Acceptance of gays vs. view of religions

But from a purely scientific standpoint, the purpose of sex is any purpose to which it's put. Pleasure is a valid purpose, because that's the reason why some people have sex. You can't conclude purely from science that any particular purpose is invalid.

This is a weaker assertion than the is-ought problem, because it's simply a fact that science doesn't make any statements about which purposes are valid or invalid, only effective or ineffective for a given end.

I don't see how leftism is relevant.

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:20:43 PM by Enthryn

@Newfable: Explain why we must believe that everything consenting adults do is ethical.

We're speaking past each other. I'm using "purpose" to mean telos; you're using it to mean "why I wanna."

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:22:54 PM by Rottweiler

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

Science has normative implications within an Aristotelian framework. What's good for a thing is that which tends toward fulfilling its purpose.

Maybe one should point out that in order for the implications of those phrases to be anywhere near logical, you'd have to be ignorant to the explanations offered previously.

In fact, as a fellow debater I should remind you that inconsistencies in your arguments, as well as sheer lack of acknowledgement of points that directly prove the inaccuracy of your statements, is gaining weight.

Rather irrational generalisation, considering that I've already explained that it's not just "I wanna". For someone so preoccupied with the usage of ad honimems on you, you seem bizarrely careless.

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:28:41 PM by Gannetwhale

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Man, the "spiritual not religious" guy on Deviantart who you think proves The Bible is pro-homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with normative teleology. This is about Aristotelian ethics, not The Bible.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

So... if this isn't about The Bible, why is it relevant...?

I am now known as Flyboy.

i agree with all of that, except that for some people (such as me) monogamy is natural. true sexual liberty is just that: doing what you are sexually built for. so monogamy, polygamy, homosexuality or heterosexuality, as long as it is what you truly are built for and desire and you can do it freely, that's sexual liberation.

when avoiding homosexuality meant that man had a better chance of surviving as a species it had its place and purpose, but now days we have too many people and our survival is determined by other factors; infant and mother deaths in birth are low due to medical advances and so the stigma against homosexuality no longer have a constructive purpose.

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:34:30 PM by jasonwill2

as of the 2nd of Nov. has 6 weeks for a broken collar bone to heal and types 1 handed and slowly

@Rott: I am not even remotely implying that this is all about The Bible (although it should be, since this is the point of this thread anyway); rather, this is all about human psychology and biology.

As far great as Aristoteles is, the fact remains that greek philosophers still suffered from ignorance in regards to the sorrounding world. Aside from Plato's ramblings about what amounts to emotional irrationality from former relationships, the only major critique to greek homosexuality by philosophers was one example (I forgot who; if Aristoteles, the better) arguing that bears and lions don't have gay sex, when we now know they do and that play a large role in social interactions among lions. Most philosophers just praised homosexual sex.

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:42:54 PM by Gannetwhale

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Okay, what do you mean by telos? You appealed to evolutionary biology, so I assumed that you must be speaking of purpose in a scientific sense. Science does not speak of purpose, except in a sense like, "this has a certain effect", "an organism does this for such a reason" (basically "this organism wants to"), or "this serves a particular function for the organism/species".

If you're talking about purpose in something more than a purely scientific sense, please don't act like your conclusion follows purely scientifically.

@Rott Why? Especially with that case, of all things? Hell, the only thing someone might call ethics/morality on is the fact that the guy left his partner to die in a bathtub instead of giving him proper medical treatment. And even then, if said partner knew fully what he was getting himself into and accepted it, many people wouldn't be able to see much of a problem with it.

And all of that is highly irelevant since, again, no action or behavior is in and of itself moral/immoral or ethical/unethical. Meiwes' actions are only unethical or immoral when we take his actions in context to sockety's basic definition of morality and ethics. Without those guides, or any guides mind you, there's no room to judge.

So is there anything inherently immoral or unethical about being homosexual or homosexual acts? We've already found that under Biblical context and definitions, it is. Our local government will have us think the same, so there's that. Otherwise, we're basing these findings out of personal definitions and parameters of morality and ethics.

I'm no biologist, so make of this what you will, but this doesn't follow. An organism can do something, anything, simply because it's programmed to, regardless of desire to perform said action. Take, for instance, the fight or flight response. Or blinking. Or breathing. Or the pumping of the heart. Yeah, we all want to do those things and have those things happen to us and for us, but we rarely have to want these things to happen for them to occur.

edited 3rd Nov '11 5:54:32 PM by Newfable

Yeah, I was being vague and imprecise, I know. The point I was trying to convey was that biology doesn't have a sense of "purpose" as in "this is meant to do such a thing, and only that".

Aristotlian ethics? Really?

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Makes even less sense in that very few christians actually knowingly use aristotelian ethics and this is all about discussing mainstream religious views, not isolate and rather hypocrital cases.

I think, therefore, that this thread has indeed become pointless; we're not discussing biblically supported views, but rather bizarre corruptions of Aristoteles' basic philosophy and of abrahamic ideology.

edited 3rd Nov '11 6:13:27 PM by Gannetwhale

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult

Not to mention that the Biblical views of it are pretty clear, as are standard society's views. Anyone saying anything else regarding the matter chalks up to, "Because I said so."

BTW, FTFY. (I used to think FTFY meant "for the Fuck You". )

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

That sex is pleasurable is a byproduct of our evolution. Our ancestors who enjoyed boinking would boink more than their neighbors and would therefore have more children who also enjoyed boinking. Rinse. Repeat.

In the days when every member of the tribe was expected to do their utmost for the preservation of the tribe, those who possessed only same sex attraction were dead weight. Hence it made sense to boot them out if they were not going to bring more babies around.

What this means today, in a world of seven billion, is that the mandate to out breed your neighbor is no longer relevant. In fact the reverse is true. Enjoying sex without procreation is beneficial because it allows people to indulge a biological drive without increasing the stress on the ecosystem.

Thus, while the prohibition against homosexual activity may have been necessary back then, it no longer is today.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.

Rottweiler, why do you assume that the telos of sex is connected to reproduction alone? There are many other things that could be seen as part of sex's purpose — building love and intimacy, for one.

By analogy, the biological purpose of food is to gain nutrients. Does that mean it's sinful if I eat when I am not hungry, because I have come across some dish that is especially tasty or interesting, or because I want to share a meal with friends, or because I am at an official function where I am expected to eat?

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that "follows the natural law" != "is biologically 'natural'" *

.

First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

In other words, biblical scriptures are outdated.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

So yeah, despite it being widely accepted (IIRC) that humans have sex for pleasure, people should only have heterosexual vaginal penetration and only have sex when they want kids because people 1500years old said so?

What do religious people think of some hot cis-on-trans sex then?

edited 4th Nov '11 9:02:20 AM by whaleofyournightmare

Dutch Lesbian

As well that view as it is something that actively promotes overpopulation, something that does real harm is immoral in and of itself.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

... And Then... Karmakin had to define "real harm"

edited 4th Nov '11 4:58:04 AM by SavageOrange

'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'

Hey I'm not really claiming that rationalistic morality is always perfect it can be quite messy but at least it provides a useful framework for discussion

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Only the ones pertaining to homosexuality assuming they were written with safety in mind.

The idea that at least one or more of the OT verses was in regards to sodomy only and specifically because it would be dangerous to the participants certainly isn’t new.

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

There's plenty more in there besides just that that are outdated beyond belief.

The Bible is a really old document that focuses not only upon the morals and ethics upheld by society, but general rules of the society itself, usually guided by the same moral or ethical ideas it defines. Considering that society has changed quite a bit since then, it's best to look at what the Bible says, look at how society is currently, and make changes based on those observations to better enrich the lives of others around you and yourself.

Unfortunately, this means that a lot of people that may just simply be uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, or those that simply don't or can't understand it, believing that the best way to adapt the Bible to their modern and immediate society is to do exactly what the Bible says.

While true (just look at rules on slavery) the notion I’m trying to convey is that establishing that one rule is out of date doesn’t mean the whole system is. Consider some of the dumb laws that are still on the books today.

Obviously, this means groups can’t exactly be completely static if they expect to survive, and typically they are not. The Churches have and continue to have changed their stances on things, the ones that refuse or take too long to do this will likely loose members (and this does seem to be the reality of the situation).

It’s certainly an interesting change to see develop. And it looks like the Catholic church has softened its stance quite a bit, or at least attempted to show that it’s certainly not going to attack homosexuality with anywhere close to the energy that the Evangelicals are putting into this.

Makes me wonder if the Evangelicals are going to have to reexamine their beliefs, or at least stop trying to make this such a big deal if they conclude that they’re numbers are being hurt by this stance.

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

Well if you're going to look at which rules are out of date and which ones are not, at that point you're using other criteria, so why not talk about that other criteria instead of relying on theological arguments?

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve