Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM
...No, it is a crime in Uganda. Whether or not it should be a crime doesn't determine whether or not it is a crime.
...Also, it seems like, here, you're defining truth as liberty... I mean, whether or not you should own others isn't a truth, it's an ethical question. Granted, an ethical question the majority of people agree on, but that doesn't make it truth anymore than the majority of people, in the past, agreeing on us being allowed to own other people made owning others being ethical truth. Ethical questions like this aren't truth one way or another.
This...is true.
Okay. I see what you mean. I'm just adamant about this because it seems to me ethical lies have their roots in logic failures/blatant lies. It's okay to own a person based on the bullshit lie that melanin content determines which of us is less than the other.
It's okay to call gays insane and subject them to the Ludovico treatment because of the bullshit lie that being gay is some of pathological illness.
I hate bullshit lies being used to further a cause because invariably it leads to somebody somewhere being fucked over.
When you can show me where I'm doing the things you accuse me of, I'll give this credence.
It was an honorThat lie was introduced ages after we started considering it ok to own other people. In fact, that lie was introduced when slavery began getting unpopular so that it would stop getting unpopular. Originally, it was ok to own people because that's the way things worked. Even the slaves agreed it was ok to own people, which is why most slave revolts involved slaves making their former masters their slaves.
So do I. However, it's the context of the lie that makes it wrong, not the lie itself. Lying to the SS to say that you don't have Jews in your attic when you do is morally right because lives are being saved. Lying to your children to tell them that gay people are pedophiles so they should avoid gay people is morally wrong because you are perpetuating the ostracization of a minority and making people think stuff that will lead to gays being prosecuted. It's not the lie that's important. It's the consequences of the lie that are important.
PRECISELY my point. Now you are correct, everything is about the greater good. No argument there. If I was in...say....Alabama and some redneck asked me where that gay kid Morgikit was so he could beat him up, I'd lie and say I don't know.
But going by your own example, surely you see how insidious it is to use "ethical truths" to determine "empirical, absolute truths". Ethics change depending on the sensibilities of the society discussing them. The truth, lasts forever, and can help us determine our ethics going forward.
Now that we know that being gay isn't some mental disorder, that in turn forces us to look at what we call "disorders" in the first place. The truth advances us, while deceit sets back our progress.
I can readily get with this. But then, as Alfred in TDKR might say, "Let's stop trying to outsmart the truth and let it have it's day." None of us is God to know what damage will be done by lying.
On a less religious level, who gets to determine what are Acceptable Losses in the justification for fudging the truth? At what point are the rights of one dangerously trampling the rights of others?
edited 18th Jan '13 10:01:18 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorWhen an action has more bad consequences than good or there is an option that has a greater ratio of good to bad consequences, then the losses are unacceptable. If there is no option with consequences more good than bad, then go with the option that's the closest.
Seriously, this is basic consequentialist thinking.
At the point where someone's liberty is infringed. By liberty, I'm not talking absolute freedom, which is the freedom to do whatever you want, but individual autonomy, which is the freedom to have control over yourself and your life. So it's not within anyone's rights to rule over someone else. It's not within anyone's rights to rape someone else. It's not within anyone's rights to murder anyone. It is within people's rights to marry who they want. It is within people's rights to say what they want. It is within people's rights to have consensual sex with who they want.
I may strike everyone as a bit strange....but I don't subscribe to consequentialist thinking. Depending on who you are, 'consequences I can live with' can change. Again, I agree in the greater good, I just fail to see where actively promoting a lie ever results in a good outcome.
That's a big difference I want to point out. The example you list are of individual consequence. I'm arguing against promoting and propogating falsehoods and misconceptions. I, being an ordinary human being, can accept and maybe even encourage a lie (and then, it's iffy). But to constantly rehash, repeat, and regurgitate one? Now we're pouring cement on what was one little lie. Or rather we're permitting one little lie to expand into a mushroom cloud whose fallout will have lingering effects on area far wider than the original point it was introduced.
And lastly, gays aren't quite in the same place you describe in your hypothetical. Nobody is arguing that they should be paid less or discriminated against or beat up or harassed, etc. We're arguing "Hey, if you want to change the definition of marriage to accommodate what you consider to be your rights, then please argue it fair and square."
I still fail to see what is the problem in that.
It was an honorOn the subject of homosexuality being a choice....
Let's say I am left-handed. That is to say that I have a tendency to prefer my left hand over my right hand and a natural level of dexterity in my left hand. One day, someone makes me feel bad about my left handedness. Maybe it was my parents or maybe the other kids in class teased me about having to use to use left-handed scissors. Either way, I was shamed. So I taught myself to use my right hand.
Eventually, I become just as good with my right hand as my left. It's a slow process with many failures and false starts but I achieve it. My natural dexterity in the left hand is still there. When learning a new skill, my left hand could probably learn it faster. Still, I do my best to only use my right hand.
Am I left-handed or right-handed? Or ambidextrous?
I would say left handed. Just a left-handed person whose become very good at using their right hand.
I am attracted to men. Not indulging that attraction would not make me less attracted to men. I could have sex with women if I choose to. It wouldn't be the first time I had sex with someone I'm not attracted to. There are a variety of tricks, drugs and mental exercises around to make it relatively simple. I can even find a women to be beautiful ( I certainly do) based on cognitive reasoning and logic. But realizing someone is attractive is not the same thing as being attracted to them.
I could also choose to be a celebrate homosexual. But I'd still be homosexual.
@Maxima
What you seem to be suggesting is a case of Becoming the Mask, faking it till you make it. I personally find that rather...wrong. It seems dishonest and somewhat dangerous. Dishonest because, well, you're faking it and dangerous because I've seen the collateral when people try to force themselves through "straight" relationships when they're not straight.
"When the pendulum of society swings the other way and gays have achieved untouchable, unquestionable status, and now Christians like me get fired from our jobs because we dare say the actual evidence seems to disconnect from the established party line, can I now resort to lying to bolster my position?"
I'm sorry I have gotten to this so late. I was thinking about this statement and I see your point here. If it ever got to the point where Christians were not allowed to get married, were beaten up in the schools, on the streets, and in their own homes just for being who they were and were called evil dictators who want to control people or something like that and nobody would listen to them. If they were oppressed like that and people were lying and not letting them have freedom and refusing to see the truth than yes.
"Nobody is arguing that they should be paid less or discriminated against or beat up or harassed, etc. " Are you saying in this thread? Or in general?
edited 18th Jan '13 10:26:57 AM by Wildcard
Most straw arguments are ridiculous to me as well.
@Wildcard - I disagree. I think there are plenty of sound arguments I could make if Christians were being attacked that don't need to include lies or half-truths.
edited 18th Jan '13 10:32:34 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorIndeed. It seems like you subscribe to dentological, or duty based, ethics.
And I would definitely constantly rehash, repeat, and regurgitate a lie if it was the option with the best consequences. In practice, though, I would probably not since I factor in unforeseen consequences, and big lies tend to have lots of unforeseen consequences.
And what we're doing is arguing for it.
And I'd tell you and the gay people you allegedly speak for that while I regret you're tired, you may kindly get over it. I don't have to justify my right to speak my piece simply because I don't have all the answers. Again, you can have your rights, and I'll have mine, and your indignation or hurt feelings won't stop me from exercising them.
Moving on, I've often thought of what would happen if, to go back to my example, someone read these posts at my job and reported me to HR. HR decides I'm a homphobe and fires me.
I argue that my personal views have nothing to dow with my job. That I'm not a homophobe for positing an opinion. I beg, I plead. And I'm fired anyway.
I might lie to cover my ass, yeah, I'm human. I might say I didn't really believe it. I might recant the whole thing.
But then....how far would I go? Would I blame another coworker? And not blame outright, what if I said "Who? Me? I didn't write that," and now they look for someone else and blame them?
Is my reasonable goal worth that? Is anyone's?
edited 18th Jan '13 10:47:28 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorI'd like to say something to you though Starship. I understand the concern. Lies even for the best of causes have hurt many years down the line. Even the oppressed can become the oppressors and what exactly that means can change with the times. If there were other ways, if the other side were reasonable enough to at least not try to spread lies in the other direction, than it would be a different story.
Contrary to what's sometimes spouted here, I attack those other guys' notions of conveniently lying for "the greater truth" with equal vehemence as I do here. More actually, because the Bible actually mandates that we CANNOT lie, even to cover our own ass.
The fact I know I'd do it under the fire speaks to what a piss-poor Christian I am.
It was an honor![]()
![]()
Nobody told you to stop expressing your opinion, so not sure what you're rambling on about again. Yes, people are questioning your opinion. Get over it.
And your example is ridiculous. Lying to get equal rights doesn't result in anyone getting screwed over, it would just result in us getting equal rights. I don't see anything bad about that.
edited 18th Jan '13 10:50:47 AM by kay4today
x4 If you blamed somebody else, then you'd be hurting an innocent. One person saved, one hurt. Now, when it comes to lying for the bigger picture, you'd have to answer the question of who is being hurt, and how many hurt to how many saved.
Edit; Oh, and severity. If one person's life is saved, and the other simply has their feelings hurt or something, that wouldn't be equal.
edited 18th Jan '13 10:54:05 AM by Lascoden
boop

How impossible is it?
It was an honor