path, only now you have millions of people interjecting whatever they want into, and extracting whatever they want out of, their faith.
And there's something wrong with this... how?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I wonder if there's a way to disorganize religion while retaining the community part of it and still allowing people to practice it to their hearts content.
I'm a non-denomenational Christian. We don't have a hierarchy or power structure. We just show up and worship. But we read our Bibles and still think gay marriage violates the Word of God.
I also think it's unfair to categorize all organization as hard hearted like he did. How many missionaries are out in third world countries working for the good of the people? How much money did the big churches pour into New Orleans after Katrina or southeast Asia after the tsunami?
Religion is tempting a lot of times becuase it gives people a checklist. "I'm a good person if I do these things." It's much harder to focus on having a relationship with God and loving your neighbors.
But just becuase a lot of people do it badly doesn't mean religion itself is to blame.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Avid, I had a big long, convoluted post all set up and ready to go, but going off your post actually makes it much easier.
Alcon -
The only way to get rid of religion in the way you're talking about, is to get rid of the Bible entirely. Otherwise you still have the framework of a religion there. It's the template for an organization, and people will follow it, regardless of whether or not there's a massively powerful church hierarchy or not.
Getting rid of authority figures in religion, like I said before, removes the checks and balances. Remember that Christianity at it's core IS about love and peace, you said it yourself. And the majority of the clergy preach just that message. It gets through to millions, but millions still ignore it. What do you think would happen if the message didn't get out at all?
Have you seen American History X? You don't need a Pope and Bishops, and Clergy, and a massive social structure to spread a message. All you need is one guy with ideas, one guy with a good voice, and in this case, one book with a LOT of implied positions on issues, but not a whole lot of ways to get them done. Human imperfection fills in the gaps.
Oh, and Karl, I believe homosexuality was criminalized in the USSR in the 30's, where religion was also banned. Not what that does for you one way or the other, but it's an example.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: According to the singer-songwriter, 59, his solution would be to "ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it".
That's a pretty misleading name for the thread. He isn't calling for religion to be banned. He's saying what his solution would be. Those are two very different things.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm But then people would just go underground with religion. Perhaps those that are more "tolerant" should have a louder voice, but they will just be called luke warm by some.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a pretty misleading name for the thread. He isn't calling for religion to be banned. He's saying what his solution would be. Those are two very different things.
How is that not saying what "should" be done?
Even if the quote were the title, it would still lead to the same conclusion: Sir John is a wannabe totalitarian.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, and Karl, I believe homosexuality was criminalized in the USSR in the 30's, where religion was also banned. Not what that does for you one way or the other, but it's an example.
Well, Marlohzan's comment seemed to me to be implying something more contemporary, but I see your point.
However, I'm not sure criminalizing in this case is "preaching hatred". In fact, I'm not sure there has been much "preaching of hatred" of homosexuals until homosexuals started asserting their rights as normal human beings. Before that it was largely just a given that homosexuality was a peversion and therefore not to be desired, at least among western society.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm hardpressed to present a modern example. Russia is still a hotbed of anti-gay sentiment, if you think you had it bad here, wooo, it's bad over there. But mostly the driving force behind the bad over there is the Russian Orthodox Church. In the 30's, it was Stalin and Co. I think you see the beginnings of an institutionalized hatred of gays back then, but in the present, it all comes back to the church, so you got me there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I'm confused Lisa. How is "My solution is X" all that different from "X Should take place?"
If you're advocating a solution to a perceived problem, isn't it understood that is something you want done?
If he were advocating it. But he's not.
(He is advocating that religious institutions find a way of getting along with one another, but not that they all close up shop. The latter's merely a lovely dream for him.)
To give another example that may or may not make things clearer, I have long felt that it would be nice if we could round up all the hardline Palestinian terrorists and all the hardline right-wing Israeli settlers and put them into a large secluded area with a ton of ammunition. They'd blissfully wipe each other out for the greater glory of God, and the other 98% of the people on both sides could finally live in peace.
Do I think this should happen? No. Do I think it would be a moral solution? No. Do I think there would be any way of accomplishing it? No. But do I think it's a lovely, poetic idea that would actually work if if not for the practical and moral objections? Oh, yes.
What one would do given hypothetical carte blanche and what one thinks should be done can be two very different things. Elton seems well aware of that distinction.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Well, back when I used to play in alt.philosophy.objectivism (now humanities.philosophy.objectivism), there were a lot of people claiming that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and therefore irrational. And of course, to some Objectivists, irrational = evil.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Smuel, I think your example underscores the problem with these kinds of hypotheticals.
Setting aside for the moment, the moral and practical problems with the two "solutions", (and assuming you are right about Elton John's "lovely dream" attitude) those scenarios rely on hypotheticals that I'm not convinced actually exist. I think the purely evil, unreasonable, and implacable forces that must be abolished because there is no other option are myths made up by the opposing forces to rally their people, (with perhaps a very small minority as an exception). Things get stickier when you are dealing with real people.
How many extremists do you think there are on both sides? How many of them are inherently implacable to their very core to the extent that their mutual extermination is a "nice idea"? If this rotten core were extricated and eliminated, would that solve the problem? Are all the rest of the Palestinians and Israelis in full agreement of what constitutes peaceful co-existence and just awaiting the removal of the rabble-rousers so they can live in peace?
Likewise, where are the religious haters who's hatred can be shone to have been directly the result of their religion? Does being a Christian make someone intolerant and hateful? What about Dagonee and kmboots? Or Belle? I would say that those three are good examples on this board who (IMO) are largely who they are because of their faiths, and I could not justify carte-blanche elimination of a philosophy that can lead to the existence of any of them. I think the haters who are made that way by their religion are mythical. I think the hater part of them is created by something else that just found religion a handy tool for reinforcing itself. I've known some pretty irrational homosexuals who are also full of a lot of hate. I don't think it's the homosexuality that makes them that way, even though for them it is an aspect of their lives they allow to be perverted into reinforcing their hatred.
I'm not entirely sure my point is clear in the above, so comments are welcome. I just felt a rebuttal was in order. Either Elton John is seriously advocating something terrible, or he is advocating a reasonable solution to a mythical problem he has created simply to make use of his desired solution, which is essentially pointless and doesn't even deserve a thread, except maybe to laugh at it.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: And don't forget there are plenty of atheistic people who preach hatred against gays, too).
OK, I'll bite. Who are these people? Can you give me a few examples? Can you give me one example?
Well, back when I used to play in alt.philosophy.objectivism (now humanities.philosophy.objectivism), there were a lot of people claiming that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and therefore irrational. And of course, to some Objectivists, irrational = evil.
I think that's just playing semantic games. Aside from "well, one could say that X is Y so from that point of view . . ." do you really think that anyone in that discussion was "preaching hatred"?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Karl, I'm not saying you need to agree with my dream scenario... one which, I might add, would put some of my real-life cousins in the hypothetical compound for extremists. (I'm not going to debate my fantasy further because the details have nothing to do with this thread.) I'm simply addressing the claim that Elton is seriously advocating that religion be abolished, which he is not. In fact, all of us -- me, you, and Elton -- agree that "Things get stickier when you are dealing with real people."
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remove the clergy and there is still the path, only now you have millions of people interjecting whatever they want into, and extracting whatever they want out of, their faith.
And there's something wrong with this... how?
Coming from an fairly large organized religion, I'll tell you what's wrong with this. People are stupid. People with religion can be even more stupid. The beliefs of my religion point to a single, simple, yet elegant path of constant improvement of physical, emotional, and spiritual ability. The leadership is there to usher people down that path, to correct and guide people. Without it, you end up with people doing what they want to do, and trust me when I say that when people do what they WANT to do, it very rarely leads down a good path. The problem with religion is not organization. It's when people choose to do what they WANT to do with the religion rather than seeking to understand and grow. Removing all religious hierarchy will do the exact opposite of what you want, simply because the same people will just find more and more reason to hate, because hate is a very major part of human nature. We always have to have an enemy, because that's the way things are in nature. There's always a predator out there trying to kill us and we have to either run from it or kill it back.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
as an aside.. can you imagine being famous having having every snarky, stupid or venting comment you make poured over by the public all over the world?
That would be hell.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the subject line and thought, "Wasn't he knighted by the head of the Church of England?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
John is a hypocrite. He preaches tolerance by showing intolerance for other people's religious views. John is just showing himself to be an intolerant bigot.
BTW, organized religion in the old USSR/ Communist Block was also, if not banned outright, driven into near extinction. See also China or Cuba today today. (See the Javier Bardem movie "Before Night Falls" about being a homosexual under Castro's communist Cuba.) The Nazis also weren't big on organized religion because, as with the communists, it's competitor for authority and people's loyalty. (The type of authority over other peoples lives that John appears to want to have.) Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis or communists?
John is a successful entertainer, but he's no big thinker. I suspect that John equates public policy disagreements with hate. For example, he is a proponent of homosexual marraige. I oppose that practice. I don't hate gays. My position on this issue is not based on spite. I'm also not particularly religious. So employing Gestapo to close down churches isn't going to change my opinion. I'm surprised he didn't mention homophobia while he was having his spiteful and bigoted rant against religion.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Were/are homosexuals any better off under the atheist Nazis
I'm pretty sure "athiest" is an inaccurate word when it comes to Nazis. Atheists were among those persecuted by the Nazis.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with saying people should practice religion in private only is that a great deal of what religion can do is enabled by being organized. People working together can accomplish a great deal more than individuals alone.
I suspect that is actually the objection to organized religion - that people working together have more power than people alone. In that case, it isn't the organization that's a problem - it's the concentrated power. That's too bad - power can be used for both bad and good, but trying to prevent its accumulation by not allowing people to gather is a terrible, terrible thing.
posted
Mig: If your objection to homosexual marriage isn't religious, then what's the deal? (uh-oh, here we go...)
If you don't want to marry a guy, then don't. But don't object to other people doing it or they might go passing laws against something you want.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She didn't technically say it wasn't based on her religious beliefs, though I can see why you might think that was implied.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with what kat said. Any group that gets organized - and groups of any size must organize to do anything. And with organization comes power. And this will, in some degree, lead to corruption, to protecting the power at the expense of the original goals of the group and to rigidity and inflexibility. This is not just true of religion. Look at unions, for example. or Congress.
Part of Catholicism is the concept of communion which means being in communion with each other as well as with God. They two aren't separable. (Some exceptions for hermits, I suppose...) We are two thousand years old and enormous. And we made what I consider a big mistake; we got mixed up in politics. Given that, we could be worse (and we have been). Change happens slowly for us but it does happen. Look at the Second Vatican Council.
Someday we will get it right.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Either Elton John is seriously advocating something terrible, or he is advocating a reasonable solution to a mythical problem he has created simply to make use of his desired solution, which is essentially pointless and doesn't even deserve a thread, except maybe to laugh at it.
Or maybe he is pulling one of those Swiftian modest proposal type things to call people's attention to a problem.
Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. I don't want to see Churches become the social equivelant to the bath houses of the past century--where people go despite it being politically correct to call people going there perverts and dangers to society. I don't want suicides and depression because society is forcing people to deny, hide, closet their religion.
I want the renaisance of thought and ideas that comes with the free assembly of the faithful. Sure, I may not enjoy the televised spectacle that is the most blatant form of this behavior, but I have the power to turn the channel, walk away, live and let live.
Then again, I don't want the same thing to happen to people who are homosexual.
Oh the irony, of those who society finally allows out of the closet of their sexuality, forced into another closet because of their faith.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally object to homosexuality, but it's a matter of nature. I have oftimes heard people argue that it is natural, yet I have argued why can you not produce offspring. The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain. It is not possible in same sex relationships.
For me, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of natural observations. From my observations and with speaking with those whom I know who are gay/lesbian, I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
Ex. My cousin originally said she was straight. After a bad ending to a relationship with a man, she declared a month later that she was never straight and clearly must be a lesbian. Following suit, she had a bad break up with a female and weeks later was with a man again, declaring that she was straight once more.
I have known several other individuals whom I am very good friends with who I can trace their 'sexuality' to a key relationship issue. They deny that there is such a connection, of course, but when one has a weak opinion of oneself and goes through an emotional breakup, they occasionally consider themselves the factor that was wrong and question all possibilities, including their sexuality.
One can also look at history to support another example of where it had occurred. If you look at history, the most common examples of homosexuality is during war times, both for men and women when those of the opposite gender were in short supply.
Yes, I'm sure people can name many situations wherein it has occurred. No, I am not going to give specific instances, but one can look to Greek and Roman days for examples. This is what I've observed and so I felt I would share it.
One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain.
you assume there is a stated purpose to life. This is not a given.
quote:I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
If you weren't so busy "surmounting" things, you might surmise that it occurs throughout nature, and is therefore very natural in many circumstances. You might also surmise that humans are also a product of nature and therefore there is a huge natural component to human "social issues".
quote: [I know a bunch of people so well I can conclusively tell that they are lying to themselves about something so complex as their sexuality therefore what I've convinced myself of must be the truth]
Well, ok. Is your psychic ability genetic or natural? Or is it something you made a conscious choice about?
quote:Yes, I'm sure people can name many situations wherein it has occurred. No, I am not going to give specific instances, but one can look to Greek and Roman days for examples. This is what I've observed and so I felt I would share it.
I was thinking I should cut you some slack because you're probably a teenager, but if you've actually observed "Greek and Roman days" then you're old enough to put up with my sarcasm.
quote:One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect.
Thus illustrating how little you know about the complexities of genetics. Not that I feel homosexuality is exclusively genetically determined, but I felt I should point out that some intelligent people find your arguement to be less than compelling.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect."
I don't agree with this. Believe it or not Homosexuals can have sex with the same sex, and therefore pass on the genes. It happens all the time. Now, for me that is a point against it as a natural condition. What I do think is actually opposite this. If it is genetic, then wouldn't that trait be traced down family lines? At the same time, if it can't be traced like any other genes then would it not be a persistant genetic defect?
I think in the first statement he is speaking from an evolutionary perspective. What are strictly Darwinistic reasons for (edit:) humanity to exist? I've always been curious about that, but never enough to go look for myself.
quote:Originally posted by Johivin: I personally object to homosexuality, but it's a matter of nature. I have oftimes heard people argue that it is natural, yet I have argued why can you not produce offspring. The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain. It is not possible in same sex relationships.
For me, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of natural observations. From my observations and with speaking with those whom I know who are gay/lesbian, I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
Ex. My cousin originally said she was straight. After a bad ending to a relationship with a man, she declared a month later that she was never straight and clearly must be a lesbian. Following suit, she had a bad break up with a female and weeks later was with a man again, declaring that she was straight once more.
I have known several other individuals whom I am very good friends with who I can trace their 'sexuality' to a key relationship issue. They deny that there is such a connection, of course, but when one has a weak opinion of oneself and goes through an emotional breakup, they occasionally consider themselves the factor that was wrong and question all possibilities, including their sexuality.
One can also look at history to support another example of where it had occurred. If you look at history, the most common examples of homosexuality is during war times, both for men and women when those of the opposite gender were in short supply.
Yes, I'm sure people can name many situations wherein it has occurred. No, I am not going to give specific instances, but one can look to Greek and Roman days for examples. This is what I've observed and so I felt I would share it.
One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect.
Sigh. Then count me among the unnatural. I have sex and yet have not produced offspring. Wait a minute...perhaps...(gasp)...sex has other purposes! I wonder what those could be...
So the purpose of life is merely to perpetuate itself. So really, no point in living past menopause, then.
I wonder if other animals, (sheep, whales, dolphins, giraffes, various primates) also participate in same sex activites because of bad break-ups?
edit to add: BTW, if genetic changes from the parent didn't happen, we wouldn't be having this conversation. To refer to mutations as "defects" is just silly.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
John is being a silly dip and needs to learn to make commentary without such sweeping generalizations.
Seriously, I can imagine this going over about as well as the whole brouhaha over "We are bigger than Jesus."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "One last point, for those whom say that homosexuality is genetic, were the people truly homosexual their genetics would not pass on. The only way that it would pass on is in the case of a genetic defect."
I don't agree with this. Believe it or not Homosexuals can have sex with the same sex, and therefore pass on the genes. It happens all the time. Now, for me that is a point against it as a natural condition. What I do think is actually opposite this. If it is genetic, than wouldn't that trait be traced down family lines? At the same time, if it can't be traced like any other genes than would it not be a persistant genetic defect?
Or it could be that politics and social convention has created a false dichotomy of homosexual/heterosexual and that Kinsey was right about it being a spectrum. It would therefore only take a person who wasn't on the farthest end of the spectrum, but just off it by a hair or two for those genes to be passed on.
Or it could be that everyone has the same genetic sexuality which naturally encompasses the whole spectrum, but early socialization causes some people to lock to one end or the other.
Or it could be that there are a dozen genes, all of which give traits that are necessary for survival but which in certain combinations increases the likelihood of homosexual tendecies.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally object to homosexuality, but it's a matter of nature. I have oftimes heard people argue that it is natural, yet I have argued why can you not produce offspring. The purpose of life is to create life and continue one's genetic strain. It is not possible in same sex relationships.
For me, it is not a matter of religion, but a matter of natural observations. From my observations and with speaking with those whom I know who are gay/lesbian, I have surmounted that homosexuality is a social issue, forming from social interactions and has no natural/genetic beginnings.
Science does not agree with your postulation of entirely socialized homosexuality, and your ameteur anecdotal analysis and naturalistic fallacy do not make a greater case than our current understanding of human sexuality.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, if what you say is true (and there currently is no evidence what is the correct assumption) than Homosexuality is as equally a social construct as a genetic one. A study that I think would be good is if we can find that "genetic" marker in newborn (or in the womb if possible) babies and track the emerging sexuality. That way we can know if the genes are pre or post social conditioning.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
KarlEd
