What's new
By:

Don't Ask, Don't Tell is officially history!!

GVC said:
And fwiw, if your disapproval of some group or action is based solely on dogma it might as well be hate, and it certainly does a lot more to encourage malicious discrimination than backing your disapproval with some meaningful/rational explanation.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but rational is a pretty subjective term. The issue I have with this reasoning is it suggests humans can "figure it out", which has caused plenty of hatred and pain in the past. I for one am not smart enough to figure anything out, and the bright ones come to different conclusions anyway. What about spiritual confirmation, real or perceived? Is there any standard other than self-righteousness?
 
franklin said:
I get what you're saying, but rational is a pretty subjective term. The issue I have with this reasoning is it suggests humans can "figure it out", which has caused plenty of hatred and pain in the past. I for one am not smart enough to figure anything out, and the bright ones come to different conclusions anyway. What about spiritual confirmation, real or perceived? Is there any standard other than self-righteousness?
Click to expand...
Sure, ultimately we all decide what reasons are good reasons. At some level, it's subjective. With that said, if I assert something, I try to have some reason/argument for that assertion, understanding that some people may disagree and/or offer some insight on why I may be wrong by providing some counter arguments. "It's bad because it's bad" doesn't qualify as an argument worth considering IMO.
 
Further, it seems pretty hateful to make a comparison between homosexual behavior and addiction to video games and pedophilia.

Just saying.
 
GVC said:
Sure, ultimately we all decide what reasons are good reasons. At some level, it's subjective. With that said, if I assert something, I try to have some reason/argument for that assertion, understanding that some people may disagree and/or offer some insight on why I may be wrong by providing some counter arguments. "It's bad because it's bad" doesn't qualify as an argument worth considering IMO.
Click to expand...

What I'm getting at is one man's reasoning is rationalization to another. I agree "It's bad because it's bad" isn't much of an argument. But "It's bad because it's against God's creation" is a much finer tuned argument with many underlying tenets. Once a religious person finds God after subjectively seeking out "what reasons are good reasons", it's harder to accept something deemed "unnatural". It's hardly biased if a religious person comes to support an anti-gay this or that law, but it's easy to see that it is biased from another subjectively reached POV.

Sure a lot of religious people are indoctrinated bigots who take the Bible thumping word without question. I think the truly religious are a little more sincere and would not base a decision on bigotry.
 
KatieMCR said:
Well since you didn't specify a gender for the 100 gay people, we are free to assume it's a mix of gay males and gay females. They would be perfectly capable of reproducing.
Click to expand...

Capable sure....willing?

And if they chose to procreate would their children all be gay and be forced to procreate against their nature for suvival of the species as well?

Wow, now THAT would be the ultimate study in genetics and homosexuality. If it were purely genetic and a society consisting of only homosexual individuals of mixed gender chose to procreate to propogate the species, and the children turned out not to be gay, would that prove that it is not genetic? It might even prove it isn't environtmental as you can't get a much more pro-gay environment than that. If they all did turn out to be gay, then had to reproduce against their nature, and, presumably against their will, would they eventually become straight? If so that would seem to imply environmental factors (the need to reproduce for survival of the species), or would it be evolution at that point. Would evolution among that society tend toward heterosexuality as as a means of propogating the species?

No matter the outcome the results would be hugely interesting to see.
 
DutchJazzer said:
the neg rep im receiving from this thread alone suggest otherwise
but from this thread it looks like they are just blaming me for being an idiot or troll.
Click to expand...

Suppose I said that whoever lives in Holland is weak-minded. Let's also say I didn't back up that assertion with any fact whatsoever, yet insisted on its truth. Finally - and most importantly - when I was confronted with fairly valid evidence that this is not the case, I still held my nose high in the air and refused to acknowledge that what I said was insipid. Wouldn't you get upset with me after a while?

And no, I didn't give you any negative rep. Actually, at one point early in this thread, I gave you positive rep for at least keeping your opinions civil (unlike our other famous homosexuality-themed thread, where the main antagonist was insistent on enraging people).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top