Total Posts:243|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A reflection for homophobes.

bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 10:58:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

Ya, many Christians are bigoted. It is turning a lot of people off of Christianity, as the public clearly supports gay rights. Christians are still living in the stone age.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:28:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose gay; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:28:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:20:14 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Soon we will have to feel for paedophiles!!

Category error that I'm tired of hearing. It's like equating hetero sex and rape. It is downright stupid to ignore consent. It's a disgusting exposure of stupid bigotry. Shall I argue that if we allow people to be religious, we have to be okay with cannibalism?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:30:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:28:07 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose gay; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?

Then it isn't directed at you, but rather perhaps someone like medic, who thinks its justified to "break their legs"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 11:34:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:28:07 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose gay; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?

*This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose same-sex marriage; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:34:12 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:28:07 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose gay; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?

*This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose same-sex marriage; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?

You see this has nothing to do with same sex marriage. IT is all about persecuting someone for being different. Which is what the heterosexual community has done for century's. Now that society has realised that the hatred inherent in some religious beliefs are wrong and that that hatred was the basis for the persecution of those who are different, then only the believers in the hateful "christian" doctrines try desperately to cling to the persecution that their beliefs instill in them.
Did you watch the video? Did you not see yourself? How very, very, very sad.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:22:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:20:14 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Soon we will have to feel for paedophiles!!

That has got to be the most moronic thing I have ever heard. I had a debate with someone not long ago on the same subject:

http://www.debate.org...

Most of us view pedophilic acts are wrong because the child cannot consent, and their minds are too impressionable. Homosexual acts between two adults is fine because they are both grown, and nobody is taking advantage of anybodies young, underdeveloped mental state.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:28:07 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

This is just hopeless. You seem to assume that being opposed to same-sex marriage entails that one wishes harm upon homosexuals. Are people not capable of comprehending that it is quite possible for one to both a.) to oppose gay; and b.) oppose acts of violence (or the incurring of harm) against homosexuals?

Yes, this just means you are not a radical bigot.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:29:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We might as well go back to opposing black people if you are opposing gays. This is the new civil rights movement, and if you haven't been keeping up with the news lately, the gays won a huge victory in court yesterday. Anti-gays were left with nothing be embarrassment.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:45:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:29:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We might as well go back to opposing black people if you are opposing gays. This is the new civil rights movement, and if you haven't been keeping up with the news lately, the gays won a huge victory in court yesterday. Anti-gays were left with nothing be embarrassment.

Ah. I see you've imbibed to the point of debauchery the silly but rhetorically powerful idea that opposing same-sex marriage is analogous to opposing interracial marriage.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:47:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:45:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:29:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We might as well go back to opposing black people if you are opposing gays. This is the new civil rights movement, and if you haven't been keeping up with the news lately, the gays won a huge victory in court yesterday. Anti-gays were left with nothing be embarrassment.

Ah. I see you've imbibed to the point of debauchery the silly but rhetorically powerful idea that opposing same-sex marriage is analogous to opposing interracial marriage.

Anybody can call anything "silly". This is just a fallacious appeal to ridicule.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:54:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 11:20:14 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Soon we will have to feel for paedophiles!!

I am severely concerned for anyone who thinks the rape of children and consensual sex between adults are even remotely related.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 12:56:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:54:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:20:14 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Soon we will have to feel for paedophiles!!

I am severely concerned for anyone who thinks the rape of children and consensual sex between adults are even remotely related.

It's a bit like saying "If teens are allowed to buy porn magazines when they're younger than 18 years old, we may as well let armed robbers kill whoever gets in their way while robbing a store that sell porn."
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:02:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:47:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Anybody can call anything "silly". This is just a fallacious appeal to ridicule.

Interracial couples can marry because they can fulfill an essential function of marriage. Marriages bind males and females for the long term and protect the rights children have to be with their parents. Male-female unions are the precise kind of pairing that produces children and provides the ideal environment to raise them. Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn"t impact that function in any way. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, don't include both sexes. Not only are they incapable, by nature, to produce children, but they are also ill-suited to raise kids who need a mother and a father. That"s why the state has never sanctioned the relationship of two men or two women, but they sanction interracial unions so long as they're heterosexual. Homosexuals are hoping to convince the culture that their plight is the same as African Americans. Naturally, this has a strong, rhetorical effect. But with careful reflection it becomes apparent the two groups are not parallel in meaningful ways. That"s because race and sex are not the same. This makes all the difference.

____________________________________________________________________

As I noted, the claim goes something like this: people who oppose gay marriage today are the same type of people who opposed interracial marriage in the past; this implies two things: one, the reason people oppose it now is the same reason they opposed interracial marriage back then: because of deeply ingrained, unjustified prejudices, and two, that it's inevitable that change will happen and people today will be the bigots of yesterday.

The power of this argument is obvious. Since there is absolutely nothing in the modern world worse than being a racist (which, regardless of what one thinks about race issues, is ridiculous in itself), equating opposition to homosexuality with racism puts the traditionalist on the defensive from the get-go. It's a fallacious claim, of course, but that's the power of these types of arguments: it diverts and trips up the opponent; it makes him prove it wrong because it's superficially plausible. So why is it fallacious? For many it should be obvious, but a short breakdown is probably necessary.

Natural law says that homosexual sex is immoral because it frustrates the natural end of human sexuality. Marriage is merely an extension of this principle. Natural law does not say that the purpose of sexuality is to just get semen into a vagina. That is just a basic minimum requirement. Instead, natural law argues that reproduction follows necessarily from this minimum requirement, and as such, marriage is a natural consequence of human sexuality. Or, that marriage and family are necessarily required for the flourishing of human beings. Or, that when a human being mates without another human being, he is good insofar as he protects and sustains that child, and he is defective or bad insofar as he doesn't. As homosexuality frustrates the natural end of sex itself, it has nothing metaphysically to do with the natural end of human sexuality: marriage. (This is just a quick overview; please hold back in-depth questions about marriage until a more comprehensive post.)

Now, interracial, heterosexual marriage would not frustrate the natural ends of sexuality and is perfectly in line with the end of human sexuality. Race is more akin to something like eye color. There is no defect in having a particular skin color or particular racial features, as they do not inhibit a human being's flourishing. There are certain disabilities that travel along with certain races (like sickle cell or something), but that's besides the point. Being white has nothing to do with human flourishing, and a white person is not better, in the metaphysical sense, than a non-white. Now, I think we ignore racial differences way too much or pretend that because we are metaphysically equal that we are necessarily physically equal (almost to the point of absurdity), but that's not really the point of this post. All I'm really trying to point out is that a black man having children with a white woman (or whatever), and their coming together to raise and protect the child, in no way violates natural law. Whether races should seek mixing, etc. etc. is a question completely outside the concerns of natural law.

As such, when a person opposes gay marriage, he is opposing something unnatural and immoral according to natural law, a metaphysical impossibility, a perversion of the basis of human flourishing. When he opposes interracial marriage, he is opposing something that has nothing to do with natural law. Whether or not he is opposing interracial marriage because of personal biases is not really what I want to go into. He may have legitimate cultural complaints. All I'm trying to point out is that his complaints have nothing, strictly speaking, to do with natural law morality. Even if he says, in both cases, that it's "unnatural," he is only right in the first case. Now, this isn't a gay marriage post necessarily; there is a lot that can be said about gay marriage. I'm just trying to point out where the comparison goes wrong. But it's important to point this out, for the reasons that follow.

This whole thing falls well within the LGBT v. The World narrative. As I noted in the LGBT post I think the purpose of this is to legitimize the conflict and take attention away from the actual underlying moral questions. People hate oppression (especially in the post-Christian West), and if you can equate LGBT with an oppressed group, then you're one step closer to convincing those same people that what LGBT people do is moral. As I noted, this is a complete sleight of hand.

What really bothers me about the whole thing is how much power is has as an argument. People are so terrified of looking like the oppressive group that they will backpedal as quickly as they can to avoid the controversy. And what's worse is that it's arguments like this that really get people going. It makes the whole thing political, completely separated from the underlying moral and cultural concerns. People will march in the streets over stuff like this, and how can anyone compete with that? When we're at the "civil rights" movement stage, discussion is over. And as everyone knows (because their Kindergarten teacher told them so), anyone who pushes for civil rights is ultimately correct. The whole thing turns a legitimate moral position into "hate." It's a pretty impressive thing really.

In many ways I can't tell how convincing this argument is outside the mobs of protesters. I mean, decent philosophers who support gay marriage have to realize that this comparison is faulty. But at the same time, I don't know. I come across it all the time. And I only rarely hear people say "well, no, one is immoral and the other one wasn't." If they do, the usual retort is, "well, they thought interracial marriage was immoral too!" Then it devolves into a sort of emotivism back and forth until everyone is throwing food.

Now, there is one thing about the argument I can agree with: part two, which I said is "that it's inevitable that change will happen and people today will be the bigots of yesterday." This will happen. People will say this. I don't really have any doubt about it. Now, this will of course be a completely unjustified slander, but that's the way it's going to be.

http://beatushomo.blogspot.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:07:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:02:16 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:47:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Anybody can call anything "silly". This is just a fallacious appeal to ridicule.

Interracial couples can marry because they can fulfill an essential function of marriage. Marriages bind males and females for the long term and protect the rights children have to be with their parents. Male-female unions are the precise kind of pairing that produces children and provides the ideal environment to raise them. Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn"t impact that function in any way. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, don't include both sexes. Not only are they incapable, by nature, to produce children, but they are also ill-suited to raise kids who need a mother and a father. That"s why the state has never sanctioned the relationship of two men or two women, but they sanction interracial unions so long as they're heterosexual. Homosexuals are hoping to convince the culture that their plight is the same as African Americans. Naturally, this has a strong, rhetorical effect. But with careful reflection it becomes apparent the two groups are not parallel in meaningful ways. That"s because race and sex are not the same. This makes all the difference.

____________________________________________________________________

As I noted, the claim goes something like this: people who oppose gay marriage today are the same type of people who opposed interracial marriage in the past; this implies two things: one, the reason people oppose it now is the same reason they opposed interracial marriage back then: because of deeply ingrained, unjustified prejudices, and two, that it's inevitable that change will happen and people today will be the bigots of yesterday.

The power of this argument is obvious. Since there is absolutely nothing in the modern world worse than being a racist (which, regardless of what one thinks about race issues, is ridiculous in itself), equating opposition to homosexuality with racism puts the traditionalist on the defensive from the get-go. It's a fallacious claim, of course, but that's the power of these types of arguments: it diverts and trips up the opponent; it makes him prove it wrong because it's superficially plausible. So why is it fallacious? For many it should be obvious, but a short breakdown is probably necessary.

Natural law says that homosexual sex is immoral because it frustrates the natural end of human sexuality. Marriage is merely an extension of this principle. Natural law does not say that the purpose of sexuality is to just get semen into a vagina. That is just a basic minimum requirement. Instead, natural law argues that reproduction follows necessarily from this minimum requirement, and as such, marriage is a natural consequence of human sexuality. Or, that marriage and family are necessarily required for the flourishing of human beings. Or, that when a human being mates without another human being, he is good insofar as he protects and sustains that child, and he is defective or bad insofar as he doesn't. As homosexuality frustrates the natural end of sex itself, it has nothing metaphysically to do with the natural end of human sexuality: marriage. (This is just a quick overview; please hold back in-depth questions about marriage until a more comprehensive post.)

Now, interracial, heterosexual marriage would not frustrate the natural ends of sexuality and is perfectly in line with the end of human sexuality. Race is more akin to something like eye color. There is no defect in having a particular skin color or particular racial features, as they do not inhibit a human being's flourishing. There are certain disabilities that travel along with certain races (like sickle cell or something), but that's besides the point. Being white has nothing to do with human flourishing, and a white person is not better, in the metaphysical sense, than a non-white. Now, I think we ignore racial differences way too much or pretend that because we are metaphysically equal that we are necessarily physically equal (almost to the point of absurdity), but that's not really the point of this post. All I'm really trying to point out is that a black man having children with a white woman (or whatever), and their coming together to raise and protect the child, in no way violates natural law. Whether races should seek mixing, etc. etc. is a question completely outside the concerns of natural law.

As such, when a person opposes gay marriage, he is opposing something unnatural and immoral according to natural law, a metaphysical impossibility, a perversion of the basis of human flourishing. When he opposes interracial marriage, he is opposing something that has nothing to do with natural law. Whether or not he is opposing interracial marriage because of personal biases is not really what I want to go into. He may have legitimate cultural complaints. All I'm trying to point out is that his complaints have nothing, strictly speaking, to do with natural law morality. Even if he says, in both cases, that it's "unnatural," he is only right in the first case. Now, this isn't a gay marriage post necessarily; there is a lot that can be said about gay marriage. I'm just trying to point out where the comparison goes wrong. But it's important to point this out, for the reasons that follow.

This whole thing falls well within the LGBT v. The World narrative. As I noted in the LGBT post I think the purpose of this is to legitimize the conflict and take attention away from the actual underlying moral questions. People hate oppression (especially in the post-Christian West), and if you can equate LGBT with an oppressed group, then you're one step closer to convincing those same people that what LGBT people do is moral. As I noted, this is a complete sleight of hand.

What really bothers me about the whole thing is how much power is has as an argument. People are so terrified of looking like the oppressive group that they will backpedal as quickly as they can to avoid the controversy. And what's worse is that it's arguments like this that really get people going. It makes the whole thing political, completely separated from the underlying moral and cultural concerns. People will march in the streets over stuff like this, and how can anyone compete with that? When we're at the "civil rights" movement stage, discussion is over. And as everyone knows (because their Kindergarten teacher told them so), anyone who pushes for civil rights is ultimately correct. The whole thing turns a legitimate moral position into "hate." It's a pretty impressive thing really.

In many ways I can't tell how convincing this argument is outside the mobs of protesters. I mean, decent philosophers who support gay marriage have to realize that this comparison is faulty. But at the same time, I don't know. I come across it all the time. And I only rarely hear people say "well, no, one is immoral and the other one wasn't." If they do, the usual retort is, "well, they thought interracial marriage was immoral too!" Then it devolves into a sort of emotivism back and forth until everyone is throwing food.

Now, there is one thing about the argument I can agree with: part two, which I said is "that it's inevitable that change will happen and people today will be the bigots of yesterday." This will happen. People will say this. I don't really have any doubt about it. Now, this will of course be a completely unjustified slander, but that's the way it's going to be.

http://beatushomo.blogspot.com...

Natural Law is nothing more than a non-sequitur. Something being immoral does not follow from something being unnatural. This leads to absurd conclusions. Shaving and doing handstands now have to be deemed immoral. Regardless there is no problem with slightl
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:45:09 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:29:55 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
We might as well go back to opposing black people if you are opposing gays. This is the new civil rights movement, and if you haven't been keeping up with the news lately, the gays won a huge victory in court yesterday. Anti-gays were left with nothing be embarrassment.

Ah. I see you've imbibed to the point of debauchery the silly but rhetorically powerful idea that opposing same-sex marriage is analogous to opposing interracial marriage.
What the hell does same sex marriage have to do with that video? Are you insane?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:08:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:02:16 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:47:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Anybody can call anything "silly". This is just a fallacious appeal to ridicule.

Interracial couples can marry because they can fulfill an essential function of marriage. Marriages bind males and females for the long term and protect the rights children have to be with their parents. Male-female unions are the precise kind of pairing that produces children and provides the ideal environment to raise them. Having an African American marry a Caucasian doesn"t impact that function in any way. Homosexual couples, on the other hand, don't include both sexes. Not only are they incapable, by nature, to produce children, but they are also ill-suited to raise kids who need a mother and a father. That"s why the state has never sanctioned the relationship of two men or two women, but they sanction interracial unions so long as they're heterosexual. Homosexuals are hoping to convince the culture that their plight is the same as African Americans. Naturally, this has a strong, rhetorical effect. But with careful reflection it becomes apparent the two groups are not parallel in meaningful ways. That"s because race and sex are not the same. This makes all the difference.

____________________________________________________________________

As I noted, the claim goes something like this: people who oppose gay marriage today are the same type of people who opposed interracial marriage in the past; this implies two things: one, the reason people oppose it now is the same reason they opposed interracial marriage back then: because of deeply ingrained, unjustified prejudices, and two, that it's inevitable that change will happen and people today will be the bigots of yesterday.

The power of this argument is obvious. Since there is absolutely nothing in the modern world worse than being a racist (which, regardless of what one thinks about race issues, is ridiculous in itself), equating opposition to homosexuality with racism puts the traditionalist on the defensive from the get-go. It's a fallacious claim, of course, but that's the power of these types of arguments: it diverts and trips up the opponent; it makes him prove it wrong because it's superficially plausible. So why is it fallacious? For many it should be obvious, but a short breakdown is probably necessary.

Natural law says that homosexual sex is immoral because it frustrates the natural end of human sexuality. Marriage is merely an extension of this principle. Natural law does not say that the purpose of sexuality is to just get semen into a vagina. That is just a basic minimum requirement. Instead, natural law argues that reproduction follows necessarily from this minimum requirement, and as such, marriage is a natural consequence of human sexuality. Or, that marriage and family are necessarily required for the flourishing of human beings. Or, that when a human being mates without another human being, he is good insofar as he protects and sustains that child, and he is defective or bad insofar as he doesn't. As homosexuality frustrates the natural end of sex itself, it has nothing metaphysically to do with the natural end of human sexuality: marriage. (This is just a quick overview; please hold back in-depth questions about marriage until a more comprehensive post.)

Now, interracial, heterosexual marriage would not frustrate the natural ends of sexuality and is perfectly in line with the end of human sexuality. Race is more akin to something like eye color. There is no defect in having a particular skin color or particular racial features, as they do not inhibit a human being's flourishing. There are certain disabilities that travel along with certain races (like sickle cell or something), but that's besides the point. Being white has nothing to do with human flourishing, and a white person is not better, in the metaphysical sense, than a non-white. Now, I think we ignore racial differences way too much or pretend that because we are metaphysically equal that we are necessarily physically equal (almost to the point of absurdity), but that's not really the point of this post. All I'm really trying to point out is that a black man having children with a white woman (or whatever), and their coming together to raise and protect the child, in no way violates natural law. Whether races should seek mixing, etc. etc. is a question completely outside the concerns of natural law.

As such, when a person opposes gay marriage, he is opposing something unnatural and immoral according to natural law, a metaphysical impossibility, a perversion of the basis of human flourishing. When he opposes interracial marriage, he is opposing something that has nothing to do with natural law. Whether or not he is opposing interracial marriage because of personal biases is not really what I want to go into. He may have legitimate cultural complaints. All I'm trying to point out is that his complaints have nothing, strictly speaking, to do with natural law morality. Even if he says, in both cases, that it's "unnatural," he is only right in the first case. Now, this isn't a gay marriage post necessarily; there is a lot that can be said about gay marriage. I'm just trying to point out where the comparison goes wrong. But it's important to point this out, for the reasons that follow.

This whole thing falls well within the LGBT v. The World narrative. As I noted in the LGBT post I think the purpose of this is to legitimize the conflict and take attention away from the actual underlying moral questions. People hate oppression (especially in the post-Christian West), and if you can equate LGBT with an oppressed group, then you're one step closer to convincing those same people that what LGBT people do is moral. As I noted, this is a complete sleight of hand.

What really bothers me about the whole thing is how much power is has as an argument. People are so terrified of looking like the oppressive group that they will backpedal as quickly as they can to avoid the controversy. And what's worse is that it's arguments like this that really get people going. It makes the whole thing political, completely separated from the underlying moral and cultural concerns. People will march in the streets over stuff like this, and how can anyone compete with that? When we're at the "civil rights" movement stage, discussion is over. And as everyone knows (because their Kindergarten teacher told them so), anyone who pushes for civil rights is ultimately correct. The whole thing turns a legitimate moral position into "hate." It's a pretty impressive thing really.

In many ways I can't tell how convincing this argument is outside the mobs of protesters. I mean, decent philosophers who support gay marriage have to realize that this comparison is faulty. But at the same time, I don't know. I come across it all the time. And I only rarely hear people say "well, no, one is immoral and the other one wasn't." If they do, the usual retort is, "well, they thought interracial marriage was immoral too!" Then it devolves into a sort of emotivism back and forth until everyone is throwing food.

Now, there is one thing about the argument I can agree with: part two, which I said is "that it's inevitable that change will happen and people today will be the bigots of yesterday." This will happen. People will say this. I don't really have any doubt about it. Now, this will of course be a completely unjustified slander, but that's the way it's going to be.

http://beatushomo.blogspot.com...

Regardless, there is no problem with slightly modifying the definition or marriage to include gays, unless you are a bigot. Your arguments against gays are moronic. I do not want to leave that as a bare-assertion, so would you like to debate me on this subje
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:09:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*debate me on this subject?

Your post was too long-winded, when I tried to quote it, it cut me off early with regards to my response.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:13:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anti-gays have no argument. They are just like racists as they oppose people's rights, and they do not like people who are different (they have sex anally, or they have black skin).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:16:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The population is getting too big anyway, people not having straight sex is a good thing. People are popping out babies left right and center and causing poverty on massive scales.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:36:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 12:22:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:20:14 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Soon we will have to feel for paedophiles!!

That has got to be the most moronic thing I have ever heard. I had a debate with someone not long ago on the same subject:

http://www.debate.org...

Most of us view pedophilic acts are wrong because the child cannot consent, and their minds are too impressionable. Homosexual acts between two adults is fine because they are both grown, and nobody is taking advantage of anybodies young, underdeveloped mental state.

Both are Immoral, sex isn't for that.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 1:37:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:36:00 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 6/27/2013 12:22:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 11:20:14 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Soon we will have to feel for paedophiles!!

That has got to be the most moronic thing I have ever heard. I had a debate with someone not long ago on the same subject:

http://www.debate.org...

Most of us view pedophilic acts are wrong because the child cannot consent, and their minds are too impressionable. Homosexual acts between two adults is fine because they are both grown, and nobody is taking advantage of anybodies young, underdeveloped mental state.

Both are Immoral, sex isn't for that.

Hair isn't for shaving off. Is shaving immoral?
llamainmypocket
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:23:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 10:58:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

Ya, many Christians are bigoted. It is turning a lot of people off of Christianity, as the public clearly supports gay rights. Christians are still living in the stone age.

86% of Americans identify as christian according to Wikipedia. It simply can't be reconciled that Christians don't support gay rights and the public does. Either the public doesn't or Christians do.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:30:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 2:23:21 PM, llamainmypocket wrote:
At 6/27/2013 10:58:37 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/27/2013 8:49:50 AM, bulproof wrote:



Try walking a mile in the shoes of the people you persecute.

Ya, many Christians are bigoted. It is turning a lot of people off of Christianity, as the public clearly supports gay rights. Christians are still living in the stone age.

86% of Americans identify as christian according to Wikipedia. It simply can't be reconciled that Christians don't support gay rights and the public does. Either the public doesn't or Christians do.

I said "many " are bigoted, not "most" or "all". I know plenty of Christians for gay rights.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2013 2:47:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/27/2013 1:07:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Natural Law is nothing more than a non-sequitur. Something being immoral does not follow from something being unnatural. This leads to absurd conclusions. Shaving and doing

These are bankrupt objections. Shaving and handstands are not immoral nor unnatural insofar as they are not perversions of faculties. I elaborated on this in another thread some hours ago:

http://www.debate.org...