|
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
This is your standard Religious argument here:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral.
2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.
3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral.
Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports.
1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc)
2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.
3) Homosexuality is not immoral.
TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
edit:
I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic?
If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
|
On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:Show nested quote +I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is.
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusions. I have no problem with your worldview revolving around a utilitarian calculus of minimizing negative utility. But I'll admit I do have a problem with you suggesting that logic produced your major premise whereas irrationality produced the one you attributed to "the Christian faith."
|
Stop derailing the thread into another Christian bashing thread. Go sign the petition or do something useful.
Bigots will be bigots. Rest of the world moves on. Don't feed the trolls.
|
On May 11 2011 13:18 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:14 Omnipresent wrote:On May 11 2011 12:36 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:33 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:32 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:31 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:30 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:28 platorepublic wrote:On May 11 2011 12:27 Uhh Negative wrote:On May 11 2011 12:25 platorepublic wrote:
[quote]
We as a global citizen have a right to say who is right or wrong. If we think you are wrong, we will kick you out of our lonely planet. You have the right to an opinion of right or wrong  Not only that. I have the right to vote to ban things that I think are wrong. Right, that's an opinion. And if the majority agrees with me, it becomes a right. This is a localized issue. Maybe if you want to talk about persecution of gays on a global basis then your opinion has a weight. There is no such thing as a localised issue. That's YOUR poor judgement and opinion. I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Maybe African nations don't GIVE A SHIT what people from other countries think. You can have all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day they should do what they want to do. They shouldn't do this or that just because some country 1000s of miles away thinks it bad. I'm tired of all this "white love" bullshit assuming the whole world needs to be Westernized. What if you were a Congressmen voting on a bill and some Mongolians think that bill is the worst thing in the world? You shouldn't even consider it, they aren't your constituents. There's clear western interference here, but it's not where you think it is. American evangelicals helped develop this bill and have funded campaigns to support it. This is a western bill, but its proponents could never hope to get it passed in a western country. Beyond that, I can't really understand your extreme-isolationist perspective. Sure, we shouldn't care if other countries have different speed limits, drinking ages, legislatures, or judicial systems as us, but there's nothing provincial about killing innocent people by force of law. This is not the sort of issue about which we should be neutral. It's a massive human right's violation. If we don't stand against something like this, where do we stand? I don't know. Is every person responsible for the human rights of the whole world? Something to think about, I guess. I guess it also depends on the definition of "stand against" something. Sure, I'm against it.
Signing this petition amounts to nothing more than saying "I'm against this bill." If you can say that in public on TL, why can't you articulate this position in the public record? Some of the major arguments employed in support of this bill contradict all of the available evidence. This bill and the arguments supporting it represent a major entry in the public discourse on the issue of gay rights Failure to oppose this bill implies that those arguments are legitimate and fails to dispute the statements this bill makes.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 12:56 Uhh Negative wrote:
We all course it does. That's why there will never be some universal moral code that no one ever disputes, ever. That's why its always going to be a debated topic.
Killing adults because they engage in consensual relationships with other adults should never be against any law. I think anyone who argues that statement is trying to play devil's advocate. There is no other reason to support it logically.
I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. [/QUOTE]
You are entitled to your bigotry.
On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote:
I don't think you should be punished by law for it though.
How charitable of you. Money from private US interest groups and US aid helped the creation of this bill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29#The_Fellowship_and_Uganda) If this law passes US foreign aid money could then be used to enforce it. By failing to publicly oppose this bill, you give it tacit consent.
|
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusions. I have no problem with your worldview revolving around a utilitarian calculus of minimizing negative utility.
Okay.
But I'll admit I do have a problem with you suggesting that logic produced your major premise whereas irrationality produced the one you attributed to "the Christian faith."
EDIT HERE:
1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral.
But, Why does the christian faith consider these things immoral?
/EDIT
Is what God's says right because God says it?
OR
What God's says is right because it is right.
a) Is what God's says right because God says it? I.e. If god said stealing, rape, murder etc was morally permissible would it be?
If Yes --> Problem of Circular Reasoning. What God says becomes defined as "what is right" and therefore, praising God for his "goodness" is impossible because in actuality you are just praising him for saying anything.
If No ---> What God's says is right because it is right. ----> Morality is independent of religion.
|
On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:Show nested quote +I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is. edit: If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position.
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care), but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals, but I also think the world would be better without cripples. It doesn't mean I hate them, they can't help the way they are.
Also I think this issue is blown way out of proportion because a minority is being targeted.
|
Since when is homosexuality a genetic or mental defect? Are you just using it as an analogy or are you serious? I see homosexuality as a preference, just like how my favorite type of food is steak or how I prefer it as medium-rare to medium.
|
On May 11 2011 15:01 Pleiades wrote:
Since when is homosexuality a genetic or mental defect? Are you just using it as an analogy or are you serious? I see homosexuality as a preference, just like how my favorite type of food is steak or how I prefer it as medium-rare to medium.
Do you have any proof to this statement? People who are homosexual have a different set of chromosomes, when compared to heterosexual people. This has been known for years.
Have you discussed this with a person who is homosexual? The majority would argue against that statement.
|
On May 11 2011 15:01 Pleiades wrote:
Since when is homosexuality a genetic or mental defect? Are you just using it as an analogy or are you serious? I see homosexuality as a preference, just like how my favorite type of food is steak or how I prefer it as medium-rare to medium.
it's partially a genetic "abnormality", not necessarily a "defect" depending on how you see it i guess.
you didn't know this? can't tell if you're ignorant or just misinformed...
anyways, how does having 1mil people signing this prevent the bill? all it shows the prez. is that 1 million people are against it and that's not likely to stop this bill from being passed if they had the fortitude to draft the bill in the first place.
|
On May 11 2011 14:51 Ftz wrote:Show nested quote +
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question. Show nested quote +
I have absolutely no problem with your conclusions. I have no problem with your worldview revolving around a utilitarian calculus of minimizing negative utility.
Okay. Show nested quote +
But I'll admit I do have a problem with you suggesting that logic produced your major premise whereas irrationality produced the one you attributed to "the Christian faith."
EDIT HERE: But, Why does the christian faith consider these things immoral? /EDIT Is what God's says right because God says it? OR What God's says is right because it is right. a) Is what God's says right because God says it? I.e. If god said stealing, rape, murder etc was morally permissible would it be? If Yes --> Problem of Circular Reasoning. What God says becomes defined as "what is right" and therefore, praising God for his "goodness" is impossible because in actuality you are just praising him for saying anything. If No ---> What God's says is right because it is right. ----> Morality is independent of religion.
This problem you speak of is called Euthyphro's Dilemma, it was introduced by Plato, in his dialogue "Euthyphro". Here is a link to the wikipedia page if you are interested further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
|
On May 11 2011 14:51 Ftz wrote:Show nested quote +
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question.
I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
|
On May 11 2011 15:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 14:51 Ftz wrote:
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question. I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
Do we really need a mod to validate a conversation? Let's have some fun!
I have held the position that everyone is, to some extent, a utilitarian, and makes decisions based on utilitarian principles. What differs from traditional utilitarianism is that this view has a flexible, "in group", in that sometimes, you make a utiltarian decision based on the happiness of your family, other times friends on forums, other times yourself. You make a decision based on the amount of happiness, and by extension lessining the reverse of happiness, which is caused to the "in group".
That is how I believe people decide what ought to be considered moral
|
Here's something to think about: does it matter that we don't approve of another nations laws?Meaning, because they are sovereign. Uganda has the right to make up its own laws, but unless we are a citizen of Uganda do we have any right to influence their laws and policies no matter how different they might be?
Before I am flamed I think that the death penalty for anything other than murder is quite ridiculous and cruel. Then the death penalty for murder in general is iffy in my book, I guess if I had to make a decision I would say that it is needed where it is in our society (in American society, b/c Im from the US).
|
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is. edit: I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic? If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position. Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care)
Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect?
On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:
but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
|
Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect
Abnormalities aren't defects.
(you can argue about which, I don't care), but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong"
This in a sense arguing that any outlier is "wrong". Does having a "genetic defect" of having two differently colored eyes make me "wrong"? No, merely different.
I think the world would be better without homosexuals, but I also think the world would be better without cripples.
The world wouldn't be better without cripples. We live in the intellectual age where personal value is more defined by one's mind then one's physical ability. While I'm sure there are more examples of this Stephen Hawking specifically has positively contributed to making "the world better".
It doesn't mean I hate them, they can't help the way they are.
Value judgement. You are not superior to a gay person. I am not superior to a gay person. In essence your entire post is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Straight people are not more right or more valuable based on there being more of us or us being the "norm".
Also I think this issue is blown way out of proportion because a minority is being targeted.
Oh my bad on the whole KILLING HALF A MILLION PEOPLE THING.
|
On May 11 2011 15:11 R3demption wrote:
Here's something to think about: does it matter that we don't approve of another nations laws?Meaning, because they are sovereign. Uganda has the right to make up its own laws, but unless we are a citizen of Uganda do we have any right to influence their laws and policies no matter how different they might be?
Before I am flamed I think that the death penalty for anything other than murder is quite ridiculous and cruel. Then the death penalty for murder in general is iffy in my book, I guess if I had to make a decision I would say that it is needed where it is in our society (in American society, b/c Im from the US).
This is a scary route to take. Take any genocide in recent history as an example. This is a human rights violation. We had a problem with the Third Reich, and we did something about it. While this might not be on the same scale, it is a comparable situation.
P.S. I hold the very controversial view that life is not incredibly valuable. Personally, I would prefer death over life in prison. Just thought I'd get that out there.
|
On May 11 2011 15:11 wwer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is. edit: I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic? If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position. Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care) Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect? Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:
but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true?
This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]"
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function.
The problem with the Kantian world view, is it's black and white perspective. Life is more gray than people realize. Controversial issues are not so cut and dry as Kant would like to believe.
|
On May 11 2011 15:11 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 14:51 Ftz wrote:
You are saying that actions are immoral because they are immoral. That is not logical reasoning. That is an assertion. There is a difference.
It's actually impossible to say that something is immoral without making an assertion that you have some basis on which to judge morality. Regardless, the point stands that I/we believe that the rightness of an action is independent of faith-based beliefs, and has something to do with the action in question. I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.) Do we really need a mod to validate a conversation? Let's have some fun!
Hahaha. Good point.
But I really don't need a validation for the conversation. What I need some form of validation for is a sub-10-post, sub-5-month user's claim to be speaking for teamliquid as a whole.
|
The petition is over 1,002,000 btw
|
On May 11 2011 15:06 HULKAMANIA wrote:
I agree. So long as you acknowledge that logic produced neither your belief nor the "faith-based beliefs" that you dislike, I'm on your side (but, and this is kind of a minor quibble, would you mind dropping the suggestions that you're speaking for TL? Until I see an official TL spokesperson icon next to your username, of course.)
1) Yes, obviously I can't even prove moral knowledge even exists or I'd have a Ph.D.
2) Yes, I'm not speaking on TL's part, and I'll refrain from doing that in the future. But as part of the community I felt that someone needed to speak up against such blatant bigotry present in this thread.
But I really don't need a validation for the conversation. What I need some form of validation for is a sub-10-post, sub-5-month user's claim to be speaking for teamliquid as a whole.
Yeh, my bad. I've been lurking for awhile, took seeing some insane posts in threads like these for me to actually get around to registering and posting
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
