I thought I'd post here instead of being irrelevant in another topic.
The original post by David Drozdowski:
It's funny how the majority of girls say about the girl above them "no, because I'm a girl" and the majority of guys joke but seriously think "obviously not because we're both guys" and yet 'society' says that it is 'politically incorrect' to say that heterosexuality is the norm and homosexuality is not. Isn't the norm defined by the majority? This is not to conclude that there should be any prejudice or discrimination or that homosexuals are more perverted than anybody else, but isn't it 'ok' to acknowledge that one thing is clearly normal and another thing isn't? Nobody's saying that abnormal people should be looked down upon, but doesn't it make sense that the most common, conventional choice is normal and the less common, less conventional choice is abnormal. Abnormal isn't evil, but neither is it normal. I am abnormal in many areas and it wouldn't make me feel bad if somebody else acknowledged that fact. So what I'm asking is… why are homos so touchy about their choice as if theirs is a more special abnormality than dancing in the street or biting one's nails or singing off key or believing in God (I suppose believing in God isn't a great example of an abnormality because more people do around the world than don't, but it's becoming a cultural abnormality to believe in God with any sense of conviction about how He might affect one's life, so that's why I listed it) or picking one's nose or listening to one's teachers in school or enjoying Beethoven?
Barnaby Holmes:
There's a distinct difference between the sociological term "norm", and the word "normal". There can be no argument amongst educated people of any sexual orientation, that homosexuality is, by it's minority, not the norm, but to extend that to mean "not normal" is what breeds the prejudice and discrimination that is faced daily by those that openly display their preference. If, like you suggest, one started dancing in the street, most would view this individuals choice to break form the norm as an eccentricity. Yet even if this inspired others to come out and randomly break into the can-can, and say this became 15% of the population, this would no longer be regarded as an eccentricity and would have to be accepted as a minority group of society. But do you think these dancing weirdos would be physically attacked, discriminated against and openly ridiculed without basis? I doubt it. Yet the only notable difference between this dancing abnormality and homosexuality is that one is constantly viewed in terms of a sexual act, and as we all know, the one thing our supposedly superior Western societies become uptight about is sex and nudity. Applying your logic of normality, I wonder if you would discuss the issue of racism in such flippant terms?
David Drozdowski:
I think distinguishing between the words "norm" and "normal" is pushing the boundaries of reason, good sir. Normal is simply the adjective pertaining to the word normal. This is just simple etymology, that what is the norm is normal. If you're speaking of the connotation of the word "normal" in colloquial terms, I understand that people could say "That isn't normal" in a demeaning way. And yet, I am talking about people who say it objectively. I was sure to distinguish between objectivity and prejudice-discrimination. I don't agree with physical or verbal attacks on any minority group, and yet neither do I agree with any minority group moaning about things they read into people's statements. If I made the objective statement publicly, in some form of widely acknowledged media, that "homosexuality is not the norm/normal" I fear I would be decried as a homophobe even if I meant no offense by the statement. Do you acknowledge that some minorities are oversensitive? My name puts me in a minority, so what? People have verbally and physically attacked Polacks for a long time, but if somebody were to say (which they do, every time I meet a new person) some variation of, "my, that name isn't normal" I can either take offense or just say "yeah, it's Polish."
There is also an objective debate, which the mass media tends to avoid, about the individualistic pros versus the wider societal cons of the practise of homosexual relations. This is not ANYthing to do with a tendency (any reasonable person should concede that we are born with tendencies and that it is not simply a case of switching certain preferences on and off). What I am referring to has to do with population (if everybody did it, the human race would die out), disease (HIV, AIDS, etc… speak for themselves), and the social problems involved with children being "parented" by only one gender, without the balance in discipline and love of both genders. These things far outweigh individual subjective preferences and tendencies. What is my conclusion? That tendencies should be managed on a more practical basis than "it's what feels right to me." There is more at stake (research the fall of the Roman Empire for example) than one's own life, and to ignore the objective facts is selfish.
On the other hand, no, people should not be ridiculed or victimized in any way because of their current situation. Bringing it back to myself (so as not to allow somebody to think that I am saying somebody else should change and I have nothing to change), I have to control my anger. Everybody is born with different tendencies to anger and that is not easy to switch on and off. But if I say subjectively, "well it feels right to me to hit somebody if they annoy me," I will be selfish, lacking self-control, and will detrimentally affect the lives of others. Everybody is born with some level of tendency towards disrespect, dishonesty, greed, jealousy, etc… Many people won't object to the idea that those tendencies should be controlled, whereas is somebody mentions adultery being dangerous not just on the grounds of faith but also practically in the lives of individuals, families, friends, and societies, everybody gasps, "That's a sexual preference; you can't control it." Well, humans are either animals or we are more than animals, acting on intelligence and moral distinction rather than on instinct. If we are animals and morals are relative and never universally absolute, I think we should abandon law enforcement on the grounds that it is oppressive bigotry and we can't control what we do. Release the Id… or not.
P.S. Race is genetic and I certainly do not view that subject flippantly. Homosexuality has NEVER been proven genetic. It's a matter of will and people may do with their will as they please, but whether or not they acknowledge them, there will always be consequences. By that I do not mean morons acting abusively (that's not a legitimate consequence), I just mean the course of nature being run, along with population decline, disease, and societal problems. In the name of "tolerance" morals are decliining, and I wonder if it is too much to ask in advance that pedophilia never be made acceptable as it was to the Greeks (does the majority accepting something really make it right?) and that bestiality never be made acceptable. But it seems that in the interest of pursuing unhealthy lusts, mankind is becoming more and more open to the unnatural. There are no such issues with race; racially prejudiced and discriminating people are both ignorant and stupid.
John Callwood:
an·imal(n-ml)
n.
1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, a lack of a cell wall, no chloroplasts, and fixed bodily structure.
Of course, this definition fails to take into account the differences between animals and archaea, fungi, prokaryotes, and eubacteria, but it gives a general picture.
YAY!
Morals are genetic. They are also modified by environment. This is a classic phenotypical development. We are born with the attributes, in this case, morals, that are necessary for communal survival, and from there our society builds on these basic traits to ensure our survival; as well as the needs of the individuals in the "alpha" positions. It is interesting, and quite dynamic, but entirely genetic. Some argue that this fact relieves anyone from personal responsibility, but our genetics also takes care of that problem; the rest of us lock those idiots up. It is beautiful, isn't it? Thanks to the "randomness" of genetics, we can be bound to a purely chemical-based moral system, and still retain our individuality and ability to diverge from, or add to, our prefabricated ethics!
Whoa, too much thinking, too early.
Barnaby Holmes:
To adequately reply to your post, my good Pole, is something that I would struggle to achieve, not least because the points you raise are well put yet also unfounded. To counter each point is easy, yet also a defunct exercise as it is just one unproven opinion against another, and ultimately there is no encompassing answer. So I shall simply say that I feel it speaks volumes that on these very boards the use of homosexuality as a derogatory term, and even the fact that you felt it necessary to once more raise it as an important issue, explain why a section of the homosexual community feel the need to be "oversensitive". Who are we to judge how others feel as a result of our actions? A pin-prick to one, can be a knife wound to another. As a collective we are human beings, but it is vitally important to keep hold of our individuality however it's expressed and however scared it may make those who do not understand it.
David Drozdowski:
"Morals are genetic," etc… based on what kind of research? Name the scientist who discovered the moral gene. I respect you greatly, but everything you just said was subjective opinion stated as fact. Perhaps you feel the same about my beliefs, but it serves a purpose to quote scientific findings when speaking of scientific issues. Unfortunately, I can't quote a scientist who empirically determined that there is no gay gene or other moral gene, because trying to prove a negative is a logical fallacy. Of course I can't prove that something doesn't exist. But if you're confident enough to state so categorically that something DOES exist (genes that control human behaviour), all I ask is that you show it or reference somebody who can.
My data concerning the existence of God is not physical and that's what atheists don't like, but I can reference the lives and research of billions of people both historically and today (by far the majority) who claim belief in and often spiritual experience of the supernatural. You can call those experiences chemical, psychological, etc… but you can't reference data to support that either. And you can't avoid the fact that most people around the world still claim some form of faith in something more than our five senses detect. If there is some wonderfully evolved genetic system of morals in us all, why do we disagree? And why haven't all problems been eliminated already? Shouldn't "natural selection" apply to morality? Surely those with the best moral genetic code should survive and everybody else should have died out by now. No, evolutionary theory and people's application of it to morality don't maintain any consistency. It is an imperfection system in an imperfect world, which needs more than secular humanism to be corrected.
Your statement "the rest of us lock those idiots up" is the main flaw: you imply that you and the majority of society haven't ever failed morally. Are there levels of moral failure? Of course, some with more negative effects and, therefore, consequences. But humans having a relative system of justice does not at all mean that morals themselves are relative. You may not have killed anybody, but you've thought about it and you've talked about it. You may not have slept with another man's wife or been married and slept with another woman, but you've commited other forms of adultery and at least thought and spoken of it. You may have never stolen anything, but you have been greedy and jealous. We are the same. Nobody is above anybody else, even if certain actions have had more serious reactions. We are all equally less than perfect. What do our thoughts, words, and deeds make us? Adulterers, liars, thieves, murderers, etc… whether we have gone all the way or not. You can subjectify morality as much as you want, but although cultural acceptance of many things has varied over the millenia, God's absolute standards have not changed. Coincidence is a ridiculous theory for the awesome nature of the universe, the solar system, Earth, humans, and you personally. It relies on too much unstable conclusion-jumping from little or no evidence. There's plenty of evidence for God for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, and the concept of an infinite, perfect, personal God covers every question about existence. But the human heart is often too prideful to accept a higher power to be accountable to.
There is no absolute relativism, there are only relative relativism and absolute absolutism. The opinion that what feels right at any given time is what's right (based on genes) is contradictory, because everybody in every culture at every time throughout history has had different feelings. It comes down to Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il, Saddam Hussein, etc… the dictatorship philosophy that if it's all about relative, subjective opinions, all I have to do is become the strongest and rule.
Your philosophy doesn't solve any societal problems whatsoever; it just enables individual lack of responsibility and encourages problems until somebody rises up and promises to end the chaos, by some kind of extremism. Somebody has to do what you did in an extreme form, i.e. say "WE (and define 'we' however they want) are right and THEY (defining 'they' however they want) are wrong." I suppose that a relative system of justice is necessary at the moment, just like war solves some problems sometimes, but the truth is that I'm no better than somebody in prison for robbery, murder, or rape. You might think you're better but I don't.
Subjection to divine law (and the laws of all religions show us to be lacking), followed by repentance and submission to the way in which God has revealed Himself is the only solution NOT involving a human coming out on top, and yet stupid religious groups over the centuries haven't understood and applied that either (which is why the emergent church is moving away from institutionalism and organizationalism.
The truth is that there is one just yet merciful God whose standards none of us meet, but who has provided one way of salvation (more than any of us deserve) from imperfection, death, and eternal separation from Him. Take it or leave it. That doesn't make me a bigot, because I didn't invent the Bible; I just read it and believe it. Beliving that all are destined for eternal punishment unless they acknowledge their position, ask for forgiveness, and believe that Jesus Christ is Lord doesn't do you or anybody else any harm if I'm wrong. It's only treatening if it's true, so don't believe it if you don't want to, I still accept you as a friend, but don't think I'm doing the condemning if I place myself in the same category as anybody else.
This absolutist answer should cover your thoughts too, Barnaby. It's not my oipinion that goes; it's God. And although neither I nor anybody else can full understand and express what God says, we may all on an even footing turn to His written Word and read it and apply it as well as we can. If you won't acknowledge His written Word as even existing, let alone being the Bible, that's your business, but you have to ignore (or feign an argument against) it's authorship, historical accuracy, amazing compilation and consistency, prophetic power, life-transforming power time and time again for those who believe it, etc… and the argument usually consists of "well, I don't believe it." Be that as it may, it stands for itself. If you have any initiative more than just opinion, read http://www.risenjesus.com/challenge/frameSet.html and tell me how in the world somebody could believe that Jesus did not historically live, die, and rise from the dead (does NOT require faith, but objectivity).
In my opinion, Barnaby is an idiot. Observe:
"Who are we to judge how others feel as a result of our actions? A pin-prick to one, can be a knife wound to another."
These are the kind of people that necessitate the warnings on bags of marshmallows.
We are all born with the capacity to think. This is the reason our morals extend farther than a mere affinity to cuteness (You can look up the relevance of this statement yourself, If you don't already know, you have no business existing.) SO! Morals aside, you should be able to figure out how your statements can be offensive all on your lonesome. Your remark obviously means that you are making comments that COULD BE viewed as offensive, but you believe that everyone should understand your perspective and not give a rats arse. This is the kind of unilateral thinking that would have gotten you killed off a few hundred years ago. You should thank the high heavens that society evolves along with our allele frequencies.
I will return with sources. My claims are not based on conjecture, or even the following of a localized common knowledge base. I have been witness to scientific documentation in favor of the argument I made in my first post.
That idea (affinity to cuteness) seems familiar, but I don't know where from.
Anyway, I certainly don't intend to offend; I intend to debate. Anybody who disagrees should use argument to respond. I'm not calling anybody anything that I'm not calling myself; I am merely saying that we're all in the same boat and the Christian faith is the only way out.
I am wrong on this condition: IF the Bible is incorrect.
You are wrong on this condition: IF the Bible is correct.
When somebody's argument consistently rests on the feelings that may or may not be hurt, it is evasive and ignores the concept that there may well be an absolute yes or no answer. There's nothing more ridiculous than the "no absolute/objective/universal truth" concept, because the people that hold that opinion hold it as absolute/objective/universal fact. Why is it that I am perfectly ok with the concept that IF I am wrong, I am wrong, yet many are not content that they may be wrong and somebody else be right?
And we will completely hold off the genetic debate until some empirical evidence is found. Of course I must say that until something is seen, it is unseen. This refers to the material evidence of which you speak. However, the divine is not material evidence, so although it may seem like I am just enforcing my opinion, one can only prove a spiritual concept based on metaphysical evidence, which does indeed lie around us for those with faith. I must challenge you with the above link also, John – http://www.risenjesus.com/challenge/frameSet.html
I just spoke with God, he says we are fucked
If I am wrong, I will be amazed. As I do not believe in the Bible, my only tie to existence is my genetics; therefore, my nature must be dictated solely through my genetics, the genetics of my fellow humans, and our shared adaptations to the environment and each other. I dislike being wrong, but I also love being amazed, so either scenario is acceptable.
Good job, Stephen (Braveheart)
Do you disregard the Bible without investigating its objective claims? It's all very well to disbelieve a book you have read, and maybe you have, but for my benefit, have you actually read the Bible? To what extent are you familiar with its claims?
I am nothing special, but I have at least taken the time to examine the pros and cons of many variations of atheism, agnosticism, and theism. IF you don't really know what it is that you don't believe, i.e. how the Bible deals with science and reason or how much we can learn from it in many different areas of life, you put yourself on very weak, even nonexistent territory argumentatively. It's a collection of 66 (39 OT and 27 NT) books, some historical narrative, some poetry, some records, some advice, every genre there is. Don't mistakenly believe that it is just a sentence saying "God is good, Jesus is good, Satan is bad, science is bad." I'm telling you that you will be amazed if you quickly read through the flash on that link and I'll be amazed if you have some extra (objective) argument to debunk the resurrection.
Sir, I am humbled at your recognition of that quote. May prosperity and weatlh saturate your life before we all get fucked.
In my opinion, John is a jumped-up narcissist with an over inflated vocabulary and suffers from troubling dillusions of grandeur. I realise that my comment was simplistic, but I considered it necessary to simplify in order to convey what I meant, and highlight what, I personally felt, was an obvious oversight in David's post.
"…you believe that everyone should understand your perspective and not give a rats arse."
My post clearly states this not to be the case. I purposely avoided countering and explaining each of David's points as too much listening to the sound of your own voice is boring, patronising, and leans much more to alluding with the above quote from your post. Perhaps it is I that misunderstands, but it seems as though you haven't actually grasped the correct angle of my post. Unlike you though, this does not bother me, as I do not aim to preach, rather just voice what is my personal opinion with the aim of continuing an interesting and worthwhile debate.
Even though I dont think its a DIRECT quote, your ability to read betwen the lines still leaves me in awe
Barnabus, as far as I could gather, everything before "We are all born, etc…" was to you.
I think everything else, inc. the "rats arse" comment, was directed at me.
You misspelled "realize."
I found it to be one of the funniest moment of the movie, so I couldn't help but recognize the comment. I think he actually said "I just spoke with the Almighty…"
I am British, therefore I spell as a Brit. And if, as Dave says, the rest of your post was directed at his comments, then I am indeed an idiot. Adieu good gentleman.
Indeed, I am in fact wasting my time looking for a script to confirm the actual dialouge. My personal favorite moment is when they moon the English.
I think it is the duty of every self respecting person to moon the English. I wonder if there are genetics dictating whom we moon.
Just get back to me about the genes and the link above and I'll be plenty happy. If there's anything you need me to add in support of anything, let me know.
I liked reading this thread. In regards to the gay gene however, my developmental biology class states there actually may be one…
Is that possibility based on conjecture or research? I'm not dead-set against science, although it may seem that I am, but I do have a problem with many scientists and how they voice things with a twinge of bias. Granted, my bias is unwavering faith in the inspiration and preservation of God's written Word (which confronts people, including me, about the choices we make, including the sexuality issue), and YET I am also willing to acknowledge empirically proven scientific data and facts. A big problem seems to be that many people depend on scientific theories and DON'T acknowledge the attestations and evidence supporting a spiritual dimension, such as intelligent design.
Theory is all very well, but problems arise when people string theories together to try and prove things, e.g. String Theory (*badaboom crash*), Red and Blue Shift, Carbon Dating (a big one), and genes and chemicals that apparently affect are free will decisions. The problem is blurring the lines between external and internal characteristics. The problem with humanity isn't external or otherwise physical; it is internal and spiritual. It manifests itself outwardly with negative symptoms which are our negative words and deeds (symptoms), but it can only be dealt with inwardly by switching the focus of our hearts and minds from selfish imperfection to godly perfection.
There MAY be a lot of things, so I'm not saying I know for a fact that there are no inherited genes which affect how we feel in certain situations. But sociologically speaking, nurture has a greater effect on our approach to life than nature. If Helen Keller can teach herself to communicate with the world, I am certain that anybody with any disability can do and succeed at whatever it is that they need or want to do. This is just a parallel; I'm not calling homosexuality a disability, so don't even go there. What I'm saying is that our choices determine what we make of life, not anybody else's choices and not our circumstances, environment, society, etc… Do some people face difficulties that others don't? Of course, but nobody has a perfect life; some people fail after having nothing, but some people succeed, and some people succeed after having everything, but some people fail. As long as there is at least one person in each category, we are not led by instincts and nothing is responsible for our actions but our own decisions. Contrary to popular opinion, people can change. That goes for sexual morals and every other kind of ethical issue too.
However, I'd only be arrogant if I didn't apply the same reasoning to my own failures. I fail, we all fail, so let's not pretend we don't or moan about it; let's just suck up our pride and submit to God through the Lordship of Jesus Christ. You don't know about or understand any of that? Ask me. You just don't want to? Ok, just watch others get further, both in this life and in the age to come. I don't make the rules or make anybody else agree, I just agree with them and try to follow them, but ask for forgiveness when I fail and the Holy Spirit to help me succeed. If you want to try to get eternal life some other way, prioritizing this imperfect, temporary, material life, go ahead and try. I want you all to succeed, but I have a sneaky suspicion that there aren't any shortcuts to happiness.
I so want to direct that back to you as an act of intense hypocrisy, but as I'm not frivolous enough… bless you.
"Homosexuality has NEVER been proven genetic. It's a matter of will and people may do with their will as they please"
Lack of proof does not mean lack of existence.
Your argument was essentially:
If Homosexuality was genetic, then it's not a matter of will.
Since homosexuality has never been proven to be genetic, then it must be a matter of free will.
*Onto your personal beliefs on morals*
First problem is in your second one: just because P has not been proven to be true does not mean that Q is true. Lack of proof does not mean that it is necessarily a false premise. Second, just because of If P then Q, that does not mean If ~P then ~Q.
To accentuate my point:
If God existed, then he deserves worship.
Since there is no proof of God existing, then he does not deserve worship.
—-
Also, I rarely find what I prefer to be my free will. I didn't make a conscious decision to choose liking women, after all. Just sort of happened. More specifically: I didn't make a conscious decision to like the certain type of women's body that I find most attractive, it just sort of happened. I sort of did make the conscious decision about the type of personality I like best, although that was sort of another thing that just happened.
Or: I didn't decide to dislike broccoli.
Likewise, all you just stated is that some things are true and some things aren't. However, what you consider evidence and what I consider evidence are diametrically opposed. None of this means we should ignore each others' standards. Clearly, everybody chooses what they want to believe, based on whatever they understand as evidence. The problem doesn't lie in you disagreeing with me but in whether or not you will even accept certain proofs as admissible. If you haven't read the book, your opinion is 'valid' but ignorant. If you have read the book, I can respect your opinion as informed, but I can still disagree with it. Good argument is essentially presenting information to support your side of an issue and that's what I did. I suppose you didn't feel the need to present any information, but simply to criticize the nature of argument. You're absolutely right about what the issues are, there either is or is not a God with absolute morals, including a perfect model for sexual expression. I wasn't saying that because you can't prove genetic influence on sexuality, you must be wrong. I was saying here is my reasoning for not believing it is genetic and that it is in fact about free will. Present your evidence to the contrary or concede; please don't attack the process of logical debate.
.