LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Besides, I'm not really sure what lying you think is going on here. It's all pretty much rooted in solid facts and personal opinions.

@Drunk Girlfriend: It wasn't that a lie was posted. It was that I brought up the fact that I think it would be okay to lie to secure gay rights. Better than arguing the truth with people who hate you and will do anything to keep rights away.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:04:23 PM by Wildcard

So you're basically arguing about whether or not turnabout is fair play.

@Starship: I'm not super good with ethics, but here it goes: Deontology says that the morality comes from the action itself in relation to some set of rules. You said that lying was the "root of every single fucked up horrific chapter of human history", indicating a deontological view. No matter the good, if it built on a law it is immoral. Consequentialism says that the morality comes from the result. The fact that it is a lie is not what makes it bad. What makes it bad is that it hurt people. In this case, if you built a law on a lie, but this caused absolutely no damage, then it would be moral. Basically, actions are not good or bad, only results are. Does that make sense?

@DG: I guess so. I've never heard turnabout used to describe that and when I looked it up I didn't find anything that makes it a synonym for lying. Mind linking to a page where that definition is? I want to at least try to know what I am talking about.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:11:33 PM by Wildcard

As I responded to another troper on PM, when I say "lie", I mean this....

"Being gay is not something that can be controlled." - Not a lie. I personally don't believe it, but I cannot deny it in any good conscience or sound rationale. "Being gay is not a something that can be controlled and this research says so." - IS a lie. The actual studies people point to actually say outright, nearly verbatim, and nearly in every instance "We've found something that indicates an aspect of sexual orientation that's beyond conscious control. We don't know what significant impact this has, if any, on the ability to control it like any other human inclination."

But then you see whole organizations and movements running with that line. Laws are passed based on the assumptions rather than the facts. People are labeled bigots based on it.

But that's okay, because gay rights is right and we all know it. And no matter how hard I try to rationalize it, no matter how hard I try to say to myself "But these are people you like Starship. Hell, you agree with them. What is so bad about it?" And then I remember that there was a time in my life when the people around me said "We know being gay is a disease. We know giving them rights will lead to the fall of civilization as we know it. So what we have no proof? It's no big deal. Remember, as long as we get the right outcome............"

I was a party to brushing off the truth for the "greater good". Never. Again. And if that pisses people off? If that makes an asshole? So be it.

It was a modification of the phrase "turnabout is fair play".

-facepalm-

Just because you choose to interpret the data differently doesn't make the research say something else. It's like how the Aryan Nations chooses to interpret the Bible as saying that Anglo-Saxons were the chosen people. It doesn't make it correct.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:19:16 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

@Lasco - Fascinating. Deontology says "This is wrong cause it's wrong". Consequentialism says "this is wrong because wrong shit happens".

But....what about the hybrid of those? "All wrong things were caused by something being done wrong."??

@DG - All the facepalms in the world don't change the fact that presenting your interpretation as truth is not the same as the truth. Actually, that's pretty basic logic.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:21:33 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship: Except it's not an interpretation. The scientists who conducted the studies have flat out said that people have little to no control over their sexual orientation.

Unless you also want to argue that the theory of gravity is just another interpretation of data...

@Starship

Yet, you consider your interpretation of the Bible as saying homosexuality is a sin as fact, despite differing interpretation from a great many other people, many of them Bible scholars.

By your own logic, you shouldn't hold hard fast to that understanding of the Bible since it's only one way of viewing the text and just because it is wide spread does not make it right.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:26:09 PM by LMage

@DG: Thank you. Yes that is what we are arguing about.

@Starship: That is very noble. I mean that with total sincerity that it is very noble of you to want to help people only using the truth. The reason I think it doesn't is because they were using it to keep somebodies rights away from another group. The gay rights lobby is not trying to get Christians to not be able to vote or adopt or anything like that.

If you allow me to borrow the Star Trek comparison technique. Sisko once said saving many people was worth feeling guilty. Now this isn't the same situation I'll grant you. But as you think the same principle applies with Picard's speech that lying is wrong for that reason I can say that I think that idea of Sisko's speech applies here.

@DG & L Mage - I thought we'd done this dance enough, but I'll repeat it yet again, I do not count an interpretation of evidence as the evidence itself. That's considered a sound model of basic reason in most places. To you DG, the scientists, policymakers, and lobbyists all say one thing. The actual words written in the actual data say something different. Significantly different.

Yes, L Mage, I consider my interpretation to be correct, in the face of dissenting opinion from other Bible scholars (by the way there are other people who are Bible scholars who agree with me, but that's not the point). I never say "My view of the Bible is right and here's my irrefutable proof," because I'm honest enough to admit I don't have any. I say, "This is what I believe to be right based on this, this, and this." And then I'll debate and discuss the pros and cons of my sources.

But I don't go around passing off my interpretations, assumptions, preconceptions, or assumptions as the truth. To do so offends my personal compass; but more importantly, it would be a direct affront to, and violation of, my duty as a Christian to be loyal to the truth regardless of personal benefit. I won't do that.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:39:00 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

x4 I think that would still be deontology. As long as the action itself is the subject, then it's deontology. If it is the result (or 'consequence') that's the subject, it is cosequentialism. Also, consequentialism is not necessarily "greater good". If you were to put, say, the loss of innocent human life as absolute, then nothing would justify it.

The data itself doesn't say anything. It needs humans to interpret it. The words in the study are written by humans interpreting that data, no different then someone else looking at the same data and making another interpretations. Also, I looked through the studies in those papers I linked to earlier. At least three of the studies themselves agreed with the conclusion of the paper.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:38:32 PM by Lascoden

@Starship: Yes, because "The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced." totally means that being gay is a psychological feature and never a biological one. Totally.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:36:16 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

@Starship

Then why have you never seriously questioned them? You want people who, backed by good, hard, scientific research, to re-evaluate their position based on very flimsy logic, but you yourself have never once, in the entirty of this thead said "Hm...Maybe I was wrong about homosexuality being a sin, I should re-evaluate".

You have always, at 100% defended and held to your position, you have never yourself questioned it, yet you want others to question theirs on far weaker reasoning.

@Starship: No, the actual reports and data say the same thing. They just say the same thing in scientific double speak that points out that even though they know that thing X is true, they don't know why it's true. Isaac Newton wrote much the same wording on gravity. He had proven that it was true for as far as he could verify it, but he didn't know why gravity existed. The why of gravity is still something science is working on, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

edited 19th Jan '13 8:39:42 PM by shimaspawn

Basically, a scientist will say "We know it's not a choice, but we don't know what does cause it"

edited 19th Jan '13 8:41:00 PM by Lascoden

See that's why I'm not getting. The Church didn't use the truth to deny gays rights. They used deception, manipulation, and copious amounts of vile slander. "Gays are insane", "Oh yes, subjecting them to the Ludovico treatment will totally work," "They all just want to molest boys." Heinous, evil shit.

I put great effort into separating myself from that bullshit. I cannot bring myself to go back.

And this illustrates exactly what I mean. You'll note on page 1 of the actual study they explicitly state "their goal was to determine if there's a genetic influence on male sexuality." So, a study was done confirming there's at least some genetic impact on orientation. Congratulations,s you've stated what we all knew.

The findings don't *surprise* determine to what extent this affects sexuality and absolutely nothing about how it affects conscious decision making. And certainly no "irrefutable proof" it can't be controlled or altered. But by all means keep posting such things over and over again. I'm sure at some point it'll say something different.

Ignoring that fact that your personal opinion on what is "weak reasoning" is as irrelevant as mine; I, like you and others, feel no need to challenge an assumption if there's no compelling evidence against challenging it. Yes, I know you'd be happy if I said "I'm wrong". I'm not going to say that to appease you. But I actually do review the evidence. My links tend not to be someone regurgitating my own suppositions, I tend to link the actual evidence. These 30 pages of people arguing with me tend to begin with me clicking on their shiny link, following that link to the actual evidence and then pointing out that while their opinion might be right, the actual evidence available is inconclusive, thus making their opinion nothing more than an opinion.

Seems that's a damn sight better than most who are exaggerating quotes, pulling stuff out of context, and getting pissy when called on it.

Oh, I see. So even though in plain English it says "We don't know what impact this has, or even what it means," if I just read it the right way I get the correct rendering, which of course is the one you agree with. Got it.

Except basically...no, explicitly...the scientist is saying we honestly have no idea if this is true or not. And to tell the truth we don't know if this study could even answer such a question."

But as per Shima, this just might mean I have to run it through the Universal Translator again.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:04:56 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

So following the scientific process renders your findings null and void? Someone went "Hey, I don't think flies just randomly show up on rotting meat" and then discovered that flies lay eggs on rotting meat.

But if you have a problem with that, then I guess that you think spontaneous generation really is a thing.

So let's recap DG - You present a study which demonstrates this compelling evidence homosexuality isn't a choice. I look at said "compelling" evidence, and I point out to you that once again, the study can't have answered that question since it never set out to ask it. I further point out that nobody doubted there's a genetic component to sexual orientation. So it really can't be proof of anything.

Your answer, rather than simply say, "Well, in my mind that suggests it's solely genetic," is to condescendingly try to show off your knowledge of the scientific method and tell me something about spontaneous regeneration.

While amusing, it does nothing to overturn anything I said. Because everything I said was a fact based on what was written.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:14:03 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

I, like you and others, feel no need to challenge an assumption if there's no compelling evidence against challenging it.

Ah! But their is compelling evidence, that you have out right ignored or dismissed, despite it having swayed some of the most religious and well educated men and women on the planet.

But you refuse to allow any room for doubt, even though miles of lee-way and possibility exist, you refuse to question, you steadfastly hold to your view without giving an inch.

L Mage, you fail to understand how reason works. Your contentions are based on the idea that the only way somebody wouldn't buy what you're buying is that they ignore the evidence, especially since others buy it.

Not so. As with DG's link, I clicked on it. I read the actual article. The evidence confirmed what we already knew and didn't address the question of choice at all. So yes, I see no reason to change my views.

Let me ask you L Mage, have you read the studies? The actual studies and articles; not abstracts and article with basically amount to "We looked at the evidence and here's our thoughts." Have you read the articles written by people who don't agree with you? Have you tried to examine the evidence and the evidence alone, independent of policy papers or lobbying blogs?

If your answers to each of the above is yes, then you may presume to question my willingness to consider other options. Because the answer to ALL those is yes for me.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:25:32 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

Except, if it's determined by genetics, doesn't that mean that it's not a choice? You can't control your genes, at least not practically.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:19:48 PM by Lascoden

I have to admit that the evidence strongly support that it's not a choice but you guys really are placing way too much credence in the irrefutably of social biology.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:21:39 PM by joeyjojo

@Starship

I adore the implication that I don't read just as thoroughly, and research just as heavily. Despite, you know, the fact that I am an actual gay rights activist and gay myself.

Certainly I can't possible have been bothered to do the research about one of the most defining aspects of my life, surely I can't have re-evaluated and re-assessed my understanding and views again and again as part of my own struggle to come to terms with something that, quite literly, had the potential to shatter my entire life. Surely I couldn't have spent agonizing hours looking into every corner of the knowledge publicly available and within my reach. No, the heterosexual Christian male must know more then I do simply because he is under fire for his position. Certainly.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:23:28 PM by LMage