|
|
Post by THawk on Apr 26, 2018 12:16:37 GMT
Read the premise of the thread. None of this is my argument, none of this is how I feel about anything. But I am following an honest atheistic view of the matter to its logical conclusion, even though many atheists abandon logic in an effort not to offend and to comply with accepted social norms. You are playing some really big mental Olympics here to try and separate natural order from sexual orientation. Males have male genitalia and females have female genitalia in order to reproduce with each other and create offspring. This is a very basic biological fact. It's not for "social cohesion" as some people are suggesting in other posts, it is for reproduction. If there is nothing more to this world than naturalism, it means that if one is failing to play a part in this cycle, then they are not fulfilling their natural functions. Being born left handed does not mean you can not or should not want to reproduce. Again, not whatsoever in the same category of anything we are talking about. If you are born infertile, guess what - you are also an aberration. It occurs in nature, but it is an aberration. Straight forward. In this context, naturalism is any view that limits human beings to their natural environment. That does not allow for the possibility of a spiritual world, or God-created world and the existence of souls, where you can argue that a human being has worth and value regardless if they are able to fulfill their biological design (to reproduce) or not. "But I am following an honest atheistic view of the matter to its logical conclusion" You are following a Strawman view of an atheist. A caricature. You probably saw Kevin Sorbo in "God's Not Dead" and decided "Yep, that's an atheist". Stalin and Dawkins were both atheists, gee I guess they both must have the same "atheistic view" on homosexuality, right? "Males have male genitalia and females have female genitalia in order to reproduce with each other and create offspring." Then you would have to argue infertile couples having sex is "unnatural" "It's not for "social cohesion"" Sure it is, ever herd of Bonobo chimps? "Being born left handed does not mean you can not or should not want to reproduce.". You're moving the goalpost. We're talking about what's "natural", not what's necessary for reproduction. "In this context, naturalism is any view that limits human beings to their natural environment. That does not allow for the possibility of a spiritual world, or God-created world and the existence of souls, where you can argue that a human being has worth and value regardless if they are able to fulfill their biological design (to reproduce) or not." You do not need to believe in God, religion, ghosts, goblins, etc to be "spiritual", all it means is pursuit of meaning, experiencing the beauty of the universe, life fullfilling experiences and personal growth. Plenty of atheist Buddhists are arguably more "spiritual" than many Christians that aren't particularly devout. Sam Harris defends spiritualism from an atheist perspective. Lol. You can't even finish a sentence accusing me of strawman before linking me to the "God's Not Dead" crowd with no evidence. How ridiculous and hypocritical is that? And you are purposefully being obtuse. Yes, for the 100th time, infertile couples are failures in an evolutionary, reproductive, pass your genes on to the next generation sense. It would be a genetic flaw. This really is not difficult to understand. This is not me being supportive of mistreating or banning anything, this is me explaining to you how things are if the natural world is all that we have. I am not moving goalpoasts. Since the start we have been talking about both. What is necessary for reproduction - if for whatever genetical reason or the way you are born you are excluded from the gene pool capable or willing to reproduce, then in natural terms you are indeed an aberration. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 26, 2018 12:17:15 GMT
Before asking the question, "Why not?" perhaps the question, "Why?" should be answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Apr 26, 2018 12:27:45 GMT
Males have male genitalia and females have female genitalia in order to reproduce with each other and create offspring. This is a very basic biological fact. It's not for "social cohesion" as some people are suggesting in other posts, it is for reproduction. Nobody would deny that sex can be used for reproduction, but based upon what is that its only useful purpose? It's clearly not, as nature itself shows. Nature doesn't come up with lists of what "useful purpose" you can use anything for, it comes with biological purposes. The design for reproductive organs is to reproduce, and there is no other human anatomy that is more direct in it's purpose than that. From microorganisms to human beings, that is the "goal" of one's life in the natural world. To preserve the species and to reproduce and grow in numbers. To argue that because some mammals display gay characteristics it means it is part of the evolutionary design - even though they are born with the exact same organs capable and meant for reproduction - is absurd. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Apr 26, 2018 12:32:48 GMT
But I am following an honest atheistic view of the matter to its logical conclusion, even though many atheists abandon logic in an effort not to offend and to comply with accepted social norms. No, you are taking your bottomless ignorance of science and twisting it to justify what you wish were a social norm--bigotry against gays. You have no idea what naturalism means. Naturalism does not have anything to say about biological functions and how human beings should regard them. Nature has no positions or norms regarding what "should" be done in life. This is a myth perpetuated by people who have no understanding of biology or evolution. Concepts like "failure" or "fulfilling" or "aberration" only make sense according to the subjective norms of human beings. They have no role to play in nature or science. Only a strawman creation of your ignorant mind believes that worth and value have anything to do with how human beings relate to the biological functions of their body parts. There is quite a large body of literature in philosophy which ground value and worth on more sensible grounds within a completely naturalistic and materialist worldview. Maybe you should try educating yourself on this literature before you say unbelievably stupid things about what naturalists, atheists, and materialists think. You must have gone in a real rage the first time someone gave you the birds and the bees talk. Yeah sure, reproductive organs are not for reproduction. Just arbitrary pieces of meet nature attached. I've said it many times, of all the users on this message board, absolutely none match up to your level of ignorance. You are embarrassed and looking for any way to ignore what your beliefs actually support. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 26, 2018 12:35:39 GMT
Nobody would deny that sex can be used for reproduction, but based upon what is that its only useful purpose? It's clearly not, as nature itself shows. Nature doesn't come up with lists of what "useful purpose" you can use anything for, it comes with biological purposes. The design for reproductive organs is to reproduce, and there is no other human anatomy that is more direct in it's purpose than that. From microorganisms to human beings, that is the "goal" of one's life in the natural world. To preserve the species and to reproduce and grow in numbers. To argue that because some mammals display gay characteristics it means it is part of the evolutionary design - even though they are born with the exact same organs capable and meant for reproduction - is absurd. The only part of nature that comes up with purposes are people, and in coming up with purposes they're just telling you about their personal psychologies--they're just telling you something about how they think about things as an individual. What's not just absurd but completely moronic is to claim that nature "itself" has purposes, or that anything that anything does isn't natural. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Apr 26, 2018 12:38:10 GMT
How are religious reasons valid? For what purpose? They are valid within any particular religion and people choose to be a part of that religion. It's no different than any other organization on the planet who pick and choose their policies and codes of conduct. The reason the same doesn;t apply in secular organization is because society and government have a stronger grip on what is allowed. If the religion sets their moral standards, then those are the morals of it and it needs no input from society at large that has no interest in the religion. They can certainly raise the issue within the religion though. Religion has always been stricter and more discriminatory than society which is as it should be.To be clear, there's nothing special about acts of homosexuality in Christianity. It's warned about in the same way all sins are warned about and is barely talked about because it's not as large a contingent as those tempted by hetero sex. So the focus is on straight people.  Yeah! Because the stricter and more discriminatory standards are due to power, control and manipulation, just like religious institutions then blame secular society for, because they don't like them sticking their nose in and telling them what to do. If religion is allowed to rule the roost, over and above constitutional law, it would then become about forcing ones "personal" beliefs onto others and that is why "non-religious" society puts in it's two cents worth. It would be like the Spanish Inquisition all over again, or like Sharia Law in Islam. What morals are you talking about though? Whose morals? Morals are like religion, they are an abstract belief and even fantasy, just like the Christian belief in Christ as a savior and God the creator. We need appropriate ways of behaving, but since there is no such thing as sinning and especially regarding sexuality, the focus on straight people, is about control again, be it from a religious or secular source. The warnings you claim are about fear and most people operate from this too, religious or non-religious. If something is the majority, like heterosexuality, perhaps that only makes it common and bland. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Apr 26, 2018 12:52:06 GMT
Nature doesn't come up with lists of what "useful purpose" you can use anything for, it comes with biological purposes. The design for reproductive organs is to reproduce, and there is no other human anatomy that is more direct in it's purpose than that. From microorganisms to human beings, that is the "goal" of one's life in the natural world. To preserve the species and to reproduce and grow in numbers. To argue that because some mammals display gay characteristics it means it is part of the evolutionary design - even though they are born with the exact same organs capable and meant for reproduction - is absurd. The only part of nature that comes up with purposes are people, and in coming up with purposes they're just telling you about their personal psychologies--they're just telling you something about how they think about things as an individual. What's not just absurd but completely moronic is to claim that nature "itself" has purposes, or that anything that anything does isn't natural. You know, "On the Origin of Species" is a very interesting document that I propose you read. You'd be quite surprised in what is says. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 26, 2018 12:54:21 GMT
The only part of nature that comes up with purposes are people, and in coming up with purposes they're just telling you about their personal psychologies--they're just telling you something about how they think about things as an individual. What's not just absurd but completely moronic is to claim that nature "itself" has purposes, or that anything that anything does isn't natural. You know, "On the Origin of Species" is a very interesting document that I propose you read. You'd be quite surprised in what is says. You're assuming I haven't read it because? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2018 13:23:08 GMT
@graham
I don't think I said otherwise, but that has nothing to do with whether he invented it.
I don't know nor do I care.
I am fine if he invented, it's just not a certainty. Issues that are important to some are apparently not that important to me and they kinda stink at highlighting the importance. maybe on the reply you can change thatI feel like I answered this in your next quote of me, so I assume you want the Bible angle for some reason.
Your morals have no reason to be in line with a religious one. It doesn't have to be, but the religious one does not have to match up to whatever you feel is a good one either.
If you are asking from a Bible perspective, it's pretty simple.
"Be fruitful and multiply" & "and the two will become one flesh"- The phrases don't define marriage in its entirety, but it does explain thinking behind the Bibles view of a hetero marriage. Further, if one is wanting increase their family beyond the husband/spouse, biologically, it's the only way. There are degrees of natural and a male/female relation is the most normal by far even by sheer numbers.
The two become one verse explains the commitment aspect. the best way to ensure a stable family is in a monogamous relationship under a contractual obligation that results in biological offspring under persistent and consistent societal norms.
In nearly every instance of a man with more than one wife there is an instance of jealousy, having to choose favorites, etc... There is no good outcome to a polygamous relationships. Homosexual relationships are so slight and rare as to not even warrant an example even though we know they exist which makes sense considering it would only be about the sex.
Sex in the Bible has never been considered just a thing for pleasure or romance. Further it has never been considered an absolute need meaning there was no reason to address the needs of ones only wanting to engage in it.
I have no doubt, but that isn't the same thing as an expectation for religion to embrace it.
Within a religion that considers it a sin? Yes.
There should be no expectation that a religion either should have had rules in place for such relationship (Christianity does) or should be obligated to create new ones against what they believe is right just because society may accept it.
Really, it's not even an societal expectation, but an individual one.
Outside of that, why would I care what society does as long as it doesn't enforce it within a religion?
This question assumes there is one moral code. I personally believe that are several and they are all based on completely different standards. That means I can't really answer that.
What is morally wrong in Scripture clearly is not in society at large and since Christianity is a completely voluntary premise, no one is obligated to hold to such a high standard if they don't want to.
No because I would never use the term morally evil as if it's some kind of condemnation, but also because Christianity isn't concerned with nation building.
However, homosexuality is not optimal for population growth but I have no reason to think that's a bad thing.
So it goes to the notion that the intial influence of God, Jews, & Christianity on the overall view of homosexuality is society at large was pretty small. Whatever problems gays had in being accepted in society was a result of the cultures they lived in just like today.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 26, 2018 14:52:50 GMT
No. You pointed out that homosexuality exists among animals because there have been males mating with males & females mating with females. However, they will also interspecies mate, so that nullifies the earlier point. It is still only through males mating with females (of the same species), where life is produced. Nope. I pointed out that it happens in nature. Which was to disprove an earlier point. You compared homosexuality to beastiality because...? |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 26, 2018 15:13:54 GMT
Yes, for the 100th time, infertile couples are failures in an evolutionary, reproductive, pass your genes on to the next generation sense. It would be a genetic flaw. This really is not difficult to understand. This is not me being supportive of mistreating or banning anything, this is me explaining to you how things are if the natural world is all that we have. I am not moving goalpoasts. Since the start we have been talking about both. What is necessary for reproduction - if for whatever genetical reason or the way you are born you are excluded from the gene pool capable or willing to reproduce, then in natural terms you are indeed an aberration. By these guidelines one could conclude that Catholic priests and nuns are flawed and aberrant. |
|
|
|
Post by viola on Apr 26, 2018 15:44:06 GMT
There is no good argument against homosexuality - again, we have to distinguish between morality and science (Western philosophies make this separation difficult, so remembering that neither the sensual nor the potential is supreme can help here.) Evolutionary processes, based on mutation and adaptation, are not teleological. Even sexual reproduction was a mutation once, and many life forms that have used such parts in this service have used them in other ways, perhaps as long as they have existed. Other posters have pointed out that animals have been proven to use these parts for social cohesion (in establishing dominance.) In human history, we have developed many different ways to establish dominance, and some of these persist in covert forms into the modern era; some cultures, like the US, hide them behind the meritocracy myth. This article explains how dominant members of western society have used subservient groups -- defined by (among other things) sexual orientation and "race" -- against each other to maintain dominance. The older myths (including Christianity, with texts that can be selectively read to rationalize these divisions, such as by defending slavery and condemning homosexuality) continue to be useful tools in this divide-and-conquer strategy, the results of which strategy the newer myth obscures. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 26, 2018 16:39:49 GMT
I mean, if we're just talking someone's personal take, all you need is "it's gross to me". If we're talking arguing against it's existence or arguing against someone being able to identify and living their life as they are... I don't see one good enough. It exists despite the most stringent laws, even the death penalty. It's always existed.  It's not a piece of clothing to be taken off at will. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 26, 2018 16:44:16 GMT
I mean, if we're just talking someone's personal take, all you need is "it's gross to me". If we're talking arguing against it's existence or arguing against someone being able to identify and living their life as they are... I don't see one good enough. It exists despite the most stringent laws, even the death penalty. It's always existed. It's not a piece of clothing to be taken off at will. And even then, that's only a good reason if homosexuality was mandatory for everyone. Pineapple on pizza is gross to me. That's not a good reason to tell others they're wrong for liking it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 26, 2018 16:47:12 GMT
I mean, if we're just talking someone's personal take, all you need is "it's gross to me". If we're talking arguing against it's existence or arguing against someone being able to identify and living their life as they are... I don't see one good enough. It exists despite the most stringent laws, even the death penalty. It's always existed. It's not a piece of clothing to be taken off at will. And even then, that's only a good reason if homosexuality was mandatory for everyone. Pineapple on pizza is gross to me. That's not a good reason to tell others they're wrong for liking it. These threads always remind me of Blade with his "They spread disease!" stuff. He rode SO HARD on that aspect, used it over and over for his "no homosexuality!" forum crusade. But then, medical tech progressed, AIDS become more treatable and more preventable, it became less and less an issue. So we started asking him if homosexuals were OK, now, since this was a fading thing... Never got an answer. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2018 16:48:27 GMT
I mean, if we're just talking someone's personal take, all you need is "it's gross to me". If we're talking arguing against it's existence or arguing against someone being able to identify and living their life as they are... I don't see one good enough. It exists despite the most stringent laws, even the death penalty. It's always existed. It's not a piece of clothing to be taken off at will. And even then, that's only a good reason if homosexuality was mandatory for everyone. Pineapple on pizza is gross to me. That's not a good reason to tell others they're wrong for liking it. That's not really true. It's just a reaction. We have reactions to things that have nothing to do with us all the time and a lot of them are as a result of making it clear what our view of something is. The problem is when we place too much importance on a negative reaction. Someone saying Ewww is not an automatic or expected threat to gay rights. |
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Apr 26, 2018 16:54:29 GMT
And even then, that's only a good reason if homosexuality was mandatory for everyone. Pineapple on pizza is gross to me. That's not a good reason to tell others they're wrong for liking it. That's not really true. It's just a reaction. We have reactions to things that have nothing to do with us all the time and a lot of them are as a result of making it clear what our view of something is. The problem is when we place too much importance on a negative reaction. Someone saying Ewww is not an automatic or expected threat to gay rights. Ahhh, but a reaction is not a good argument against something that doesn't affect you. As per my pineapple pizza reaction. Like someone having an "eww" reaction to an interracial marriage. Their eww isn't a good argument. Certainly it's not a threat to gay rights, but it can be construed as disrespectful to the teacher. If the children would've had the same reaction to him saying it's from his wife, he'd still be in the right to teach them about respect. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Apr 26, 2018 17:00:16 GMT
You must have gone in a real rage the first time someone gave you the birds and the bees talk. Yeah sure, reproductive organs are not for reproduction. Just arbitrary pieces of meet nature attached. Naturally, this issue in philosophy of biology is way, way above your intellectual capacity, as are most things. It is correct to attribute functionality to biological features. But when we do so, we are projecting norms of our own invention as a tool to predict and understand behavior we see in nature. Nature itself is utterly mindless, without purpose, and doesn't "care" about, "utilize", or "recognize" such things. So your dumb-ass arguments based on what is "natural" have no basis in reality. You are simply projecting human thoughts onto a panorama that is completely without thoughts or anything that resembles them. There is no "should" or "ought" in nature, only in human constructs. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 26, 2018 21:41:07 GMT
And even then, that's only a good reason if homosexuality was mandatory for everyone. Pineapple on pizza is gross to me. That's not a good reason to tell others they're wrong for liking it. That's not really true. It's just a reaction. We have reactions to things that have nothing to do with us all the time and a lot of them are as a result of making it clear what our view of something is. The problem is when we place too much importance on a negative reaction. Someone saying Ewww is not an automatic or expected threat to gay rights...then perhaps you can explain to us why, in essence, this is exactly what most religions have effectively done over the centuries? There is no real reason for such a response, reaction, a prohibition or a shaming by the churches. Effectively there is NO good argument against homosexuality that stands up to modern day scrutiny, especially as we now know that such individuals are born homosexual and cannot modify their behaviour so that persecution is therefore, as such anti-Christian in terms of the blanket view of Jesus to love one another. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 26, 2018 21:55:50 GMT
"But I am following an honest atheistic view of the matter to its logical conclusion" You are following a Strawman view of an atheist. A caricature. You probably saw Kevin Sorbo in "God's Not Dead" and decided "Yep, that's an atheist". Stalin and Dawkins were both atheists, gee I guess they both must have the same "atheistic view" on homosexuality, right? "Males have male genitalia and females have female genitalia in order to reproduce with each other and create offspring." Then you would have to argue infertile couples having sex is "unnatural" "It's not for "social cohesion"" Sure it is, ever herd of Bonobo chimps? "Being born left handed does not mean you can not or should not want to reproduce.". You're moving the goalpost. We're talking about what's "natural", not what's necessary for reproduction. "In this context, naturalism is any view that limits human beings to their natural environment. That does not allow for the possibility of a spiritual world, or God-created world and the existence of souls, where you can argue that a human being has worth and value regardless if they are able to fulfill their biological design (to reproduce) or not." You do not need to believe in God, religion, ghosts, goblins, etc to be "spiritual", all it means is pursuit of meaning, experiencing the beauty of the universe, life fullfilling experiences and personal growth. Plenty of atheist Buddhists are arguably more "spiritual" than many Christians that aren't particularly devout. Sam Harris defends spiritualism from an atheist perspective. Lol. You can't even finish a sentence accusing me of strawman before linking me to the "God's Not Dead" crowd with no evidence. How ridiculous and hypocritical is that? And you are purposefully being obtuse. Yes, for the 100th time, infertile couples are failures in an evolutionary, reproductive, pass your genes on to the next generation sense. It would be a genetic flaw. This really is not difficult to understand. This is not me being supportive of mistreating or banning anything, this is me explaining to you how things are if the natural world is all that we have. I am not moving goalpoasts. Since the start we have been talking about both. What is necessary for reproduction - if for whatever genetical reason or the way you are born you are excluded from the gene pool capable or willing to reproduce, then in natural terms you are indeed an aberration.
"Lol. You can't even finish a sentence accusing me of strawman before linking me to the "God's Not Dead" crowd with no evidence.
It was a joke, the point being you have a narrow minded viewpoint of what an "atheist" actually is. You might as well be part of the "God's Not Dead" evangelical crowd since you both share a lot of the same notions.
"How ridiculous and hypocritical is that?"
You're accusing me of doing the same thing you did? So then you tacitly admit you used a Strawman?
"And you are purposefully being obtuse."
Are you talking to a mirror? You're the one that keeps having to distort what "natural" actually means to suit your argument.
"Yes, for the 100th time, "
You never said that once in this thread. Show me the quote where you did.
"infertile couples are failures in an evolutionary, reproductive, pass your genes on to the next generation sense."
So then you do believe infertile hetero sex is essentially "unnatural" since it doesn't contribute to reproduction?
"I am not moving goalpoasts."
You went from arguing what is "natural" to arguing what is necessary for reproduction. Accept it.
"Since the start we have been talking about both"
We were talking about what is "natural" vs ""aberations" (which can include reproduction amongst other things), I pointed out that left handed isn't much more common than homosexuality, I threw a monkey wrench in your terrible argument, so you had to shift the conversation to focus on reproduction exclusively. Deal with it.
"if for whatever genetical reason or the way you are born you are excluded from the gene pool capable or willing to reproduce, then in natural terms you are indeed an aberration."
Actually no, you do not get to misuse words to fit your argument. "Natural" just means of "having to do with nature", it doesn't necessarily have to involve reproduction. This means whatever happens in nature (not being altered by man) is in fact natural (which can include homosexuality). Not reproducing and being weeded out of the gene pool is in fact quite natural, why do you think it's called "natural selection"?
|
|
