Post by merlin on May 24, 2011 10:13:52 GMT 3
Merlin,
As I said before, I am able to differentiate between the act and the actor. The rights to have homosexual relations are a different issue altogether and are not treated equally even in some more liberal countries. We have countries that allow gay unions but do not allow gay marriage. Many of the same countries will not allow homosexuals to adopt children for good reasons. As I said, in a hypothetical 'Uganda' situation I am willing to put myself in harms way, but I will never endorse homosexuality.
You then ask whether I would treat you differently if you were gay. In this case it is not even a hypothesis, I have had debates with homosexuals where they are in the minority before. Did I stop debating when they outed themselves? Did I start hurling ephitets when they outed themselves? The answer is NO. So, in the hypothetical situation that you were gay, the same debate would still continue. I will not change tact to try to appease you or get under your skin.
Now to your next point on why the gay need to manifest themselves in society. You attacked the example I gave and I am likewise going to attack yours. First of all, as I said, there is no genetic factor in homosexuality therefore it cannot be an issue of "Nature", it is one of "nurture".
You cannot compare women to homosexuals. For women it is what they are, for homosexuals it is what they do. Ask any high school biology student for the genetic factor of being male/female and they will tell you without the need of referring to any additional material. Ask any university professor (pro gay or otherwise) of the genetic factor for homosexuality, you'll have no definitive answer. There was a gene isolated a few years back that was claimed to be the 'gay gene'. It was debunked after the same gene was found in many heterosexuals.
I asked earlier on for an argument that is both pro homosexual lifestyle and anti incestuous lifestyle all at the same time. If there is a philosophical argument, they will surely share the same basis. If it is an argument based on the associated health risks, then both of them are risky. It all boils down to the social values.
Regarding Christianity, you make the unsubstantiated claim that Christianity is a 'left over'. Someone's faith is personal, so if it is a leftover to you so be it. To others it is an important part of their lives. Then the next claim that Christianity is fading away, any stats to back up your claim? Incidentally Voltaire made the same claim more than 200 years ago.......
luoldeng,
As I said before, I am able to differentiate between the act and the actor. The rights to have homosexual relations are a different issue altogether and are not treated equally even in some more liberal countries. We have countries that allow gay unions but do not allow gay marriage. Many of the same countries will not allow homosexuals to adopt children for good reasons. As I said, in a hypothetical 'Uganda' situation I am willing to put myself in harms way, but I will never endorse homosexuality.
It maybe is not so much how other countries formalise human rights - and formalise gay marriages and other forms of relationships as this has an impact on the social status of the couple (think about inheritance, pension schemes, taxation rules,).
What counts are your opinion and the way you deal with the freedom of others.
You then ask whether I would treat you differently if you were gay. In this case it is not even a hypothesis, I have had debates with homosexuals where they are in the minority before. Did I stop debating when they outed themselves? Did I start hurling ephitets when they outed themselves? The answer is NO. So, in the hypothetical situation that you were gay, the same debate would still continue. I will not change tact to try to appease you or get under your skin.
You will not change tact so where is the difference in dealing with homosexuals or heterosexuals? Is this not the same as dealing with people around us? As long as anyone does not invade my freedom and rights he or she can do what they prefer. The same counts for me. I can select my own friends, go to the church of my own choice and send my daughters to a school which my wife and I prefer. No one should persecute me for this. How my wife and I make love is my private domain. So where is the difference if my wife turned out to be a male person?
Now to your next point on why the gay need to manifest themselves in society. You attacked the example I gave and I am likewise going to attack yours. First of all, as I said, there is no genetic factor in homosexuality therefore it cannot be an issue of "Nature", it is one of "nurture".
I do not perceive any value in the nature / nurture argument. It is my freedom of choice to share a relationship with a male or female companion. Again you make my freedom of choice conditionally on the nurture or nature argument.
You cannot compare women to homosexuals. For women it is what they are, for homosexuals it is what they do. Ask any high school biology student for the genetic factor of being male/female and they will tell you without the need of referring to any additional material. Ask any university professor (pro gay or otherwise) of the genetic factor for homosexuality, you'll have no definitive answer. There was a gene isolated a few years back that was claimed to be the 'gay gene'. It was debunked after the same gene was found in many heterosexuals.
I do not compare the biology of woman with the biology of homosexuals. I compare the struggle for freedom and equality of women with the struggle for freedom and equality of homosexuals. It is a social struggle about rights and against persecution and discrimination.
I asked earlier on for an argument that is both pro homosexual lifestyle and anti incestuous lifestyle all at the same time. If there is a philosophical argument, they will surely share the same basis. If it is an argument based on the associated health risks, then both of them are risky. It all boils down to the social values.
I don’t know much about incestuous lifestyle it has consequences for the offspring which I cannot relate to homosexual relations. Health risks for homosexual relations do not differ from health risks of heterosexual relations and could be treated the same as any other health risk by prevention and adequate treatment.
Regarding Christianity, you make the unsubstantiated claim that Christianity is a 'left over'. Someone's faith is personal, so if it is a leftover to you so be it. To others it is an important part of their lives. Then the next claim that Christianity is fading away, any stats to back up your claim? Incidentally Voltaire made the same claim more than 200 years ago.......
This is my opinion. I am a regular church goer and always wonder what the value is of the rite. It is very static and always the same while the world is changing. So I argued for myself that it must have had value in the past as a sort of constitution for the ancient societies. The Ten Commandments were in their time rules of progressivity to improve their society just the same as we are now progressing with the new constitution. So Voltaire is a bit to close in time to really see the fading phenomenon.
I also observe that many of the liberal societies have taken more distance from the church. The church buildings are converted into museum, congress halls or sport facilities and Christian values (such as charity) are replaced by human rights. These liberal societies have eradicated poverty, insecurity, discrimination (and persecution of homosexuals). I perceive they have found adequate ways to deal with the challenges from the world of today to protect and improve society. The next challenge is sustainability, how to protect the environment and resources while producing enough food and energy for an ever growing population.