Same-Sex Adoption = Child Abuse

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You are under the impression that if you ever held an incorrect belief about something you are forever invalidated on the subject. Apparently if people who came before you in your lineage did something currently viewed as wrong, any current thoughts on the subject are invalid.

Tell that to the guy who mentioned homosexuality was once considered a psychological disorder, and used that to justify invalidating the revised conclusions of science, based on an additional four decades of research on the subject.
[/quote]

You are the one that claims it’s not a choice. If it isn’t it is something you are born with. Whether it’s a defect or not at that point is a moral judgment. You are attempting to disguise a moral argument as a scientific one.

42

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Then you explain how gay men have raped young boys. That’s right there are gay men who’ve done bad things. You come up with a way to excuse them from their actions and I’ll come up with a way to excuse distant Christians who’ve done bad things.[/quote]

I brought up the failings of the Church in response to the flawed argument that science has failed in the past, so its current conclusions are worthless.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You are the one that claims it’s not a choice. If it isn’t it is something you are born with. Whether it’s a defect or not at that point is a moral judgment. You are attempting to disguise a moral argument as a scientific one.[/quote]

Go back and read the thread, then see my last post.

I couldn’t care less what your particular church thinks about homosexuality. My point in bringing up the Church was to make the identical point that you made in your earlier post: that failures in the past do not necessarily imply failures in the future.

That is, unless you happen to claim infallibility via divine intervention. In that case, you paint yourself into a theological corner.

44

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Then you explain how gay men have raped young boys. That’s right there are gay men who’ve done bad things. You come up with a way to excuse them from their actions and I’ll come up with a way to excuse distant Christians who’ve done bad things.

I brought up the failings of the Church in response to the flawed argument that science has failed in the past, so its current conclusions are worthless.[/quote]

Those were acts purported by individuals you use the title of church to link errors made 100s of years ago to people who in no way had anything to do with it, just like cockney.

I think the point was that originally science and the church were the same thing, and scientific progress was still made.

Further, that ideas like a geocentric universe were originally science theories adopted by the church. Guys like Galileo were challenging the scientific community of the day who resisted as much as the church did.

You seem to be a lot like the old church to me. You seem totally close minded to anything that disputes scientific “facts”. Would you even read an article that disputed evolution or chemistry if written by a rouge guy against the entire weight of the scientific community?

45

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You are the one that claims it’s not a choice. If it isn’t it is something you are born with. Whether it’s a defect or not at that point is a moral judgment. You are attempting to disguise a moral argument as a scientific one.

Go back and read the thread, then see my last post.

I couldn’t care less what your particular church thinks about homosexuality. My point in bringing up the Church was to make the identical point that you made in your earlier post: that failures in the past do not necessarily imply failures in the future.

That is, unless you happen to claim infallibility via divine intervention. In that case, you paint yourself into a theological corner.

[/quote]

And my point is that the distinction you are making is a moral one, not a scientific one. Unless you are touting your moral values as better than others you have no right to call your way “progress”.

edit: you essentially claim divine infallibility of science…

46

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I hate Christians.

You are under the impression that if you ever held an incorrect belief about something you are forever invalidated on the subject. Apparently if people who came before you in your lineage did something currently viewed as wrong, any current thoughts on the subject are invalid.

So Mr. cockney, I’m surmising you’re from around London? Who are your ancestors? Celts? Welsh? Perhaps Danes? They used swords either way. So today you have to agree that everyone should be allowed to carry swords. Because that tradition is part of your past. I would argue this point about everyone carrying swords, but I have Danish ancestry, so I’m forbidden.

There are stonings in the Bible too. So if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t stop someone from stoning someone.

Hell, as an american I believe african americans are only 3/5ths of a person right? So now I can’t have any opinion on racism.

You’re argument isn’t logically coherent.[/quote]

Not at all. I am pointing out that when a Christian says that Homosexual Marriage is wrong because it will break down the traditions of Marriage they are not being logically coherent.

As I have said repeatedly, if the Christian wants to go to a Christian Church that doesn’t recognise a Christian homosexual marriage then that is fine by me.

They should have no input however on the legality of a contract between two homosexuals that recognises their relationship legally for the purposes of tax, inheritence, ability to make medical decisions on their partners behalf etc.

In exactly the same way, I have no right to tell a Christian how their religion should treat their religious marriage. It is simply none of my business.

I actually think they have it right here in Mexico. You have a civil wedding that legally recognises you as married. Then if you so wish you can have a church wedding. The Church wedding confers no legal implications and the civil wedding confers no religious implications.

Certain states are now allowing Homosexual civil unions to be recognised and I haven’t seent he fabric of society tearing yet.

47

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Then you explain how gay men have raped young boys. That’s right there are gay men who’ve done bad things. You come up with a way to excuse them from their actions and I’ll come up with a way to excuse distant Christians who’ve done bad things.

I brought up the failings of the Church in response to the flawed argument that science has failed in the past, so its current conclusions are worthless.

Those were acts purported by individuals you use the title of church to link errors made 100s of years ago to people who in no way had anything to do with it, just like cockney.

I think the point was that originally science and the church were the same thing, and scientific progress was still made.

Further, that ideas like a geocentric universe were originally science theories adopted by the church. Guys like Galileo were challenging the scientific community of the day who resisted as much as the church did.

You seem to be a lot like the old church to me. You seem totally close minded to anything that disputes scientific “facts”. Would you even read an article that disputed evolution or chemistry if written by a rouge guy against the entire weight of the scientific community?[/quote]

I am not the one making the link back to the bible. A book which was written over a thousand years ago.

If the argument was that [quote]the modern definition of marriage is one man with one woman for life and there is science to support that this is best[/quote], then fine. But it isn’t.

The argument is, [quote] legally recognising homosexual marriage goes against the traditional definition of marriage[/quote].

I am just pointing out that this argument is ridiculous.

48

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I hate Christians.

You are under the impression that if you ever held an incorrect belief about something you are forever invalidated on the subject. Apparently if people who came before you in your lineage did something currently viewed as wrong, any current thoughts on the subject are invalid.

So Mr. cockney, I’m surmising you’re from around London? Who are your ancestors? Celts? Welsh? Perhaps Danes? They used swords either way. So today you have to agree that everyone should be allowed to carry swords. Because that tradition is part of your past. I would argue this point about everyone carrying swords, but I have Danish ancestry, so I’m forbidden.

There are stonings in the Bible too. So if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t stop someone from stoning someone.

Hell, as an american I believe african americans are only 3/5ths of a person right? So now I can’t have any opinion on racism.

You’re argument isn’t logically coherent.

Not at all. I am pointing out that when a Christian says that Homosexual Marriage is wrong because it will break down the traditions of Marriage they are not being logically coherent.

As I have said repeatedly, if the Christian wants to go to a Christian Church that doesn’t recognise a Christian homosexual marriage then that is fine by me.

They should have no input however on the legality of a contract between two homosexuals that recognises their relationship legally for the purposes of tax, inheritence, ability to make medical decisions on their partners behalf etc.

In exactly the same way, I have no right to tell a Christian how their religion should treat their religious marriage. It is simply none of my business.

I actually think they have it right here in Mexico. You have a civil wedding that legally recognises you as married. Then if you so wish you can have a church wedding. The Church wedding confers no legal implications and the civil wedding confers no religious implications.

Certain states are now allowing Homosexual civil unions to be recognised and I haven’t seent he fabric of society tearing yet.[/quote]

Not exactly, when you get into the argument of what “traditional” Christian marriage is, you are stepping into telling a religion what it’s beliefs are. I don’t want to get into the argument in detail, but reading the bible I read monogamous opposite sex marriage as the christian ideal. Started that way originally, fell into ruin along with man, worked it’s way back to the original plan in Christ. But again you are arguing religious interpretation at that point. You can’t, by admittion, tell a Christian what traditional Christian marriage is.

I agree with all the unfair implications of morally mandating marriage contracts between adults. The gray area in this thread comes by the admittance of an un-consenting child to that contract.

There are many laws preventing adoption by parents that have done or continue to do things considered immoral. Are those laws bad? Is there authority as a society to make moral judgments concerning the relationship between minors and adults?

I think you’d have to say yes. The only thing left would be what is the cultural consensus of the morality of homosexuality.

49

Personally, I think the traditional argument is complete BS. Just because something has been done a long time doesn’t make it right or best. I see a huge inconsistency with assuming tradition = correctness, not with what tradition is.

I think you also have to weigh the implications of the alternative options for the child. No parents vs. gay parents. I’d be inclined to think even if you consider homosexuality immoral, it’s still best for the child to have gay parents in that case.

I think logically you’d have to start legally baring strippers and such from being mothers if you forbid homosexuals.

50

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You seem to be a lot like the old church to me. You seem totally close minded to anything that disputes scientific “facts”. Would you even read an article that disputed evolution or chemistry if written by a rouge guy against the entire weight of the scientific community?[/quote]

Take a deep breath and actually think about what I’ve said. Done? Good.

I’m not arguing that science hasn’t changed, or that it couldn’t change in the future. I’m not arguing that religion hasn’t changed, or that it couldn’t change in the future.

I’m specifically addressing the flawed argument that science was incorrect in diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder, therefore the current conclusions of science on homosexuality are worthless.

Get it yet?

If religion can get it wrong in the past, and eventually get it right, so can science.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:

Would any of these be the same scientific organizations that once classified the earth as flat?[/quote]

No. The CDC has little to no bearing on the spherical nature of the Earth.

How many times or how wrong do they have to be before you stop listening/believing?

[quote]Thankfully, science progresses.

And later (sometimes much later, kicking and screaming but moving forward all the same), religion does as well.[/quote]

Untrue, science’s progress on a great many issues is easily contestable (obvious blunders aside, ‘industrial farming’, splitting the atom, television, the internal combustion engine, hydrogenated fatty acids, high fructose corn syrup, etc.). Religion, rightfully so, has the ‘advantage’ of not being judged/reevaluated in the short term.

52

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I actually think they have it right here in Mexico. You have a civil wedding that legally recognises you as married. Then if you so wish you can have a church wedding. The Church wedding confers no legal implications and the civil wedding confers no religious implications.
[/quote]

True separation of church and state on the marriage issue makes perfect sense to me. I think we should do the same here in the U.S.

53

[quote]lucasa wrote:
Untrue, science’s progress on a great many issues is easily contestable (obvious blunders aside, ‘industrial farming’, splitting the atom, television, the internal combustion engine, hydrogenated fatty acids, high fructose corn syrup, etc.). Religion, rightfully so, has the ‘advantage’ of not being judged/reevaluated in the short term.[/quote]

You need to differentiate between statements of fact about the objective universe, and the morality of actions based on those statements of fact.

Religion is welcome to make any judgments it wants to make about morality. The problem is when priests parade around as scientists, making uninformed and incorrect statements about the objective universe.

54

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You seem to be a lot like the old church to me. You seem totally close minded to anything that disputes scientific “facts”. Would you even read an article that disputed evolution or chemistry if written by a rouge guy against the entire weight of the scientific community?

Take a deep breath and actually think about what I’ve said. Done? Good.

I’m not arguing that science hasn’t changed, or that it couldn’t change in the future. I’m not arguing that religion hasn’t changed, or that it couldn’t change in the future.

I’m specifically addressing the flawed argument that science was incorrect in diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder, therefore the current conclusions of science on homosexuality are worthless.

Get it yet?

If religion can get it wrong in the past, and eventually get it right, so can science.[/quote]

No, once again. science could only establish the link between physical/psychological traits and homosexuality.

Calling that trait a defect (labeling it a disorder) is moral judgment. Should I be offended if Aspergers is labeled a defect? Would it be progress for science to acknowledge it as a condition but refrain from labeling it a defect? Because it’s who I am; They can’t call it a defect, it would hurt my feelings.

Further, to the point you are talking about, you use that logic all the time against religion. I can probably copy and paste a dozen different times you have in other related threads.

55

[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Untrue, science’s progress on a great many issues is easily contestable (obvious blunders aside, ‘industrial farming’, splitting the atom, television, the internal combustion engine, hydrogenated fatty acids, high fructose corn syrup, etc.). Religion, rightfully so, has the ‘advantage’ of not being judged/reevaluated in the short term.

You need to differentiate between statements of fact about the objective universe, and the morality of actions based on those statements of fact.

Religion is welcome to make any judgments it wants to make about morality. The problem is when priests parade around as scientists, making uninformed and incorrect statements about the objective universe.[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle.

defect: an imperfection that impairs worth or utility

Worth is entirely a moral judgment. Utility depends on standpoint. From a biologist perspective homosexuality would seem a defect.

You can?t say that scientific evidence shows homosexuality isn?t a defect. It is a wholly unscientific statement. You are confusing a moral judgment with scientific evidence.

56

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Further, to the point you are talking about, you use that logic all the time against religion.[/quote]

Dude, are you being deliberately dense or what?

I’m not using “that logic” against religion. I’m simply showing how “that logic” is flawed in the first place. The person using “that logic” was trying to make the point that science can’t be trusted, because it was initially wrong about homosexuality being a disorder. If “that logic” is flawed when applied to religion, then “that logic” is similarly flawed when applied to science.

I’m just asking people to use the same standard, whether evaluating scientific or religious progress. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

57

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can?t say that scientific evidence shows homosexuality isn?t a defect. It is a wholly unscientific statement. You are confusing a moral judgment with scientific evidence.
[/quote]

You can correlate homosexuality with known measures of psychological and emotional health. Science has done this, and contrary to early opinions, has shown that gays are equally healthy to heterosexuals on all of these measures.

It doesn’t require a moral label or judgment; it is an empirical question whether sexual orientation correlates with measures of psychological dysfunction. According to research conducted over the past four decades, it does not.

58

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Further, to the point you are talking about, you use that logic all the time against religion.

Dude, are you being deliberately dense or what?

I’m not using “that logic” against religion. I’m simply showing how “that logic” is flawed in the first place. The person using “that logic” was trying to make the point that science can’t be trusted, because it was initially wrong about homosexuality being a disorder. If “that logic” is flawed when applied to religion, then “that logic” is similarly flawed when applied to science.

I’m just asking people to use the same standard, whether evaluating scientific or religious progress. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.[/quote]

LOL I’m agreeing with you, but pointing out that you are apparently recanting posts in other threads.

See, you used that logic against religion many times in the past, now you are pointing out how flawed it is. I guess we can all “progress”.

59

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LOL I’m agreeing with you, but pointing out that you are apparently recanting posts in other threads.

See, you used that logic against religion many times in the past, now you are pointing out how flawed it is. I guess we can all “progress”.[/quote]

Glad to hear it.

I’ve said on several occasions that religion has made progress. I don’t judge religion by mistakes it has made in the past. The important thing is to learn from those mistakes, and not repeat them.

60

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You can?t say that scientific evidence shows homosexuality isn?t a defect. It is a wholly unscientific statement. You are confusing a moral judgment with scientific evidence.

You can correlate homosexuality with known measures of psychological and emotional health. Science has done this, and contrary to early opinions, has shown that gays are equally healthy to heterosexuals on all of these measures.

It doesn’t require a moral label or judgment; it is an empirical question whether sexual orientation correlates with measures of psychological dysfunction. According to research conducted over the past four decades, it does not.[/quote]

You just changed the word from “defect” to dysfunction. You can have psychological “defects” that don’t impact health, such as aspergers. In fact many times these defects can be advantageous. Being a crazy brutal maniac could have helped you in the past.

Edit: I’m not arguing that homosexuality is a defect just that it’s a moral and not a scientific judgment.