Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The reason why I objected so strongly is that I thought you guys were saying I was doing something that you WEREN'T doing yourselves. But that's not the case, as I can see from your answers. (unless I'm misunderstanding you - am I?)

OK.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it is, too. But from what I hear from you on this thread and others is that there is no absolute right, and there is no authority over humans. So I think if you're going to choose that bed, that you need to sleep in it, and I'm pointing out that you are NOT.

No, I don't. But from what I can tell, you do - see above.

I guess that's one way that misunderstandings can arise. On the one hand, I might perceive this as dishonesty on your part (using a relativist argument when I thought that you didn't believe in it). On the other, if it was recognised as an attempt to use a representation of my own beliefs to make a point, I might perceive it as putting words in my mouth and get a bit narked.

Now, I must confess that I've probably used similar tactics myself, but I do try not to. Honest.

Now, that whole relativism/absolutism thing is a whole other can of worms. However, I will point out that I believe that relativism gets a lot of unwarranted abuse these days.

To me, it is self-evident that all experience is subjective. Similarly, our experience of things like morals is subjective and, of course, influenced by our experiences. If I type "cat", you may get an image in your head, but it will be different from mine, and from everyone else who has not switched off their computer in disgust by this stage. Even more so if I type "evil" or "bad" or "wrong".

That does not mean that they are not real, and that, particularly, their consequences are not real. Nor does it mean that someone else's ideas of "wrong" are just as good as mine. They might be wrong. (I'll save you the bother: .)

To my mind, moral relativism is just a moral extension of being considerate (and not taking the "easy way out" by co-opting an arbitrary authority on the basis of superstition), and it means that I recognise the limits of my own experience in framing what I think about things.

One of the cheapest tactics in any argument is to construct a false representation of an idea and then ridicule it. The idea that relativism means a moral free-for-all is, IMO, a good example of that. I don't think that you, Rian, would knowingly do that, but I see it A LOT and I think it filters through to many of the anti-relativist arguments.

So anyway, in my judgment the consequences of multply manifest inequality towards homosexuals are so harmful that they nullify any censorious arguments based on, for example, health. Indeed, a truly moral being, IMO, has a responsibility to oppose such inequalities wherever they find them.

Back to me taters....

dx

PS - It was Spock who seemed to take umbrage, not you.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

..come on you just gotta bait and argue.....of course definitions change (but this one hasn't) if you ask for a "fag" in the US you'll get looks, but in the UK you won't. What can is different from what "is"......you remember the definition of what is is don't you.

i'm just trying to lead a few horses to water

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, just ignore my TIME post, will ya! The silence (except for Nurv) is deafening!

If you insist....

Actually it wanted to me register and I couldn't be arsed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

spock is entitled to his own opinion, at the end of the day, the choice is his... as it should be

but when i see people claim that "i do treat them equally" and then "but marriage is different", i point out the hypocrisy

if you are against gay marriage, then you do not believe gays are entitled to the same things in our society that heterosexuals are... you believe they are not equal

it's not that complicated

That's fine with me, as long as I can point out that you do the same thing with brothers and sisters that want to marry.

SO are you saying that neither one of us treat all people equally? Basically, my only remaining objection with you would be if YOU claim that you treat everyone equally and I don't.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I guess that's one way that misunderstandings can arise. On the one hand, I might perceive this as dishonesty on your part (using a relativist argument when I thought that you didn't believe in it).

I hate typed communication
OTOH, that's the only way that I can "talk" with people on Entmoot, so I guess I have to make the best of it.
I didn't mean at ALL to be dishonest. What I do mean to do is take up what I perceive to be your stance and then make what I think are valid points that show the errors/inconsistencies in the stance. Maybe it would have been better if I had said that's what I was doing, but I thought it would be very obvious since you know my opinion on that subject. I'm sorry if I caused you any grief - you know I like you a lot and value your friendship and would not cause you grief intentionallly.

On the other, if it was recognised as an attempt to use a representation of my own beliefs to make a point, I might perceive it as putting words in my mouth and get a bit narked.

See above; and also, that's why I usually ask you if that's right - I'm making sure that I"m not putting words in your mouth that you don't agree with.

Now, I must confess that I've probably used similar tactics myself, but I do try not to. Honest.

But I think that's an excellent exercise for both parties and really stimulates thought and exploration of ideas! I guess the problem is if the other party doesn't realize it - but again, I thought it was totally obvious that's what I was doing, because you know I don't subscribe to that opinion.

That does not mean that they are not real, and that, particularly, their consequences are not real. Nor does it mean that someone else's ideas of "wrong" are just as good as mine. They might be wrong. (I'll save you the bother: .)

but how can they be wrong? I really do NOT understand how you can possibly say this! If they are wrong, then that means there's a right, but my understanding is that you don't think there's any absolute rights. And if they're not absolute, then they can change, which means your wrong might be right tomorrow. I truly do not understand how you can say anything is right or wrong, given what I understand to be your beliefs.

To my mind, moral relativism is just a moral extension of being considerate (and not taking the "easy way out" by co-opting an arbitrary authority on the basis of superstition),

My God! Do you think I do that? Do you think it's easy to be blasted over and over on threads like this? Do you think, after seeing all my lengthy posts, that I've taken the easy way out in terms of not thinking about things?

...and it means that I recognise the limits of my own experience in framing what I think about things.

And that's why I say, over and over, that I think everyone should do what they think is right. Now I"ll try to convince them over to my opinion with a reasoned discussion, but I think it is SO important that EVERYONE, when it comes down to decision time, does what THEY think is right.

One of the cheapest tactics in any argument is to construct a false representation of an idea and then ridicule it.

Yes, making and knocking down strawmen is cheap. Again, that's why I keep asking you if I got it right. That's SO important to me - I don't want to "win" at any cost. If I convince someone on the merits of the argument, that's great. If I convince them by bullying, misrepresenting, or other tricks, that's a great shame on me, and a great disservice to the person, and I NEVER try to do that.

The idea that relativism means a moral free-for-all is, IMO, a good example of that. I don't think that you, Rian, would knowingly do that, but I see it A LOT and I think it filters through to many of the anti-relativist arguments.

I think it logically does mean a moral free-for-all, but this doesn't happen because of the innate good qualities in humans checks it. But it's important to me that my beliefs match up with experience AND logic, and to me, relativism does NOT match up with logic.

So anyway, in my judgment the consequences of multply manifest inequality towards homosexuals are so harmful that they nullify any censorious arguments based on, for example, health. Indeed, a truly moral being, IMO, has a responsibility to oppose such inequalities wherever they find them.

But do you campaign for brothers and sisters to be able to marry, despite the health hazards that they have? I truly do NOT see the difference from what I understand to be your POV.

Again, I'm very sorry if I offended you - it was certainly unintentional - and I hope this post cleared things up a bit.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Actually it wanted to me register and I couldn't be arsed.

I hate sites that do that!!!

[Lotesse]

[Spock]

...this is beginning to sound like dialogue from a Woody Allen movie.

[Lotesse]

I know, huh.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If you insist....

Actually it wanted to me register and I couldn't be arsed.

Don't worry Inked, I think it's more that the thread whizzed by at high speeds than people actively ignoring your post. (If you can already get into the site, maybe you could paste the article here..?)


RÃ*an, and darn it, I can't find the post where you said this first (probably on the previous page) but didn't you say something like you don't treat homosexuals equally WRT marriage, but pointed out that IRex doesn't treat siblings who want to marry equally?

Well... if my reasoning for opposing sibling marriage is applied to gay married, you will see that this same reasoning finds no issue with gay marriage what-so-ever.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I do treat people equally. This doesn't mean I'm a better person than you or anything stupid like that, but it does mean I win this argument! Bwahahaha!! (I am only half-joking.)


It occured to me today why the whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the past, therefore it must always be this way in the future"-type arguments bother me so much.
This is not a very logical approach to decision making. Imagine if we used this approach in other aspects of life...
"This cheese has always been fresh, therefore it will always be fresh."
"Marriage has always been between people of the same race, therefore it must always be this way in the future."
etc.

Spock, I hardly ever understand your posts. Woody Allen dialogue?

[Rían]

It's a terrible tragedy and a crime for ANYONE to abuse a child, and ESPECIALLY for someone in the church. It's also a terrible tragedy and crime for anyone to say "gays are bad".

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It occured to me today why the whole "marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the past, therefore it must always be this way in the future"-type arguments bother me so much...

It bothers me because it's stupid, IMO.

I'm too tired to sort out the equality thing - it wasn't that simple, though. I'll get back to you later

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It bothers me because it's stupid, IMO.

I'm too tired to sort out the equality thing - it wasn't that simple, though. I'll get back to you later

Yeah, it is stupid. I wasn't saying that was your reasoning. I was generally commenting on the illogic of the statement. Sometimes it seems like we don't disagree on anything.

I realize the equality thing wasn't that simple. I thought I'd paraphrase it so you would know what comment/s I was talking about, and we could discuss it.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Spock, I hardly ever understand your posts. Woody Allen dialogue?

yeah, I know. it's sad.

[Lotesse]

Here you go, religious extreme-righters. Is THIS what you're all tryna say? An addiction, that gays should free themselves from - or what? Who does the elephant represent, here, and why?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

yeah, I know. it's sad.

Um yes. Yes it is.


Interesting comic Lotesse. I see the point that it makes - if you want to fight the "evils" of homosexuality, there are definitely worse things in the world to deal with first. Also, it outlines the hypocrisy of the extreme Christian right*, though fortunately, I don't think any members of said right are posting in this thread. I'm almost missed the elephant reference , but I realized that elephant = Republicans! I feel so cosmopolitan now; I'm not even American.


* I'm thinking of intolerance preached by members of a loving, inclusive religion

[Lotesse]

I still can't figure out what the elephant's supposed to represent other than the American Republican Party, which you got, Nurvi. I definitely see the outlining of the HEINOUS hypocrisy of the religious uber-right, who often use the Republican Party to hide under the skirts of. Hmm. I'm still waiting for the 'religious right' of the moot to make some sort of statement. *checks watch* Wonder where they've been keeping themselves, this evening...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

...though fortunately, I don't think any members of said right are posting in this thread.

Thank you, Nurv - I'm so glad to see you back!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

I'm still waiting for the 'religious right' of the moot to make some sort of statement. *checks watch* Wonder where they've been keeping themselves, this evening...

IF you're including me in that (I certainly don't consider myself part of the religious right), then I was spending time with my kids, and just got back on a few minutes ago, and have made a statement on the evolution thread.

[Lotesse]

I didn't name anyone. Did I name anyone? No, no I don't recall naming anyone as a PARTICULAR religious right-er. Ciao, Rian! So who do you think the elephant represents, and why do you think the elephant represents what he or she is depicted here as to represent?