Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

That's why I said "if".

So do you consider me part of the "'religious right' of the moot"?

[Lotesse]

Yes.

[Rían]

Well, I don't. My position on the legality of early abortions is certainly different, and IMO the religious right is too fanatical about politics.

Then do your comments apply to me? But looking back on this particular thread, you only criticized the "HEINOUS hypocrisy of the religious uber-right". I won't ask if you think I fall in that group. I think I"ll just drop it - I'm too tired now to sort out the things said on the different threads.

[Spock]

No one is Right or Left, it's all subjective....my right is your central and visa versa....then of course we have those on "the left coast"

Keep it civil folks.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I didn't mean at ALL to be dishonest.

Yes, I can see that.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Yes, hence my "straw man" comment. However, on reflection it can be a good way to zero in on what someone really thinks (as long as it's part of a dialogue), and I know that is your intention.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I truly do not understand how you can say anything is right or wrong, given what I understand to be your beliefs.

Why not? I have my reasons, so what's the problem? From my perspective, your absolutist view of right and wrong is actually based on an interpretation of absolute right and wrong, which means it's just as likely to be wrong as mine, seeing as how people are imperfect and all.

I think this problem arises because we conflate our own personal values, ideas of right and wrong etc (which don't exist outside of our minds) with other things like societal norms, laws and the like, which are very complex, sociocultural phenomena.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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?

No! Certainly not you. You would make an excellent relativist (I'll keep a seat warm in the non-church of unbelief). However, some people do. I think it is harder work being an atheist relativist, on the whole.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Heh! I know: 'tis admirable. Sorry if I seemed a bit impatient.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Well, we disagree on that. I would say that it doesn't end up as a free-for-all because, er, relativism, properly understood, doesn't logically end up as a free-for-all. The innate good qualities are, IMO, the ones that make us internalise our own values.

But there is a lot about all this stuff that's mysterious and I don't claim to have all the answers. I've read several moral philosophers in my time and all of it seemed like a load of bollocks to be honest.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

Certainly not! In my judgment the consequences of manifest inequality towards incestuous persons are NOT so harmful that they nullify any censorious arguments based on, for example (but not limited to), health.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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

No, you didn't! It did . Thanks

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by 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?

GOP, obviously.

Didn't there used to be a "religion and politics" thread? I think in the case of the Repubicans (who realised that the reason they nearly lost in 2000 was because 3m+ Christian voters stayed at home because of Bush's past misdemeanours, and subsequently adopted Christian policies by the shed load to appease them) it may well be turning on them.

See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...587121,00.html

[Spock]

Light is faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you speak to them.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

GOP, obviously.

Didn't there used to be a "religion and politics" thread? I think in the case of the Repubicans (who realised that the reason they nearly lost in 2000 was because 3m+ Christian voters stayed at home because of Bush's past misdemeanours, and subsequently adopted Christian policies by the shed load to appease them) it may well be turning on them.

See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...587121,00.html

Well, O.K., grazie molto 4 the explanation. I really wasn't sure what the cartoon was trying to convey, but I figured SOMEone over here would have an intelligent interpretation of it.

Now, about the definition of "religious right." A person who is a church-going, anti-homosexual marriage, anti-abortion rights, pro-Intelligent Design to be taught in school Christian, in MY book, belongs by DEfault to the religious right. It's not necessarily a BAD thing, its just a demographical fact. Or whatever.

[Spock]

well IMO there isn't any definition to categorize Lotesse, she's one of a kind, and all ours on the Moot.

[Gil-galad]

I don't mean any offense, but what is a virtuous person, in your opinion? Someone who thinks anything goes? So long as nobody is hurt, save the babies, life should be just one big orgy? I can understand feeling compassion for one another. Christians should have more of that. But there must be a moral foundation, shouldn't there? I guess if you believe humankind is no more noble than the apes, then I can see your point. The animal kingdom does as it pleases. The sexes don't feel any kind of bond for each other. It's propagate the species and repeat. But, as humans, shouldn't we have some sense of morality? Murder is wrong, whether it's a fetus or not. Same sex couples are not biologically productive. They're simply giving in to unatural insticts.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gil-galad

Same sex couples are not biologically productive. They're simply giving in to unatural insticts.

so is anyone practicing sex for any reason other than reproduction... or are they all just "practicing"?

morality is relative to individuals and the societies they live in... but the most successful societies give their people as much freedom as possible as long as those freedoms don't directly harm anyone else

i.e. we let people drive even though you can get killed while driving... we don't let you drive drunk because it is much more likely you will kill someone

we don't just ban acts because we personally do not like them... in my opinion, that is immoral

i.e. we don't outlaw offensive bumper stickers on cars

[Gil-galad]

I mean that from even an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is unproductive. It is biologically unnatural. It is also, in my opinion, psychologically unnatural (even single-minded Freud believed so) and morally wrong. It may not harm people physically, but it harms the value system that has ruled Western civilization for over 1,000 years. But, as I said, if you believe humans are nothing but common animals, then this goes out the window. Our civilization is then undignified, should crumble and create an atmosphere of "every man for himself" henceforth. Anything goes. You don't want to be burdened with safe sex? Happen to slip up, "oh, well, just pay a small fee and forget about it." Don't want to consider the moral and biological implications that go along with homosexuality? "Oh, well, HIV is not so deadly anymore. And you had a good orgy, so it's all worth, eh?" Such a civilization is irresponsible. Anything goes. Trippy, ain't it?

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by Spock

No one is Right or Left, it's all subjective....my right is your central and visa versa....

I agree...Uh, what did i say! Wait! I said I'm hungry....yeah, that's it

[Gil-galad]

Would you think less of LOTR if Aragorn wedded Elrond instead? Or if Pippin and Merry got hitched? Oh, but, marriage has no meaning to liberals, though, does it? It's all a bunch of hogwash. Just sign a form and be done with it. There's nothing holy about anything. Anything goes.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Well, O.K., grazie molto 4 the explanation. I really wasn't sure what the cartoon was trying to convey, but I figured SOMEone over here would have an intelligent interpretation of it.

Now, about the definition of "religious right." A person who is a church-going, anti-homosexual marriage, anti-abortion rights, pro-Intelligent Design to be taught in school Christian, in MY book, belongs by DEfault to the religious right. It's not necessarily a BAD thing, its just a demographical fact. Or whatever.

The cartoonist thinks that republicans are all christians and are ignoring the evident problems of our society by focusing on one issue - hoping to escape blame. (Of course, the underlying truth that the cartoonist reveals rather than makes is that it is the insistence of the gay lobby that they are ENTITLED to marriage that fuels the flames of response, but ... oh, well!). That issue is allegedly homosexual "rights" in the area of specific agenda goals opposed by other persons in the society. So the real message of the cartoonist is that if one doesn't agree with the position of those opposed to the caricature presented one is moral, right, politically correct, and forward-thinking. Otherwise, you are just a well-dressed addict to (take your pick) drugs, money, sex, bashing _______, large (non-fuel-efficient cars), killing seals, global warming..........................................a d infinitum ad nauseum.

YOur demographical "fact" is an incorrect media assertion with as much relevance to reality as "red state" or "blue state". What religious right really means is anyone who opposes the cartoonist's view of what reality should be like.

I am not in the religious right, by the way. I modestly and humbly admit, confess, and profess and that I am religiously CORRECT - which is not quite the same thing. (Let me hasten to add that I do not know who is going to hell on that basis. Anyone may choose to and none who so choose will be hindered! However those who choose otherwise do have "an way of escape" Providentially provided. And, unfortunately for the solely self-oriented,, those escaping do tend towards certain conformities with Providence, who has graciously told us and lived for us what is required, as well as made up the deficits inherent in us. That message, however, has to penetrate the carapace of our self-indulgent wishes, desires, and existence. That's the bad news/good news!)

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gil-galad

I mean that from even an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality is unproductive. It is biologically unnatural. It is also, in my opinion, psychologically unnatural (even single-minded Freud believed so) and morally wrong. It may not harm people physically, but it harms the value system that has ruled Western civilization for over 1,000 years. But, as I said, if you believe humans are nothing but common animals, then this goes out the window. Our civilization is then undignified, should crumble and create an atmosphere of "every man for himself" henceforth. Anything goes. You don't want to be burdened with safe sex? Happen to slip up, "oh, well, just pay a small fee and forget about it." Don't want to consider the moral and biological implications that go along with homosexuality? "Oh, well, HIV is not so deadly anymore. And you had a good orgy, so it's all worth, eh?" Such a civilization is irresponsible. Anything goes. Trippy, ain't it?

no reason to take the implications so far... each issue can stand on it's own

as i brought up way back in this thread, a few hundred years ago it would be seen as just as "unnatural" and even immoral for a woman to hold a job or raise a child on her own, by choice as opposed to accident... and some even claimed that such things would destroy society... cat's sleeping with dogs and all that (some still do )

there's even a good historical, or natural, reason, why women were homemakers and men providers... both jobs were simply too intensive and time consuming to be taken care of by one person... but times change... technological advances, the availability of housing and food, etc. make it possible for a one parent family, and for women to hold jobs that were once exclusively male

basic assumptions about what is moral and right change all the time

the question i would ask is how does it personally effect you if two consenting adults, male or female, decide to marry one another? would it make you become irresponsible all of the sudden? would you just not care anymore? or would you live your life the same way you always have?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gil-galad

Would you think less of LOTR if Aragorn wedded Elrond instead? Or if Pippin and Merry got hitched? Oh, but, marriage has no meaning to liberals, though, does it? It's all a bunch of hogwash. Just sign a form and be done with it. There's nothing holy about anything. Anything goes.

the value of marriage, as with everything else in life, is what you choose to give it... it has nothing to do with some external diety

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the value of marriage, as with everything else in life, is what you choose to give it... it has nothing to do with some external diety

Actually it is what is defined by law which in most cases is defined by the Church...what you choose has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

[inked]

Ahh, BJ and the moral relativism of life. I keep trying to point out that if his position is consistently maintained, there is not recourse for the outvoted and outpowered to whine when the majority does to them as it will. But then, he insists that his idea of morality is "righter". His constant appeal to "ought" is indicative of a belief in absolute morality by which moral positions may be judged.

He just wants his to be numero uno!

I disagree. On BJ's lights, I'm just as correct as he is. He cannot demur.

[EarthBound]

Originally Posted by inked

I am not in the religious right, by the way. I modestly and humbly admit, confess, and profess and that I am religiously CORRECT - which is not quite the same thing. (Let me hasten to add that I do not know who is going to hell on that basis. Anyone may choose to and none who so choose will be hindered! However those who choose otherwise do have "an way of escape" Providentially provided. And, unfortunately for the solely self-oriented,, those escaping do tend towards certain conformities with Providence, who has graciously told us and lived for us what is required, as well as made up the deficits inherent in us. That message, however, has to penetrate the carapace of our self-indulgent wishes, desires, and existence. That's the bad news/good news!)

Saying without saying it, but still...you said it.....well done. What's frightening is the often (I mean OFTEN) picking and choosing of 'teachings', analysis, and varied juxtapositions that pervades the eminent book...

Thank goodness we have this forum to 'feel' our way through important issues without the 'labels' we place on each other There are huge misconceptions about ‘sides’, ‘teams’, and ‘wings’ [Red Wing fans not withstanding], TRUTH is we wear the same jersey (Human!, errrr, I think--Spock ) but perhaps sew on a lot of patches, many we share here at the moot, what we have fun discussing are the ones we don't share, eh?

RÃ*an has done a good job (more than should be needed) to show a tolerant endeavor in this discussion while being honest with the posters by being honest with RÃ*an, per say…..which is the important lesson to learn and exercise for further engrossing ‘conversation’….IMHO