Hitchen's Challange

[KWED]

gender
noun

1. either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

@DNB thinks the Oxford English Dictionary is seriously off its rocker. He is more in denial than the Aswan Dam.

 

[Sheldon]

People's personalities change in time due to what they practice, or refrain from doing.

Some people happen to have been born gay, so your claim has no relevance to being gay that I can see. Why would being gay change them and into what? Anymore than being straight would change someone, and again, into what?

 

[Sheldon]

A man has a penis, and a woman has a vagina - are you able to figure the rest out?

No, I have no idea what your trying to say, please would you state explicitly what point you're trying to make here?

 

[Sheldon]

The point was that behaviour affects one's personality and character.

The point was that you made an assumption that gay people are promiscuous, are you saying you think they should have the same rights to marry as straight couples, to encourage them to live in loving and monogamous relationships?

 

[Sheldon]

But it has equally, and more so, devolved into decadence and peculiarities - were you aware that some people even believe that it's ok for a man to have sex with another man?

Yes I am aware of that as are most people I'd imagine, and I asked you why wouldn't we think this is ok? You never answered though, why is that?

 

[Sheldon]

That cannot be sustained. Women giving birth to children then have them taken away. Even surrogate mothers suffer this problem of reneging on their contract, due to the innate affection for their own offspring.
Such a relationship will never be accepted, as genes dictate a large part of the children's attributes - people chose mates often in anticipation of what their progeny will become.
Surrogate parents only work on a very small scale.

Why does it matter, everyone is not gay, nor is everyone ever going to be gay?

 

[paarsurrey]

"My challenge: Name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith, that could not have been made or performed by a nonbeliever.”

Please give page number and name of the book the challenge has been made by Hitchens, for the context.

Regards

 

[Sheldon]

Please give page number and name of the book the challenge has been made by Hitchens, for the context.

Regards

The challenge explained the context sufficiently. If you want more then try Googling it yourself, I'm pretty sure it is from his book "God is Not Great". I don't see what context the page number or book is going to add.

 

[paarsurrey]

The challenge explained the context sufficiently. If you want more then try Googling it yourself, I'm pretty sure it is from his book "God is Not Great". I don't see what context the page number or book is going to add.

But why to conceal the reference?
I read the book "God is Not Great" somebody challenged me to read it, maybe I missed it.

Regards

 

[DNB]

Why would they have to give them up? Plenty of lesbian couples have children.
Also, there are hundreds of surrogate births in the UK every year, and the number is increasing rapidly.
So your claim that the human race could not survive without heterosexual couples is demonstrably wrong. Just let it go.

Which part of the math do you not understand?
If two gay men are to have children, this obligates at least one woman, somewhere, to relinquish her child.
How long can this be sustained.

Anyhow, just drop it, you're speaking in hypotheticals which are entirely implausible, unnatural and extremely unconventional. You're talking in desperation, leading to ludicrous conclusions.
Just accept the fact that there are no species of animals that donate their children to others, outside of an extremely small demography of humans. And, even then, it's not always successful and painless.

 

[DNB]

If that is the best response you can produce to a dictionary definition that completely refutes your argument, you know you have nowhere left to go.

It's a shame that you need a dictionary to understand an overt biological fact.

 

[DNB]

What people do is determined by their personality and character. A person who is gay doesn't become more gay by being gay. That's just nonsensical.

I agree that if people fight against their innate character it can cause problems.
Imagine if people told you that being straight was "depraved and demented" (your words) and you had to be gay, and you forced yourself to have gay sex, despite finding it "abhorrent" (your word). How do you think that would make you feel?

People have innate fetishes, irrationalities, immaturities, and other impulses that lead to improper conduct. Some seek therapy to curb these desires, others grow out of them, others make a concerted effort on their own to overcome such propensities.
Recognizing the problem is half the issue, which often leads to a change of disposition. Even heterosexuals must caution themselves in countless ways.
But, you, condone misguided behaviour.

 

[ppp]

People have innate fetishes, irrationalities, immaturities, and other impulses that lead to improper conduct.

Prove that a woman having consensual sex with another woman is improper.

 

[KWED]

Which part of the math do you not understand?
If two gay men are to have children, this obligates at least one woman, somewhere, to relinquish her child.
How long can this be sustained.

In your hypothetical world of only homosexuals, social expectations would be different. Women would see surrogacy as an important and valuable service to society. The fact remains that an all gay world could be sustainable.

Anyhow, just drop it, you're speaking in hypotheticals which are entirely implausible, unnatural and extremely unconventional. You're talking in desperation, leading to ludicrous conclusions.

With all due respect, you were the one who brought up the idea of a world populated entirely by homosexuals!

Just accept the fact that there are no species of animals that donate their children to others, outside of an extremely small demography of humans. And, even then, it's not always successful and painless.

Cuckoo.

Also, there are no other species that worship invisible gods. So presumably you reject that trait as unnatural and undesirable?

 

[KWED]

It's a shame that you need a dictionary to understand an overt biological fact.

Huh?
I provided the dictionary definition to help you understand that "gender" and "biological sex" are different concepts.
Didn't help though, did it? Possibly because you are arguing from emotion and dogma rather than evidence and reason.

 

[KWED]

People have innate fetishes, irrationalities, immaturities, and other impulses that lead to improper conduct. Some seek therapy to curb these desires, others grow out of them, others make a concerted effort on their own to overcome such propensities.
Recognizing the problem is half the issue, which often leads to a change of disposition. Even heterosexuals must caution themselves in countless ways.
But, you, condone misguided behaviour.

But as there is nothing wrong, unnatural, improper, immature or irrational about being homosexual your argument is meaningless.

 

[Sheldon]

But why to conceal the reference?
I read the book "God is Not Great" somebody challenged me to read it, maybe I missed it.

Regards

No one has concealed anything, the challenge is self explanatory and the book it was first used in has no direct relevance that I can see. You can Google the quote in a few seconds, obviously. The context is also obvious from the challenge, that very often theists and religions assert oral ascendancy of those who don't share that belief, and particularly over those who do not believe in any deity or deities. Thus the challenge is pretty clear, and is the reasoning behind it.

 

[Sheldon]

Which part of the math do you not understand?

The part where 2% to 4% of the population who are gay suddenly and inexplicably turn into a 100%, for a start makes little sense.

If two gay men are to have children, this obligates at least one woman, somewhere, to relinquish her child.

No it doesn't, shared parenting is quite common, and it is the way children are raised in a caring and loving environment that determines how well adjusted they will be as adults, not how many parents or grandparents they have. Children are not born with knowledge of such bigotries and prejudices, it takes adults to shameful teach them this.
How long can this be sustained.

Anyhow, just drop it, you're speaking in hypotheticals which are entirely implausible, unnatural and extremely unconventional.

That's pretty ironic given it was you who created this hypothetical where everyone was gay, you still haven't said why, even after I have asked several times.

Just accept the fact that there are no species of animals that donate their children to others, outside of an extremely small demography of humans.

Firstly only you are suggesting this, and secondly many species that live in societal groups share parenting of young, again your ignorance of the natural world is pretty surprising. Just as homosexuality is prevalent among many other species as well, and thus us perfectly natural, despite you claiming it was not.

The only desperation I see, are the futile attempts to decry people who happen to be gay, even when they harm no one, and live a loving relationship between consenting adults, and live happy, productive and fulfilled lives. Ultimately such bigotry comes down to archaic biblical passages, archaic morals that are demonstrably pernicious, and should have no place in modern morality, for that reason.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a shame that you need a dictionary to understand an overt biological fact.

Gender is defined as either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

So repeating this ludicrous assertion, and tacking the word fact onto it is just meaningless rhetoric. Nor is this limited to humans of course, in fact some species have been known to spontaneously change sex in order to aid reproduction when it is needed.

 

[Sheldon]

People have innate fetishes, irrationalities, immaturities, and other impulses that lead to improper conduct. Some seek therapy to curb these desires, others grow out of them, others make a concerted effort on their own to overcome such propensities.
Recognizing the problem is half the issue, which often leads to a change of disposition. Even heterosexuals must caution themselves in countless ways.
But, you, condone misguided behaviour.

People are born gay, they can no more change that, than straight people can change how they were born. The pejoratives are simply your own learned prejudices. Being gay is part of who someone is, just as being straight is part of who someone is, it is not a "problem" nor does it need addressing, again this is archaic ignorance and prejudice, that most people are now seeing for the pernicious bigotry it is.