[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think at some point you have established in your own thought process that all Christians are hypocrites
Oh no let me hasten to assure you, this is only about one Christian in particular.[/quote]
Again, I urge you to repeat one particular sentence that I have typed in my almost 5000 posts on this forum that would show me to be a hypocrite. If you cannot do this then I suggest your disdain for me has nothing to do with hypocritical behavior and more to do with conflicting philosophies.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If you can point out an error in the Bible that would not change my faith. Perhaps this is why you imply the “hypocritical” tag.
[/quote]
You can stop theorizing, I already told you. Your open-mindedness, on this subject at any rate, is sheer hypocrisy.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If you can point out an error in the Bible that would not change my faith. Perhaps this is why you imply the “hypocritical” tag.
You can stop theorizing, I already told you. Your open-mindedness, on this subject at any rate, is sheer hypocrisy.[/quote]
Because you “told me” is not exactly sound proof now is it? Provide such eveidence of “hypocricy” if you think there is any. Otherwise, your comments relative to that topic are meaningless!
Again, I urge you to repeat one particular sentence that I have typed in my almost 5000 posts on this forum that would show me to be a hypocrite. If you cannot do this then I suggest your disdain for me has nothing to do with hypocritical behavior and more to do with conflicting philosophies.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Regardless of how you look at it, I was correct: morality is, and has always been, a matter of perspective.
You are wrong in that assumption! [/quote]
Technically, morality IS a matter of perspective. Not all systems of morality are Right and Just, however. It is possible to say that not all systems of morality are appropriate for all groups of people without sliding down that slippery slope of “I’m okay, you’re okay” bull. As to which non-religious system is most correct, there is still some disagreement, sure. J.S. Mill, Rawls, and a few others are pretty close, however.
You also mentioned that morality used to come from the Bible - it’s pretty hard to defend the Bible as the basis of morality, as it is based on the assumption that God inspired what’s in it, which is unprovable. That being said, there’s nothing wrong with religious morality, as long as it is Just. Some of the points are not really Just, such as the stance against gay marriage and early-term abortion (I defer to Judith Jarvis Thompson on this one), for example.
I don’t remember if I mentioned this before, but Morality Without God is an excellent read on where those of us who are atheist/agnostic but moral are coming from.
As a couple examples of good systems of Ethics and Morality, check out works on John Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness” and writings on Rule Utilitarianism.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Regardless of how you look at it, I was correct: morality is, and has always been, a matter of perspective.
You are wrong in that assumption!
Technically, morality IS a matter of perspective. Not all systems of morality are Right and Just, however. It is possible to say that not all systems of morality are appropriate for all groups of people without sliding down that slippery slope of “I’m okay, you’re okay” bull.
You also mentioned that morality used to come from the Bible - it’s pretty hard to defend the Bible as the basis of morality, as it is based on the assumption that God inspired what’s in it, which is unprovable.[/quote]
No one has to “prove” that God inspired the Bible to agree that it contains some very powerful moral lessons and rules to live by. Furthermore, it has acted as a “moral compass” for many generations. That is until the politically correct moral relativists came to power.
Not just in your opinion. Almost 70% of Americans are not in favor of Gay marriage. Are thy being “just?” They are in their opinion. What they base their decision on is of little consequence…right?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You also mentioned that morality used to come from the Bible - it’s pretty hard to defend the Bible as the basis of morality, as it is based on the assumption that God inspired what’s in it, which is unprovable.
No one has to “prove” that God inspired the Bible to agree that it contains some very powerful moral lessons and rules to live by. Furthermore, it has acted as a “moral compass” for many generations. That is until the politically correct moral relativists came to power.
[/quote]
I agree that no one has to prove God wrote, inspired, or heck, even Xeroxed the Bible for it to have a good many lessons of merit. I was just referring to the fact that if you’re going to examine WHY you’re using the Bible as your moral compass, it gets tricky from a logical standpoint and pretty much breaks down to a matter of faith. Like I said, though, there’s a lot of really great stuff in the Bible - my stance is that the good stuff is/can be reached through human thought and reason as well, not just because God said so, and that some of the stuff in there is wrong when examined holistically.
Take, for instance, the ten commandments. I don’t think anyone, regardless of religion, is going to say that there’s anything wrong with them (at face value). There are some exceptions to them, of course, such as killing (acceptable and even right to do in some circumstances; assassinating Hiter is a classic example), and the ones related to God and sabbath for those who don’t believe.
Why then do people who aren’t Jewish or Christian follow some of the same moral rules? They don’t think God told them so, and many don’t believe in Heaven or Hell. They follow them because those rules (sans the couple exceptions) make the world a better place, where people can be happier and generally better off.
This is speaking for reasonable people, of course. Any discussion of why morons or nutjobs do what they do can’t be supported by reason, although many use a perverted sense of religious faith as their moral compas.
No, those almost 70% of Americans are NOT being Just, and what they base their decision on is of huge importance. If it happens to be the Bible, irrespective of whether or not it actually condemns homosexuality, they must examine WHY they are basing their decision off the Bible. Then they must examine WHY the Bible says what it does, why it was written, etc. Then they must also examine the opposing arguments and see if homosexuals are given treatment that is fair (current laws regarding same sex relationships are not) and a REALISTIC assessment of potential consequences of allowing gay marriage.
Not a complete examination by any means, but that’d be the general idea.
Who was it who said that when you find yourself to be in the majority, it’s time to reconsider your opinion? Would you trust the majority of America to decide what you are going to eat today, what you’re going to wear, how to do your job? I wouldn’t. I would trust a group of people who have spent a good deal of time examining the issues involved and potential consequences, though, for the most part.
What if a majority vote decided that they think weight training is too dangerous to allow, like drugs and unregulated firearms, and voted to make it illegal? Are they entitled to that colossaly stupid opinion? Of course they are - but they have no right to take any action on it. It can be proven, through theory and evidence, that it is not worthy of ban, thus making contrary opinions much more valid.
It’s possible to do the same thing with moral issues, just more complicated, and usually with less experimental data
If the decision is based on personal feelings of revulsion at homosexuals and, then presumably, gay sex, they have absolutely no right to impose that revulsion into law. If any legislators make votes against homosexual marriage strictly to gain popular support and stay in office, that is also unjust. You get the idea, there’s way too many possibilities to discuss here.
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You also mentioned that morality used to come from the Bible - it’s pretty hard to defend the Bible as the basis of morality, as it is based on the assumption that God inspired what’s in it, which is unprovable.
No one has to “prove” that God inspired the Bible to agree that it contains some very powerful moral lessons and rules to live by. Furthermore, it has acted as a “moral compass” for many generations. That is until the politically correct moral relativists came to power.
I agree that no one has to prove God wrote, inspired, or heck, even Xeroxed the Bible for it to have a good many lessons of merit. I was just referring to the fact that if you’re going to examine WHY you’re using the Bible as your moral compass, it gets tricky from a logical standpoint and pretty much breaks down to a matter of faith. Like I said, though, there’s a lot of really great stuff in the Bible - my stance is that the good stuff is/can be reached through human thought and reason as well, not just because God said so, and that some of the stuff in there is wrong when examined holistically.
Take, for instance, the ten commandments. I don’t think anyone, regardless of religion, is going to say that there’s anything wrong with them (at face value). There are some exceptions to them, of course, such as killing (acceptable and even right to do in some circumstances; assassinating Hiter is a classic example), and the ones related to God and sabbath for those who don’t believe.
Why then do people who aren’t Jewish or Christian follow some of the same moral rules? They don’t think God told them so, and many don’t believe in Heaven or Hell. They follow them because those rules (sans the couple exceptions) make the world a better place, where people can be happier and generally better off.
This is speaking for reasonable people, of course. Any discussion of why morons or nutjobs do what they do can’t be supported by reason, although many use a perverted sense of religious faith as their moral compas.[/quote]
Yes, and there are many (I dare say most) “nut jobs” who have no moral compass.
[quote]Not just in your opinion. Almost 70% of Americans are not in favor of Gay marriage. Are thy being “just?” They are in their opinion. What they base their decision on is of little consequence…right?
No, those almost 70% of Americans are NOT being Just, and what they base their decision on is of huge importance. If it happens to be the Bible, irrespective of whether or not it actually condemns homosexuality, they must examine WHY they are basing their decision off the Bible.[/quote]
No more than an atheist has to explain why he is not basing his decision on the Bible. Both are capable of making decisions without having to explain them to an opposing faction. Did you ever just not feel “good” about something, but cannot explain why?
[quote]Then they must examine WHY the Bible says what it does, why it was written, etc. Then they must also examine the opposing arguments and see if homosexuals are given treatment that is fair (current laws regarding same sex relationships are not) and a REALISTIC assessment of potential consequences of allowing gay marriage.
Not a complete examination by any means, but that’d be the general idea.[/quote]
While I enjoy this self examination. And I assume you do too because you are here posting to me. Many others don’t enjoy this on either side. They either don’t base their dicision on the Bible, or they do, but they don’t like to talk it to death (or think it to death). I think we are exceptions to this
Ooh…ooh, I know who said that! It was someone in the minority.
Yea, I don’t think I would like to eat at McDonalds the rest of my life. But believe it or not most people still want to have a morally strong country while they munch down on those fries.
I think it’s important to take each issue on it’s own. Sometimes I agree with the majority sometimes I don’t. However, anytime someone wants to change an age old tradition that I feel is good for society (like marriage) I take great exception to that.
And if someone wanted to change the gun laws, not allowing anyone to own a gun, I would take great exception to that as well.
[quote]It can be proven, through theory and evidence, that it is not worthy of ban, thus making contrary opinions much more valid.
It’s possible to do the same thing with moral issues, just more complicated, and usually with less experimental data :)[/quote]
I agree, and every study that I have seen worth reading states that homosexuals would not make good parents or be responsible in a monagomous relationship. (The majority of them that is-There are exceptions of course).
I think that’s a good point. However, I am not personally repulsed by homosexuals one bit. However, I am personally repulsed by Pedophiles. Should I not be? Should I look for studies to prove that Pedophiles should not be able to marry children, or can I reject the idea from my gut?
Am I also able to reject the idea of bestiality on it’s face? That makes me sick too. Do you think we need studies on this one?
I’m serious, when can one trust their “gut” on issues, and when do they need 127 studies to back up their “feelings?”
That may differe between individuals huh?
Hold on since when do politicians do anything else? Quite honestly I am repulsed by most them, both parities! Do I need a study to justify that feeling or is that allowed?
Good to see you back Dan
-Dan
Hey, I wonder why we were born with repulsions to certain things? If they are not good for us what’s the point of having those feelings? Are they there for a reason? If not why do we have them?
[quote]Bishop40 wrote:
Here’s the deal: It shouldn’t matter that two men or women want to marry each other and be happy.[/quote]
I think it should. I think we should be HAPPY for it. If we celebrate love that transcends social norms like class and race, isn’t it even MORE impressive to transcend the “natural order”? Romeo and Juliet, pfft – give me Romeo and Mercutio ANY day.
The basic thrust of the entry (no pun intended) is that all the resistance to gays comes from a misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independence. There is something in there about “pursuit of happiness”, whence comes an erroneous idea that you are allowed to KEEP what happiness you have.
From that flawed reasoning, a value system comes into play: that to make someone unhappy is an infringement on their “inalienable rights”, and thus that if someone prefers the status quo to a proposed change, their existing happiness outweighs and invalidates any potential happiness others may gain from that change.
The fact is, you’re allowed to try to be happy, but you are not guaranteed to ever be happy – let along to STAY happy. These conditions are by nature fleeting, and you should expect them to expire, at which time you have to go back to trying.
So the religious right need to accept that they are going to be unhappy about gays getting married, and wrestle with the idea that they are no longer in a place as happy as they were before it was legal. From there, they can resume their pursuit of happiness, and they will probably manage to find some. They don’t get to stomp on gays’ happiness to avoid this.
If your parents and grandparents aren’t gay (which is pretty likely), and you are, I would say this is a pretty strong argument that it is NOT genetic.
It’s possible for something to be out of your control without being genetic, you know. I think it’s a nurture thing, but it can’t be traced to one single event or quality; it’s a complex situation which deals with where you were and what you saw and what you were thinking at the time.
If you’re sitting around playing with army men when your dick gets hard, some kids think it’s because army men are sexy, and some kids think it’s because guns are sexy. The former become gay, the latter join the NRA, and nobody knows what makes the difference. But we don’t like not knowing, so we claim they’re born that way.
I was born wanting lots of money. I can’t help it. The government should let me have lots of money, because I was born this way.
But you do choose how you will express it. Most of the people who have a problem with gays really only have a problem with a few very loud and obnoxious gays that can’t say two sentences without referring to their gay lifestyle.
What we need is a solid demonstration that not all gays are like that, and every time a gay man acts that way, the rest of the gay community has an opportunity to condemn this behavior as rude and obnoxious. When they don’t take that opportunity, what choice do we have but to conclude that you support it… or, at the very least, that you don’t see the problem with it?
The whole gay/straight divide is primarily because we don’t communicate well, and secondarily because nobody likes the idea that most people occupy BOTH sides of the scale to some degree. We’re all a little gay, we’re all a little straight, so I say fuck whomever you want to fuck and marry whomever you want to marry and anyone who doesn’t like your choice can piss off.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey, I wonder why we were born with repulsions to certain things? If they are not good for us what’s the point of having those feelings?[/quote]
Maybe your repulsions are good for you, which is why you have them… but your repulsions are not necessarily good for others, which is why they DON’T have them.
Just a thought. I’m aroused by a few things that repulse most people, so I think about this concept a lot.
[quote]CDarklock wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hey, I wonder why we were born with repulsions to certain things? If they are not good for us what’s the point of having those feelings?
Maybe your repulsions are good for you, which is why you have them… but your repulsions are not necessarily good for others, which is why they DON’T have them.
Just a thought. I’m aroused by a few things that repulse most people, so I think about this concept a lot.
[/quote]
Very good point!
I think that’s one reason why I innately dislike bigotry. It’s a big world out there and to simply dismiss another human being because they are different from you seems grossly unjust!
Then again to change an age old tradition for a few also seems grossly unjust to the many…
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Roark wrote:
Gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone who’s O.K. with their own sexuality. The bans on gay marriage are not much different in my mind than the bans on inter-racial marriages in the fifties. Really, I wish we’d just move on already.
Actually they’re quite different, though that doesn’t impact the constitutional question in the least.
[/quote]
Someone correct me if I’m wrong as I haven’t kept up too well, but my understanding is that it IS legal in every state to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation-at least in hiring.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, and there are many (I dare say most) “nut jobs” who have no moral compass.
[/quote]
Of course, I wasn’t trying to say that all religion makes nut jobs or that nut jobs only come out of religion - just that it’s more possible for crazy people to use religion than logic to justify their actions. Sometimes logic can be used, though, and then their nut job status has to be reevaluated
Sure, not every decision someone makes has to be explained to everyone. But if the decision made is poorly examined and can be shown to be wrong, then those decisions can be condemned. This is true of anyone on either side.
Just for reference, though, many of the people who don’t believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth aren’t atheists. Most of them are Hindi, I believe, or Muslim.
Yes, I wouldn’t be human if I hadn’t experienced that. Unless the feeling requires a snap decision, though (for instance, having a feeling that you’re being followed or stalked by a mugger), I do take a look at why I don’t feel good about something. If I cannot find a good reason to condemn the something after a thorough examination, I change my feelings. It can be done by anyone willing to make the effort. It’s not easy on some things, sure, but it can be done. I used to think that people who lifted really heavy weights were crazy. Now I think it’s fun.
I agree that most people don’t take a close look at their religious beliefs, and that’s a damn shame. I know I’ve mentioned my mother before - she took a closer look while getting her master’s in Catholic Theology, and it’s made her faith even stronger. I can respect that. The same with guys like you and Stellar Horizon, who have a good handle on what they believe and choose to do so. I and some of my friends have looked deeper and found we cannot accept what was being offered by religion. Faith is a personal thing, and I truly don’t mock anyone who has great faith if God, that’s just fine. It’s the unexamined part that provides the problems, especially when an unexamined moral base is used for decision making.
[quote[
Ooh…ooh, I know who said that! It was someone in the minority.
[/quote]
Haha, yeah, it probably was. So were people for racial equality not so long ago, though, and that’s turning out to be much better than racial bigotry.
It’s some of the aspects of what they think is moral that’s the problem. I think much of what our political system has accomplished is great, but it ultimately leads to slow change on some issues when most people are uninformed or, to be honest, sometimes just wrong.
And you’re of course allowed to - the problem is that many seem unwilling to compromise and give homosexual unions the same legal and social status as heterosexual marriage, and are just using the semantics of the word “marriage” to hold it back. Would you have a problem with calling it something else, say, inventing a term for gay marriage, if it meant legal equality for gay married couples? Would that affect how the institution of “marriage” was esteemed?
Most of the ones I’ve seen that are conducted with good methods and acknowledge limitations and make appropriate conclusions show that homosexual couples can raise a child just fine, with no problems outside of social stigma (which of course will start to change once legal status is changed). Most of the ones I’ve read that conclude homosexual parents are generally not fit to be parents are just poorly done studies. The researchers weren’t very good at their job.
The studies on monogomy have been on the San Fransisco “bathhouse” gay population - I invite the same researchers to study heterosexual relationships in Las Vegas or Amsterdam for an appropriate comparison. The gay couples I know function in relationships exactly like the heterosexual couples I know. But then, I’m in the midwest and midatlantic states at different times of the year. The anti-gay groups don’t mention any of those demographics.
Not saying you personaly were repulsed by gays, just making a point about how WHY a person holds an opinion matters greatly.
Your point about pedophiles actually supports my argument, though. Are you JUST rejecting pedophilia because of your gut reaction? Or do you also know that that sort of relationship is damaging to a child who cannot knowingly give consent? I’m repulsed by pedophiles and child molesters from my gut, too, but there are a lot of logical reasons that uphold that revulsion.
Nope, no studies are needed because, in addition to the gut reaction, we can also list a myriad of logical and pragmatic issues that make bestiality wrong. Running a study on bestiality being bad would be akin to running a study to determining if eating 50 Big Macs per day will make you fat. We already know the factual answer.
The gut can be trusted when a snap decision must be made or there is no logical or factual evidence on the matter. When the issue can be examined, though, simply trusting the gut isn’t enough when it comes to public policy.
[quote
That may differ between individuals huh?
[/quote]
Yup. But we can’t have a lot of laws made because of gut feelings now, can we? If we did, women still wouldn’t have the vote (in all likelyhood).
Well, we’ll make an exception here Although I bet you could justify if pushed
I’m no psychology expert, but I imagine many of the feelings are learned, or misplaced based upon what were taught - for instance, feeling nervous around bikers because most movies portray them as badass criminals. The same feeling would have been aroused hundreds of years ago by a panther in our village, or something, but has now been assigned to people we think might be dangerous.
Just a thought, I’m pulling that out of my butt. I don’t know if the field of psychology even has a definitive answer there.
Or maybe just answers to some of lifes most complicated questions?
WELL THEN LOOK NO FURTHER MY FRIENDS
BOB SAGET WILL SAVE YOUR SOUL!
Hello, and welcome to bobsagetisgod.com! First off, I would like to say thank you–
Thank you for taking the first step on the path to YOUR NEW LIFE. Obviously, some divine spirit (the spirit of Bob perhaps?) has brought you here in order to feel the awesome power that is the almighty BOB SAGET!
Now I know what you are thinking, “Is this some kind of joke?” I insist it is not. Bob Saget is indeed the Holy Savior and Lord of all that is known in this universe. I even have PROOF to back it up!
It has been my life-long goal to spread the word of Lord Saget, and I vow to keep on spreading the love until every soul has been saved. Millions of people all over the
world have already joined our forces. It took some convincing, but after looking deep into their hearts, even the biggest non-believers eventually turned toward the light. It’s impossible to deny the power of our chosen LEADER, after all, there isn’t
a man or woman on earth who can make you smile quite like BOB SAGET!
I can’t tell you how much support I’ve received. I had no idea how many loyal Saget fans there were out there…If you don’t believe me, check this out. I get hundreds of e-mails every week from people who want to join our cause! But we always need more people to help out. Even Jesus (who fully endorses Bob Saget) required the
help of his disciples. So now I call upon you! It’s up to you to spread the word, tell your friends, family, loved ones, strangers on the street. Soon all shall know and praise our LORD AND SAVIOR, BOB SAGET!
So please, browse through our website (links are to the left) and prepare yourself for a journey into the vast depths of Bob’s heart. Remember, Bob loves you, and he wishes for you to join us on the spiritual path to enlightenment.
ALL PRAISE OUR GREAT LEADER AND SAVIOR, LORD SAGET!"
[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Yes, and there are many (I dare say most) “nut jobs” who have no moral compass.
just that it’s more possible for crazy people to use religion than logic to justify their actions.[/quote]
I’m not sure that it came out any better the second time you typed it. I think if one is actually crazy they can rationalize their actions on just about anything…
[quote]No more than an atheist has to explain why he is not basing his decision on the Bible. Both are capable of making decisions without having to explain them to an opposing faction.
Sure, not every decision someone makes has to be explained to everyone. But if the decision made is poorly examined and can be shown to be wrong, then those decisions can be condemned. This is true of anyone on either side.
Just for reference, though, many of the people who don’t believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth aren’t atheists. Most of them are Hindi, I believe, or Muslim.[/quote]
“Wrong” based upon the judgement of whom? An abortion doctor looks at his plight as being one that protects womens rights. Is he right or wrong? Depends on who you ask. How can he ever actually justify his decision to someone who is anit abortion and has facts to back it up. The doctor has facts, the anit abortion folk have facts. Who is “right?”
[quote]Did you ever just not feel “good” about something, but cannot explain why?
Yes, I wouldn’t be human if I hadn’t experienced that. Unless the feeling requires a snap decision, though (for instance, having a feeling that you’re being followed or stalked by a mugger), I do take a look at why I don’t feel good about something. If I cannot find a good reason to condemn the something after a thorough examination, I change my feelings. It can be done by anyone willing to make the effort. It’s not easy on some things, sure, but it can be done. I used to think that people who lifted really heavy weights were crazy. Now I think it’s fun.[/quote]
I certainly agree with this. It takes a thinking man to change his mind. However, it takes a man of great character to not change his mind in the face of pressure. I wish some of them would run for office…
[quote]While I enjoy this self examination. And I assume you do too because you are here posting to me. Many others don’t enjoy this on either side. They either don’t base their dicision on the Bible, or they do, but they don’t like to talk it to death (or think it to death). I think we are exceptions to this
I agree that most people don’t take a close look at their religious beliefs, and that’s a damn shame. I know I’ve mentioned my mother before - she took a closer look while getting her master’s in Catholic Theology, and it’s made her faith even stronger. I can respect that. The same with guys like you and Stellar Horizon, who have a good handle on what they believe and choose to do so. I and some of my friends have looked deeper and found we cannot accept what was being offered by religion. Faith is a personal thing, and I truly don’t mock anyone who has great faith if God, that’s just fine. It’s the unexamined part that provides the problems, especially when an unexamined moral base is used for decision making.[/quote]
Well thank you for the compliment, those are pretty rare on the political forum! I also want to commend you on your open mind. Many non-believers like to mock those of us with faith. In fact, it seems almost a sport to them at times.
By the way relative to faith, I found a great web page which explains why the New Testament is in fact accurate. I include it here for your perusal. Given the discussion I thought you might find it interesting. Perhaps you could pass it on to your Mom for her expert comments:
[quote]Yea, I don’t think I would like to eat at McDonalds the rest of my life. But believe it or not most people still want to have a morally strong country while they munch down on those fries.
It’s some of the aspects of what they think is moral that’s the problem. I think much of what our political system has accomplished is great, but it ultimately leads to slow change on some issues when most people are uninformed or, to be honest, sometimes just wrong.[/quote]
Yes, there are plenty of people who take the lazy way out on both sides of the fence. Relative to the Gay marriage issue I have a problem with those who know nothing about it yet cave into the politically correct pressure and want to appear cool by saying they are for it.
[quote]I think it’s important to take each issue on it’s own. Sometimes I agree with the majority sometimes I don’t. However, anytime someone wants to change an age old tradition that I feel is good for society (like marriage) I take great exception to that.
And you’re of course allowed to - the problem is that many seem unwilling to compromise and give homosexual unions the same legal and social status as heterosexual marriage, and are just using the semantics of the word “marriage” to hold it back. Would you have a problem with calling it something else, say, inventing a term for gay marriage, if it meant legal equality for gay married couples? Would that affect how the institution of “marriage” was esteemed?[/quote]
I don’t like that because then what is to stop two unmarried people of different sex’s also wanting some sort of legal status. Then we have the Polygamy issue and a host of other speical groups who be next in line. Marriage does become a fatality, because after a while and enough exceptions who cares about getting married? You simply can’t do it for one group and not others.
[quote]I agree, and every study that I have seen worth reading states that homosexuals would not make good parents or be responsible in a monagomous relationship. (The majority of them that is-There are exceptions of course).
Most of the ones I’ve seen that are conducted with good methods and acknowledge limitations and make appropriate conclusions show that homosexual couples can raise a child just fine, with no problems outside of social stigma (which of course will start to change once legal status is changed). Most of the ones I’ve read that conclude homosexual parents are generally not fit to be parents are just poorly done studies. The researchers weren’t very good at their job.[/quote]
Therein lies the big problem. There is a ton of bias on both sides as this is a politically explosive issue. Conservatives are only to happy to quote a more conservative study. Social liberals on the other hand rush off to quote the latest Gay literature, or other tripe from the extremely liberal APA.
My entire point is let’s not rush into Gay marriage without first actually having legitimate long term studies, as this effects more than just two people who want to live together, but children as well. What we don’t need are yet more problems with kids.
I would also really like to know exactly how someone becomes a homosexual before I endorsed Gay marriage. How do we know (don’t cite the Gay studies) that children brought up in a Gay environment will not be more likely to beceome Gay? There is the basic happiness issue. And a host of other issues on top of that.[/quote]
[quote]I think that’s a good point. However, I am not personally repulsed by homosexuals one bit. However, I am personally repulsed by Pedophiles. Should I not be? Should I look for studies to prove that Pedophiles should not be able to marry children, or can I reject the idea from my gut?
Not saying you personaly were repulsed by gays, just making a point about how WHY a person holds an opinion matters greatly.
Your point about pedophiles actually supports my argument, though. Are you JUST rejecting pedophilia because of your gut reaction? Or do you also know that that sort of relationship is damaging to a child who cannot knowingly give consent? I’m repulsed by pedophiles and child molesters from my gut, too, but there are a lot of logical reasons that uphold that revulsion.[/quote]
Not according to NAMBLA! They seem to think that having sex with children is a fine idea. I understand that there membership has grown over the past several years. What are the odds someday of them having certain rights within our civilization?
I can see the buzz words now:
“Don’t discriminate, some children are more mature than others.”
“If their parents don’t mind what business is it of yours?”
“How is this person screwing this 12 year old going to effect your life?”
Any of them sound even remotely familiar?
Decay begins one step at a time…slowly insidiously…
Yep…it’s all rather sickening to me on every level!
The things that you think are clearly wrong today, for whatever reason, might not seem so wrong once the envelope continues to be pushed further and further. Things lead to other things, we don’t live in a vacuum!
None of us who are into our 40’s ever thought that we would be debating “Gay Marriage” in 2005.
[quote]Am I also able to reject the idea of bestiality on it’s face? That makes me sick too. Do you think we need studies on this one?
Nope, no studies are needed because, in addition to the gut reaction, we can also list a myriad of logical and pragmatic issues that make bestiality wrong. Running a study on bestiality being bad would be akin to running a study to determining if eating 50 Big Macs per day will make you fat. We already know the factual answer.[/quote]
No you don’t! You have no idea what the “political answer” will be in 15 or 20 years. Which has been my point from the beginning.
“It’s my dog”
“What right do you have to stand in the way of my happiness.”
“Why are you discriminating?”
“bla bla bla” you get the idea. I don’t see why those who indulge in bestiality have any less rights than anyone else. On what grounds do you say it’s wrong?
Tell me why it’s wrong! Certainly not from a moral perspective. Remember moral relativism dictates what’s wrong for YOU is not necessarily wrong for ME.
It’s a matter of time my friend!
[quote]I’m serious, when can one trust their “gut” on issues, and when do they need 127 studies to back up their “feelings?”
The gut can be trusted when a snap decision must be made or there is no logical or factual evidence on the matter. When the issue can be examined, though, simply trusting the gut isn’t enough when it comes to public policy.
[quote
That may differ between individuals huh?
Yup. But we can’t have a lot of laws made because of gut feelings now, can we? If we did, women still wouldn’t have the vote (in all likelyhood).[/quote]
I agree, however anything can be politicized! I wish that it was simply a matter of a long term accurate study. Unfortunately I don’t think the politically correct will ever allow that to happen. And you have no idea what the politically correct will be attempting to sell the public in 2020. Do you honestly think it stops with homosexual marriage?
[quote]Hold on since when do politicians do anything else? Quite honestly I am repulsed by most them, both parities! Do I need a study to justify that feeling or is that allowed?
Well, we’ll make an exception here Although I bet you could justify if pushed
Hey, I wonder why we were born with repulsions to certain things? If they are not good for us what’s the point of having those feelings? Are they there for a reason? If not why do we have them?
I’m no psychology expert, but I imagine many of the feelings are learned, or misplaced based upon what were taught - for instance, feeling nervous around bikers because most movies portray them as badass criminals. The same feeling would have been aroused hundreds of years ago by a panther in our village, or something, but has now been assigned to people we think might be dangerous.[/quote]
No doubt. However, I also think some things are simply inherently wrong. And through conditioning, exposure etc. we become accustomed to that thing. It never makes it “right” it just means we got used to seeing the “wrong” enough so we are desensitized. I bet if we both watched a bestiality video it would not sicken us as much by the 100the viewing. Does that act now become appropriate? No way!
[quote]Just a thought, I’m pulling that out of my butt. I don’t know if the field of psychology even has a definitive answer there.
Have a good day -
Dan[/quote]
I grow less and less impressed with the field of Psychology. I’m not sure that they have an answer to much of anything. However, they do prescribe some pretty good pills from what I understand
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Therein lies the big problem. There is a ton of bias on both sides as this is a politically explosive issue. Conservatives are only to happy to quote a more conservative study. Social liberals on the other hand rush off to quote the latest Gay literature, or other tripe from the extremely liberal APA.
[/quote]
Then why don’t you do your own research?
Here’s a link for you:
Click on the link, type in “homosexual” and learn something.
Then instead of being spoonfed by the FRC and NARTH sites that you like to post ad nauseum, you can actually see for youself what the majority of studies in this area say.
Then after you’re done with that, you can type in “testosterone”, “skeletal muscular hypertrophy” and all kinds of other cool things and you’ll come up with some interesting stuff.
By the way, I don’t discount for a minute the studies that the FRC and NARTH post on their sites. I’ve followed your links, and then followed the studies they talk about to their original source and many of them are well done by people who probably have no political opinion about their work. That’s because they’re scientists! What’s bullshit is the way the writers for the websites choose to present the date.
However, you seem way too smart to be fooled by the writers of those sites when they dismiss any research that opposes their veiws as flawed. I can tell you a few things about clinical studies from first hand experience because I’ve been involved in multi-million dollar studies funded by NIH. Namely this: There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect study. There are always flaws in each and every study. That’s why it takes way more than one study to reasonably draw any conclusions about a research subject.
Any conservative or liberal slant to these studies only comes from someone else who decides to interperate the data to show that they’re right. For example, the FRC and NARTH. Are there groups on the other side who do the same? I’m sure there are, but unlike you, I don’t post any clearly biased links. Hell, I don’t even know where they are! I prefer to go directly to the source and interperet the data for myself.
Here’s another question for you. You said that the APA is liberal. Prove it. Again, they’re scientists, not politicians. Of course there are going to be some bad scientists in any field. But to get a research study published, an auther has to submit their manuscript for peer review all over the place to dozens if not hundreds of other scientists, most of whom they probably don’t even know. So there are checks and balances to keep shit work from being published.
I’m sure you’re going to say something about the APA bowing to political pressure when they removed homosexuality from the DSM way back in the early 70’s. Prove it without resorting to the FRC or NARTH sites, or some other tripe… I like that word. Was the gay lobby really that poweful in 73? Scientists in general don’t like to make racical changes to their positions without the research to back it up. For example, in our own area of interest, nutritionists have for the most part had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that limiting carbs and upping protein intake might have some advantages. But meanwhile the people at the APA said to the gay lobby “sure, we’ll change our manual becaues… well you’re just SO powerful, we wouldn’t want to piss you off.” Right.
Another thing you may want to reconsider is your constant assertation that you’re not on the politically correct side of the argument. Guess what ZEB? You are on the politically correct side. As you’ve stated (ad nauseum) you are on the side of 70% of the American public and the president is on your side as well. That sounds like the PC side of things to me.
[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Therein lies the big problem. There is a ton of bias on both sides as this is a politically explosive issue. Conservatives are only to happy to quote a more conservative study. Social liberals on the other hand rush off to quote the latest Gay literature, or other tripe from the extremely liberal APA.
Then why don’t you do your own research?
Here’s a link for you:
Click on the link, type in “homosexual” and learn something.
Then instead of being spoonfed by the FRC and NARTH sites that you like to post ad nauseum, you can actually see for youself what the majority of studies in this area say. [/quote]
Yes, good idea! I want to be more like you. I want to be “spoonfed” from the left. LOL
If I do as you ask I get the liberal view point. I will then post all of the liberal propaganda on this thread and you can say: “Now that Zeb is talking sense.” LOL
Actually, I have a better idea: I am REALLY going to do my own research. I am going to find 500 gay couples and track them for the next ten years. At the end of the ten years I will report back to you and the other social liberals (who can’t wait to rip down everything that has been built over the past 5000 years) of my findings.
By then T-Nation will be called T-Universe and everyone will be drinking Grow! at every meal!
Ha ha…no wait…I guess I’m not going to do that…forget it.
Not true, I’m married. Case closed
Now that is a very smart comment. You must not be married…
How do you know this if you never did a study to prove it?
I only do this because I am biased Here comes the truth…ready? I am not for homosexual marriage! There I said it the truth is out. Oh wait a second…you already know all that…sorry.
That’s because you (out of all the many that acutally have an opinion on this forum) are truly unbiased! You drip of sincerity and quite honestly you are DA MAN!
Now you know very well that I cannot prove that the whacky nut job liberal APA is liberal without quoting some whacky right wing conservative site. Dam…you got me!
I know (shaking head) we all know that scientists never have a personal bias and can never be influenced by the leadership of their organization who are more involved in administration, getting grants and doing things that…politicians do! Oops…
Tripe to you is not necessarily tripe! Acedemia in general has pulled left over the past 40 years. No one needs a study to prove it. However, you can survey Profs and prove it quickly if you like.
As far as the APA speficically, it has become politically correct to in fact “accept” whatever hogwash is handed to you. The APA is full of people who bow to pressure. That’s what people do…they bow to pressure. That’s why politics plays such an enormous role in our society.
Not quite my liberal friend!
You are taking a huge leap here. You assume that the majority is always the politically correct side. That is not the case. That might become the end result, but that is never the case in the beginning.
One example: The majority were against Gays in the military pre 1990. Enter Bill Clinton and 15 years later the majority is “for” Gays in the military.
If this issue goes your way (and It might in time) the majority in 20 years will be pro Gay marriage! The politically correct basically use hate speech to deter anyone from arguing against their side. The word “homophobic” is a great example of that. Once the opposition is silenced it is a matter of time before the “majority” become the minority!
History…
I guess it’s all pretty much been debated to death at this point. Social liberals will continue to believe liberal writers and studies. Conservatives (like myself) will continue to believe more conservative writers.
In the end I predict there will not be enough data compiled to make conservatives happy before the liberal politicians and judges attempt to push Gay marriage through. However, the liberals will claim that it has taken way to long…and so it goes…
(Sorry about some of the flippant answers. I’m back to work today and somehow this stuff takes a back seat, time wise…I hate it when the real world interferes with my fun!)
Take care dcb, all kidding aside you are a good man!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes, good idea! I want to be more like you. I want to be “spoonfed” from the left. LOL
[/quote]
So you didn’t click on the link I take it? That link was to Medline and you could have accessed the National Library of Medicine. Remember when I said that I tracked down some of the studies that the FRC and NARTH posted? Medline is where I did it. Each and every study was there with at least an abstract, if not a link to the full article. And I know this will come as a shock to you, but there was no political commments listed before or after the article that said “this is a liberal study” or “this is a conservative study.”
So no, I’m NOT being spoonfed anything. ALL of the studies that were deemed good enough to publish are presented there in an equal way. The point is, I didn’t get my information from some left or right leaning person who interpreted this data for me. I did it myself. In the time that you’ve spent replying to this thread, you could have easily researched several dozen of these studies from the comfort of your own chair, so I know that it’s not because you’re too lazy.
The picture I get of you is that you’d rather jam your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and sing “LALALALALALALALALA” instead of actually exposing yourself to any data that may interfere with your “gut feeling” on the subject. That’s a sign of true intellectual dishonesty. Congratulations.
Another thing: I knew deep down that you really don’t read what I’ve posted very closely. If you did, you would know that I’m not a social liberal because I told you that directly in a different post. That’s right ZEB, I’m on your side of the political fence. I’ve been of voting age since the 1988 elections and I’ve voted Republican in well over three quarters of the ballots that I’ve cast. You’re not going to kick me off the team are you?
I’ve got an announcement to make and I’m going to take a page from your book now.
The court of DCB has ruled, and I won! Case closed.
If you had the courtesy as I did to actually read my posts and study the links I posted, as I did with yours, it wouldn’t have come to this. Sorry, because you seem like a good guy as well.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Now you know very well that I cannot prove that the whacky nut job liberal APA is liberal without quoting some whacky right wing conservative site. Dam…you got me!
Again, they’re scientists, not politicians.
I know (shaking head) we all know that scientists never have a personal bias and can never be influenced by the leadership of their organization who are more involved in administration, getting grants and doing things that…politicians do! Oops…
I’m sure you’re going to say something about the APA bowing to political pressure when they removed homosexuality from the DSM way back in the early 70’s. Prove it without resorting to the FRC or NARTH sites, or some other tripe
Tripe to you is not necessarily tripe! Acedemia in general has pulled left over the past 40 years.
[/quote]
But you have no evidence of this do you?
Do me a favor please. The following is a list of topics on the APA website. I thought that the people studying these things did it because they cared about finding out the truth about these subjects. But from you, I know that there’s a political objective to all things academic! So please let me know what the political motivation of the APA is on these issues. How about Alzheimer’s, sleep and depression to start.
Children & Families
Depression
Divorce
Emotional Health
Kids & the Media
Learning & Memory
Marriage & Divorce
Obesity
Personality Disorders
Sexuality
Shyness
Sleep
Stress
Testing Issues
Trauma
Tsunami
Women & Men
Workplace Issues
It’s all obviously just a vast conspiracy. I didn’t realize that you were such a conspiracy buff. Please weigh in on the following subjects as well: Did we REALLY land on the moon? Did the CIA kill JFK? Was the crack problem government sponsored? I would have said “yes, no and no” to those three questions, but in light of your revelations about the dastardly APA, I’m not so sure.
How, about my degree? I have a Master’s in Exercise Physiology from the University of Maryland. At the time, I foolishly believed that my research subject was of interest for its scientific objectives. Now I’m worried that my advisor and thesis committee used me for their own liberal agenda. Please, tell me the truth.
Hey my Dad is an Aerospace Engineer and he’s at the U of M as well. It’s sad because he votes conservatively even more than I do, but he’s really being duped by the liberals isn’t he? Even though he’s the boss where he works, there’s probably some liberal oversight that makes sure the research they do in the wind tunnel comes out in favor of the DNC. How do they do that?
[quote]dcb wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Yes, good idea! I want to be more like you. I want to be “spoonfed” from the left. LOL
So you didn’t click on the link I take it? That link was to Medline and you could have accessed the National Library of Medicine. Remember when I said that I tracked down some of the studies that the FRC and NARTH posted? Medline is where I did it. Each and every study was there with at least an abstract, if not a link to the full article. And I know this will come as a shock to you, but there was no political commments listed before or after the article that said “this is a liberal study” or “this is a conservative study.”[/quote]
Actually, I did click on the link when I had more time. I wonder how anyone will know how a child turns out if he has two Gay “parents?” No one has any idea how a child will actually grow up as this has not been followed long enough.
Will that child be more likely to turn out Gay? We don’t know how someone becomes Gay so who is to say…you?
Thank you, I would have been disapointed if you did not insult me at least once during this post. Actually, that is a favorite tactic of the left (of which you say you are not part of). When they are losing the argument it’s time to attack the person. Good Job!
You can stay on the team under one condition, stop supporting Gay marriage! Just kidding
[quote]If you had the courtesy as I did to actually read my posts and study the links I posted, as I did with yours, it wouldn’t have come to this. Sorry, because you seem like a good guy as well.
Take care ZEB. [/quote]
Oh…I am a good guy…I really am. Lot’s of us “good guys” don’t support Gay marriage.
Do I have time to read every study that comes down the pike? No, but I did take a look at what “medline” had to offer and they really have nothing which can prove to me that two homosexuals can raise a child as well as a hetersexual married couple. Do you know why they have nothing? Because no one can be sure at this time, the jury is still out on that one!
