Homosexuality and religious.

[We Never Know]

A life is neither an opinion nor a feeling

Talk about a dodge. And you even quote mind my post lol

 

[F1fan]

Well, then they are humans and not scientists. Science is a neutral methodology, that says nothing about how we ought to live.

Why are you suggesting that they have to be either human or scientist? The fact is scientists ARE human.

 

[We Never Know]

Because it's a helpful analogy to highlight internal biases towards discrimination.

And the social and legal pathways towards accepting mixed race relationship is very similar to those of gay relationships, as well as the same tired stumbling blocks.

What reason could you have to disagree with mixed race relationships that isn't racist?

What reason could you have to disagree with gay relationships that isn't homophobic?

Don't agree/disagree
To not share the same opinion or feeling as someone.

Homophobic:
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

I can not agree because I think its gross. That isn't homophobic.

 

[ppp]

Talk about a dodge. And you even quote mind my post lol

It's not my fault that you are trying to use "life" interchangeably with "feeling or opinion".

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Don't agree/disagree
To not share the same opinion or feeling as someone.

I mean this is a meaningless quibble to avoid stating the 'why'. You're still making a judgment.
Your earlier mention of hooker lives or drug life is because you judge those lifestyles as being inherently destructive. Something that does not sensibly apply to homosexual relationships.

Homophobic:
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.

Prejudice includes not having a good reason to be against something. The reason of prejudice is often a unacknowledged or hidden dislike. People who are racist rarely admit harboring 'dislike.' They believe errantly that their reasons are justified.

I can not agree because I think its gross. That isn't homophobic.

Thinking anal is gross is a good reason to not do anal. Being straight is a good reason to not be gay. Neither are good reasons for thinking other people shouldn't be gay. If you think someone else should stop being gay, I'd call that prejudiced against gays.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Talk about a dodge. And you even quote mind my post lol

Should remind that you're the one that switched from approve in the original reply to agree later on.
The original statement you replied to, which you said was BS, was, "If you do not approve of the totality of someone's life solely on the basis of the adult with whom they have consensual sex, then you are defitely a bigot."

I see nothing wrong with this statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not sure I understand you here,Tb.

By 'in the same light' do you mean that you approve of any two people who love each other having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring?

I do not approve or disapprove because it is none of my business what other people do.

I said they are in the same light because they are doing the same thing: these two people love each other and they are having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring.

 

[Trailblazer]

You may find it helpful to define free will, as you seem to be making contradictory claims.

I define free will as the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another.

How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not choose anything.

Al's the word prove, as one wonders what your basing belief on, what for example if your criteria for accepting something as true, or conversely for disbelieving it?

The criteria upon which I base my belief and accept it as true, or conversely why I disbelieve it and consider it false, is evidence or lack of evidence.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do not approve or disapprove because it is none of my business what other people do.

I said they are in the same light because they are doing the same thing: these two people love each other and they are having sex with each other for purposes other than producing offspring.

Honestly I think people actively choosing to go on with their lives without procreating is the more honorable choice given the current state of things. Re: close to 8 billion people, diminishing rare earth materials, unsustainable resource usage, record poverty, etc.

 

[setarcos]

I am late to this thread but let me ask this, do any people in here have sexual taboos so to speak that they would condemn others for practicing and why? Also related, in sexual practices does anything go as long as the participants aren't knowingly harmed and are willing? Or even willing to be harmed as in some sadistic fetishes? Where is the line, how do we define it, or is there a line to define?

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree.
Animals love, play, feel joy, grieve, share, eat, think, communicate, feel sorrow, reason...
Humans love, play, feel joy, grieve, share, eat, think, communicate, feel sorrow, reason...

That is true, but humans are different from animals because humans have an animal nature and a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I am late to this thread but let me ask this, do any people in here have sexual taboos so to speak that they would condemn others for practicing and why? Also related, in sexual practices does anything go as long as the participants aren't knowingly harmed and are willing? Or even willing to be harmed as in some sadistic fetishes? Where is the line, how do we define it, or is there a line to define?

If I did have a line, would taking it from whatever place at the edge of extreme and applying it anywhere else with the same justification not be a reduction to the absurd?

 

[Trailblazer]

I am late to this thread but let me ask this, do any people in here have sexual taboos so to speak that they would condemn others for practicing and why? Also related, in sexual practices does anything go as long as the participants aren't knowingly harmed and are willing? Or even willing to be harmed as in some sadistic fetishes? Where is the line, how do we define it, or is there a line to define?

I believe there is a line and God draws the line as to what is moral and acceptable or immoral and unacceptable.
Other people have different lines and draw them for their own reasons.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I believe there is a line and God draws the line as to what is moral and acceptable or immoral and unacceptable.
Other people have different lines and draw them for their own reasons.

I would never accept anyone's 'because I said so' as a line for moral judgement. Even a god. Authoritarianism is lazy and if someone can't supply me with a reasonable position against homosexuality then I'm going to conclude it's not a reasonable position, no matter what anyone's holy text says.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would never accept anyone's 'because I said so' as a line for moral judgement. Even a god. Authoritarianism is lazy and if someone can't supply me with a reasonable position against homosexuality then I'm going to conclude it's not a reasonable position, no matter what anyone's holy text says.

I not only accept it because it is in my holy book, I also accept it because I consider it reasonable,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am late to this thread but let me ask this, do any people in here have sexual taboos so to speak that they would condemn others for practicing and why?

What the Baha'i say is that their God condemns homosexuality. They accept that judgment, but say that they don't feel hatred for gays or diminish their lives. They disapprove of fornication - any sex outside of heterosexual marriage, which includes premarital sex and adultery as well as homosexuality.

Also related, in sexual practices does anything go as long as the participants aren't knowingly harmed and are willing?

That's the humanist position, and probably that of the pagans and dharmics.

Where is the line, how do we define it, or is there a line to define?

The humanists define moral and immoral according to the effect of a given behavior on the well-being of man and the beasts. The Abrahamic theists define moral as whatever their god says or does, and immoral whatever it forbids.

I disagree.
Animals love, play, feel joy, grieve, share, eat, think, communicate, feel sorrow, reason...
Humans love, play, feel joy, grieve, share, eat, think, communicate, feel sorrow, reason...

Well said. Humans only differ from other intelligent mammals by possessing the faculty of symbolic reason on - language and math. From this, all other human distinctions derive, such as a conscience, wonderment, wit, and civilization. I don't recall reading this from anybody else self-identifying as Christian.

humans are different from animals because humans have an animal nature and a spiritual nature that other animals do not have.

What you are calling an animal and spiritual nature is what I call an animal nature with symbolic reasoning added. In my opinion, it is a religious conceit to think that man is not merely another animal with some novel gifts of evolution, that he is somehow a different kind of being like a god or an angel is, that he alone has a soul that survives death, and that he and he alone is special to a deity in whose image he and he alone was made.

I define free will as the will/ability to make choices based upon our desires and preferences. Our desires and preferences come from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances. All of these can be considered causes or reasons why we choose one thing or another. How free our choices are varies with the situation. Certainly what we refer to as “free will” has many constraints such as ability and opportunity but we have volition as otherwise we could not choose anything.

I think you've defined volition there, not free will. In fact, defining it in terms of what informs it suggests that the will is caused, not free. There is no indication that any choice made by any volitional creature is free, that is, that it could have been otherwise. Arguing that something not chosen was physically possible and therefore a choice not opted for is to misunderstand what a determined or causally constrained will is. Just because it is possible for some people to douse themselves in gasoline and immolate themselves doesn't mean that it is possible for all others or even that any other choice was possible for them. It's simply an unresolvable dilemma. Nobody can demonstrate that in the exact same circumstances, he could have chosen differently, since the exact same circumstances will never arise again.

The criteria upon which I base my belief and accept it as true, or conversely why I disbelieve it and consider it false, is evidence or lack of evidence.

Yes, but the way you evaluate that evidence doesn't meet the criteria of critical thought, which is why so many reject the claim that the evidence you cite actually supports your belief that the messenger's message came from a deity. Your words only mean that you have a different standard for belief than that of empiricists, not that those beliefs are sound or justified by that evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

It all depends on peoples choice. People becoming Baha’is depends entirely on choice.

By blindly following doctrinal teaching? Maybe choice is another word that means something different to me than to Baha'is.

 

[Sheldon]

CG Didymus said: ↑
That letter from the office of the guardian told us... They should seek therapy from doctors. To do what? Make them not gay?

To Baha’is who wish to change.

From being gay to not being gay, obviously. Could you change from being straight to being gay? Only I could not, and the sheer pernicious arrogance of asking others to is sickening.

 

[Sheldon]

"what reason could you have to disagree with mixed raced marriage that wouldn't be racist?"

How did we switch to racism?

It's not a switch, bigotry and prejudice are not aimed only at one group.

 

[Sheldon]

It’s up to Baha’is if they want to change to explore different methods. But it’s still remains a choice.

Why do so many theists so often put a full stop in the middle of a sentence, and capitalise words like. But? Is it meant to impart some air of dramatic effect? Like the extra redundant line breaks they use?