Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2013, 02:17 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 08:40 PM)DeepThought Wrote:  So they are lesser humans because of their sexual preference? What are you trying to say?

That line of reasoning leads down a morally bankrupt path. You could substitute homosexuality in your sentence for various other things and come similar sickening conclusions.

The thought experiment shows that A doesn't have the same worth to society as B. If it doesn't have the same worth, there is no obligation for society to treat it as an equal to B.

Is this where biblical morality leads you?

Do you hold atheism in higher regard than theism? For the sake of argument I am going to assume you do.

Assumption 1: Atheism is better than theism.
Assumption 2: Isaac Newton was a theist.
Assumption 3: Because of the time he was born it is not reasonable to believe Isaac Newton could have been anything but a theist.
Conclusion: Isaac Newton was a lessor human being because of his theism.

Do you accept this argument? Do you think this argument follows even if all the assumptions are true? I don't....and I don't think homosexuals are lessor human beings even though I believe heterosexuality is better than homosexuality.

Alan Turing was a brilliant man. He was also a homosexual and because of that, he never got to pass on his genes. Everything else being equal, I believe the world would have been better off if Alan Turning was a heterosexual. Lets suppose Alan Turing was heterosexual but sterile. Everything else being equal, the world would have been better off if Alan Turing was not sterile. Alan Turing shares one thing in common with the rest of humanity....he wasn't perfect...he had faults and imperfections.

Now you might judge the worth of somebody on just one criteria. You might think I am less of a person because of your opinion that I am a "morally bankrupt homophobe". I am more than a "homophobe" and if you are going to accurately judge my worth as a human being, you would need to look at everything.

Your monocular view of a human being is morally bankrupt....not my entire portrait approach.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 02:26 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(19-10-2013 11:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "If everyone was gay then DOOOM therefore gays are bad" is so gobsmackingly stupid I'm amazed anyone could say it with a straight face. The premise is utterly nonsensical and the conclusion doesn't even follow. The only vibe it gives me is of a hilariously thinly-veiled post-hoc desperation ploy to throw up some sort of justification for bigotry.

Cjlr, when did I ever say gays are bad?

I'll tell you what, if you can quote me in this thread where I say "gays are bad" I will donate $100 to the red cross. If you can't how about you donate $100 to the red cross.

I said homosexuality offers no value to society. I never said gays didn't. I never said gays were evil, I never said gay were lessor human beings. That is you guys saying I said those things in lieu of a competent counter argument to what I actually said.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2013 06:15 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(20-10-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I said homosexuality offers no value to society. I never said gays didn't.
Quote:It has also been suggested that homosexuality boosts individuals' reproductive success, albeit indirectly. For instance, same-sex partners might have a better chance of rising to the top of social hierarchies and getting access to the opposite sex. In some gull species, homosexual partnerships might be a response to a shortage of males - rather than have no offspring at all, some female pairs raise offspring together after mating with a male from a normal male-female pair.

Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13...mPH3N8s1Ds

Your claim that homosexuality offers nothing to society is not backed up by any argument. You accept it as true and claim it as true without argument. You assume that heterosexuality is of value because it results in offspring and that homosexuality is worse because it results in no offspring. That's pretty blinkered thinking, and doesn't account for the prevalence of homosexuality in social species including our own species. It's possible that your claim is correct - that homosexuality is merely neutral or slightly negative - a trait that hasn't been bred out... but at least on a superficial analysis it looks more like homosexuality is a beneficial trait for a portion of the population to have in social species.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 06:15 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(20-10-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-10-2013 11:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "If everyone was gay then DOOOM therefore gays are bad" is so gobsmackingly stupid I'm amazed anyone could say it with a straight face. The premise is utterly nonsensical and the conclusion doesn't even follow. The only vibe it gives me is of a hilariously thinly-veiled post-hoc desperation ploy to throw up some sort of justification for bigotry.

Cjlr, when did I ever say gays are bad?

I'll tell you what, if you can quote me in this thread where I say "gays are bad" I will donate $100 to the red cross. If you can't how about you donate $100 to the red cross.

I said homosexuality offers no value to society. I never said gays didn't. I never said gays were evil, I never said gay were lessor human beings. That is you guys saying I said those things in lieu of a competent counter argument to what I actually said.


(01-10-2013 03:54 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I was making a point that society has good reason to value heterosexuality over homosexuality....and by extension value heterosexual unions more than homosexual unions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(20-10-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Cjlr, when did I ever say gays are bad?

Oh, I'm sorry, did the ever-so-serious tone of my post suggest to you that I wanted that to be taken as a verbatim quote?

(20-10-2013 02:26 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I said homosexuality offers no value to society. I never said gays didn't. I never said gays were evil, I never said gay were lessor human beings.

It amounts to the same thing, if it is taken as a pretext for unequal treatment. Not really a complicated idea, is it?

Such a ludicrous claim as "homosexuality offers no value to society" would rest on several flawed bases, none of which are justifiable. Salient being that social and biological diversity offers no value to society, which is a non-starter.

And of course, lest we forget, the prior 'reasoning' (a word I extend to it quite wrongly) used to reach that conclusion is a sack of failure. "If everybody was X then DOOM, therefore X has no value" is not a sound and coherent argument. And if it is then it may be used to deny the value of any X, where X is virtually any subset of humanity. cf men, women, blind people, ad absurdum.

Hence my conclusion. What you've done is, you've recognized your gut feeling - "I don't like the gays" - and attempted to feebly cough up some sort of justification for the resulting discriminatory impulses, since you are unable to address your prejudice but are at least cognizant that to be so blunt about it is considered bad form in this day and age.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
21-10-2013, 08:52 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 03:26 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 02:56 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm saying, if your justification for homosexuality being immoral is the bible than why not this that and the other.

It's not my justification, I'm a secular humanist, liberal and atheist. I support the complete separation of church and state, the legalisation of homosexual civil unions and the withdrawal of the state from marriage completely.

I'm just saying stick to the fucking point and stop acting like a retard if that is at all possible. The question at hand is "Is homosexuality immoral?" I don't agree that it is immoral, my position is that at worst it is morally neutral and possibly morally good under a virtue based system of ethics. But I'm not going to argue my case to allow others to try and exercise their ability to formulate and present arguments. I don't want to be doing this. Thumbsup

Ya know - I read through each one of your derided comments on this thread. You focused entirely on questioning the validity of everyone *else's* argument, why their analogies were inapplicable, and why their examples were borderline or outrightly superfluous.

Yet, *you* never once - in 4 pages - presented an argument actually relating to the topic of the immorality of homosexuality. I call bullshit. Usually when a person consistently attacks the nuances of everyone's argument, it betrays a person's insecurity regarding their own intelligence and their insecurity over their fear of rejection. So they don't actually have to answer the topic at hand and put their own ideas forth.

So, Jar Jar Binks, missa think I got you figured out now, betcha betcha. Fucking chippy cabeza
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cathym112's post
21-10-2013, 09:33 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(21-10-2013 08:52 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Ya know - I read through each one of your derided comments on this thread.

Derisive.

Quote:Yet, *you* never once - in 4 pages - presented an argument actually relating to the topic of the immorality of homosexuality.

Yes, deliberately so. I'm not so ignorant and misguided as to believe that within the space of a disorganised and unmoderated thread, with an unscoped topic, I can present an ab initio critique of the entire Catholic worldview. With regard to the Catholic Church the topic of homosexuality relates to Thomistic philosophy which in turn relates to Catholic theology and Aristotlelianism which in turn relate to more fundamental issues in several branches of philosophy. That you still can't see this is demonstrative of your ignorance. I have some commitment to philosophical seriousness so I'm not going to engage in some silly pseudo-debate which consists in nothing more than posting question begging arguments. I'm happy to leave that to you and others like you.

Quote:I call bullshit. Usually when a person consistently attacks the nuances of everyone's argument, it betrays a person's insecurity regarding their own intelligence and their insecurity over their fear of rejection. So they don't actually have to answer the topic at hand and put their own ideas forth.

I have many opinionated posts on more tightly scoped concerns. You can critique those using the intellectual skills you have learnt from watching The View. Stupid bitch.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2013, 09:48 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Lesser human beings....bwhahahahaha....

So much for that whole "judge not lest ye be judged".

Such a putz.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
22-10-2013, 02:01 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(20-10-2013 12:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It amounts to the same thing, if it is taken as a pretext for unequal treatment. Not really a complicated idea, is it?

It doesn't amount to the same thing. See my response to DeepThought.

The pretext for unequal treatment is that they are not equal. One sexuality is necessary, the other is superfluous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(20-10-2013 12:23 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And of course, lest we forget, the prior 'reasoning' (a word I extend to it quite wrongly) used to reach that conclusion is a sack of failure. "If everybody was X then DOOM, therefore X has no value" is not a sound and coherent argument. And if it is then it may be used to deny the value of any X, where X is virtually any subset of humanity. cf men, women, blind people, ad absurdum.

If everyone suddenly became male, that would be doom. If everyone became female, that would be doom. If all the males became female, and all the females became male, that would not be doom. This though experiment shows you have to have a mixture of males and females.

If all the homosexuals became heterosexual, that would not be doom. But if all the heterosexuals became homosexuals, there would be doom. This thought experiment shows us we need heterosexuals but do need homosexuals. The outcomes of these thought experiments are very different so your conclusion is wrong.

I don't think blindness adds value to society. I don't hate blind people. I don't think obesity adds value to society. I don't hate obese people. I don't think flawed reasoning adds value to society. I don't hate you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: