Just another newb

[CabinetMaker]

Oh, how so? Moral relativism argues that you can't derive unversal moral truths. That truth will always be subjectively based upon the culture, history, personal circumstances, etc. I'm arguing that universal moral truths can be derived from the world regardless of culture, history, personal circumstances, etc. However, it seems you have your heart set on calling me a moral relativist no matter how many times I restate my position, so do whatever you wish. Clearly, by your definition, anyone who doesn't follow the Bible is a moral relativist.

Give the boy a Kuppie Doll! You are starting to understand. The Bible contains a set of absolute morals. Any deviation from those morals due to society or personal preference results in relative moralsism!

How do you know that? Because the book told you so? You really can't get around the fact that your entire belief in the Bible is based upon your personal circumstances and you have little to work with to prove its validity.

My faith in the Bible is given to me by God. It is not of my own making. You should understand that if your claims to your Christian upbringing and study are accurate.

Appeal to Common Practice fallacy and therefore irrelevant.

You said that your morals are gleaned from observing the world around you. You support this with 7 countries and 2 states that will allow you to marry. I am pointing out that there are several countries that you could go to where you will be killed for being homosexual. It would seem that your morals are based on selective observation of the world around you. Think about that one for a minute.

Sigh...I've already stated the moral proposition for why I believe that homosexuality is fine.

Homosexuality within monogamous, consensual relationships between adults is not harmful.

You have already stated why you think homosexuality is acceptable. You. That certainly sounds like a personal preference to me. What does it sound like to you?

I don't get that from the "gay community," it simply is an observable fact. If you would like to dispute it with some evidence outside of your Holy Scriptures, then I would love to hear it.

Well, here in the U.S., the rather obvious fact would be the rate of aids in the gay community. Contracting a desies that disabls my immune system sure sounds harmful to me.

As far as Prop 8, I could care less. I could go to 7 other countires and get married, as well as 2 states here in the United States, or go to California and get a legally recognized domestic partnership. All your appeal to common practice fallacy tells me is that you lack a certain degree of logic.

See above. This is more of your selective observation.

I agree. We simply disagree in the means by which we have derived our interpretation's of God's moral truths. You have subjectively chosen a book of which you can provide little proof of its validity, and I have chosen to objectively study his creation. Therefore our conclusions are different.

It was not a subjective choice. God granted me faith by which I know the Bible to be true. You may call it circular reasoning now. I'll wait. I've heard it all before. In the end, I will stand on that faith and the truth that it reveals about the Bible.

Correction. Unmarried homosexual activity is no different that unmarried heterosexual activity. Good thing I'm fighting for marriage. [/quotet]I will oppose such a marraige. I freely admit that homosexual marriage has zero impact on my marriage. That does not make it right. They only people to benifet from gay marriage will be the family law lawers.

You have yet to provide a single reasonable argument outside of your holy scriptures as to why homosexuality is harmful. Your argument about teen sex parties has nothing to do with homosexuality within monogamous relationships, and in fact, is evidence you yourself attempt to derive moral truth about sexual behavior from observing the world.

I need no other reason than scripture. My life will not be judged based on how well I lived up to socialtal norms, my life, and yours, will be judged based on how well I walked with Jesus. In an odd sort of way, I don't care about your homosexuality one way or the other. It is of no consequence to me. That does not, however, make it right. It just makes me apathetic towards your lifestyle. That having been said, I do care about your soul, your future and from that point of view I am compelled to point out that the sexually immoral will never be allowed into the kingdom of God. If your not in the kingdom there is only one other place to go and it is not a leasent place to be. All I can do is present to you the truth of the Bible the best I possibly can. It is then between you and God as to what you decide to do with that truth. Speaking rom experiance, God is patient. Keep your heart open and wonderful things can and will happen.

 

[Tony Funderburk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Funderburk View Post
Don't worry...your perspective will change.
Wait and see.

I hope it does. Life is about being open to change and adapting. I feel great sympathy for those who don't realize it. The greatest mistake a lot of people make is they believe certainty in their beliefs is proof of their correctness. I think my motto says it best, "Even if there is merit to it, it's always best to understand why you believe something, rather than blindly following."

You make a good point about "blindly following". We should never do that. And a discerning Christian who's truly in search of truth doesn't blindly follow.

I've tried to sift through all the posts (what a can of worms you opened), and I notice you seem to have more of a problem with the Bible than you do with God.
Do you believe absolute truth exists?
Do you believe there's anything you can have faith in besides what your senses tell you?

By the way...many great teachings "predate Christianity"...but they don't predate God.

 

[Egbert]

Tony, quote tags work like this: type [ quote ] (text) [ /quote ] (without the spaces). It will show up like this:

(text)

 

[Revelation]

You said that your morals are gleaned from observing the world around you. You support this with 7 countries and 2 states that will allow you to marry. I am pointing out that there are several countries that you could go to where you will be killed for being homosexual. It would seem that your morals are based on selective observation of the world around you. Think about that one for a minute.

Yes. And part of my observations is just because something is common practice doesn't mean it is right. After all, most people in my country used to see it as alright to segregate black people. Are you saying that was right? You really should look up "appeal to common practice fallacy". Your logic doesn't make any sense.

You have already stated why you think homosexuality is acceptable. You. That certainly sounds like a personal preference to me. What does it sound like to you?

It sounds like you are cherry picking my words to suit your argument.

Well, here in the U.S., the rather obvious fact would be the rate of aids in the gay community. Contracting a desies that disabls my immune system sure sounds harmful to me.

What does AIDs have to do with monogamous homosexual relationships? You can't get an STD if you aren't sleeping around.


It's clear that you believe God has given you the Bible. Well God has given me a thirst for a knowledge and the ability reason truths from his creation.

 

[Revelation]

Do you believe absolute truth exists?

Yes, and I believe it can be obtained through careful observation and reason. Although it may not be easily understood by man.

Do you believe there's anything you can have faith in besides what your senses tell you?

Absolutely. I believe in God. But merely for the subjective, intuitive, and mystical reasons everyone else does.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes. And part of my observations is just because something is common practice doesn't mean it is right. After all, most people in my country used to see it as alright to segregate black people. Are you saying that was right? You really should look up "appeal to common practice fallacy". Your logic doesn't make any sense.

And so we arrive at the civil rights argument. Sorry, but your obsession with the same gender is not a civil right. Gay marriage serves no purpose in our society. Marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by the government because it bestows great advantages when raising a family. Since homosexual partners cannot naturally have families, there is no need for them to be married. Marriage is a contract. If you want rights with your partner then go to a lawyer and have a contract drawn up that specifies your rights. If you want property rights then put it in your contract. If you want retirement benefits then set up a trust and make sure the beneficiaries are properly defined. I am married and my wife and I did some of these thing anyhow.

It sounds like you are cherry picking my words to suit your argument.

Well, since words have meanings and you have chosen the words you used it seems reasonable to conclude that your words accuratly reflect your feelings.

What does AIDs have to do with monogamous homosexual relationships? You can't get an STD if you aren't sleeping around.

True. But how many partners do you have to "test drive" before you find the one to be monogomus with?

It's clear that you believe God has given you the Bible. Well God has given me a thirst for a knowledge and the ability reason truths from his creation.

I have no less desire for knowledge. I'm an engineer, I love to see how things work. Its just that I know such knowledge does not exist independantly of God.

 

[Revelation]

And so we arrive at the civil rights argument. Sorry, but your obsession with the same gender is not a civil right. Gay marriage serves no purpose in our society. Marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by the government because it bestows great advantages when raising a family. Since homosexual partners cannot naturally have families, there is no need for them to be married. Marriage is a contract. If you want rights with your partner then go to a lawyer and have a contract drawn up that specifies your rights. If you want property rights then put it in your contract. If you want retirement benefits then set up a trust and make sure the beneficiaries are properly defined. I am married and my wife and I did some of these thing anyhow.

First: I was not arguing about civil rights. I was pointing out an historical example to demonstrate that your appeal to common practice fallacy holds no weight.

Second: Gay marriage serves the purpose of providing stable same sex homes that can adopt children and provides the emotional benefits of a legally sanctioned relationship, which means a longer, more meaningful life for both partners. It also provides an incentive for gays to form long term, committed relationships and thus reduce the spread of STDs that result from promiscuity.

Third: There are over thousand various rights that are guaranteed to to married heterosexual couples that no lawyer could guarantee to same sex couples. This includes the right hospital visitation if one partner gets sick.

Well, since words have meanings and you have chosen the words you used it seems reasonable to conclude that your words accuratly reflect your feelings.

You are so right. I guess I should go kill anyone who works on the Sabbath just since the Bible says so. Afterall, there is that one verse in Exodus that says such and since the Bible those words have meanings, it seems accurate to conclude that is what I am suppose to do.

Give me a break. From here on out, I'm not responding to the parts of your replies where you take my words out of context. It's cheap and intellectually dishonest to do so, and you have been badgering me with that kind of simple minded equivocation this entire thread.

True. But how many partners do you have to "test drive" before you find the one to be monogomus with?

For your information, I'm celibate, and will continue to be so until I find someone who I love. Your assumption that I "test drive" people just demonstrates an incredibly prejudiced and ignorant perception of gay people. I would never put my health and the welfare of others on the line by engaging in promiscuous and risky sexual behavior.

I have no less desire for knowledge. I'm an engineer, I love to see how things work. Its just that I know such knowledge does not exist independantly of God.

Based on a book that you subjectively and intuitively choose to believe in.

Out of curiosity, why have you been so hostile and interrogative towards me through this entire thread? All I stated was that I derive my moral propositions from careful observation and study of the world around me and it seems you have dedicated yourself to putting me in the box in a "moral relativist"? Is my position really so threatening to you that you have to put me in a category that you can easily dismiss?

 

[CabinetMaker]

First: I was not arguing about civil rights. I was pointing out an historical example to demonstrate that your appeal to common practice fallacy holds no weight.

Second: Gay marriage serves the purpose of providing stable same sex homes that can adopt children and provides the emotional benefits of a legally sanctioned relationship, which means a longer, more meaningful life for both partners. It also provides an incentive for gays to form long term, committed relationships and thus reduce the spread of STDs that result from promiscuity.

Third: There are over thousand various rights that are guaranteed to to married heterosexual couples that no lawyer could guarantee to same sex couples. This includes the right hospital visitation if one partner gets sick.

Medical power of attorney.

You are so right. I guess I should go kill anyone who works on the Sabbath just since the Bible says so. Afterall, there is that one verse in Exodus that says such and since the Bible those words have meanings, it seems accurate to conclude that is what I am suppose to do.

:sigh:It doesn't sound like you have managed to understand any part of Jesus's teachings. :sigh:

Give me a break. From here on out, I'm not responding to the parts of your replies where you take my words out of context. It's cheap and intellectually dishonest to do so, and you have been badgering me with that kind of simple minded equivocation this entire thread.

okey dokey! :up:

For your information, I'm celibate, and will continue to be so until I find someone who I love. Your assumption that I "test drive" people just demonstrates an incredibly prejudiced and ignorant perception of gay people. I would never put my health and the welfare of others on the line by engaging in promiscuous and risky sexual behavior.

Then you have more discipline than most people do. And its not a prejiduce against you. A great many heterosexuals say that you would never buy a car without test driving in first so it only makes sense to test drive a potential spouse. Well done with the celebacy!

Based on a book that you subjectively and intuitively choose to believe in.

Now what was it you were complaining about? Something about taking things you say out of context? It sure seems to me that give as good as you get.

Out of curiosity, why have you been so hostile and interrogative towards me through this entire thread? All I stated was that I derive my moral propositions from careful observation and study of the world around me and it seems you have dedicated yourself to putting me in the box in a "moral relativist"? Is my position really so threatening to you that you have to put me in a category that you can easily dismiss?

I have not been hostile towards you in the least. I have not called you any names. I have tried to not insult you or belitle or intentionally antoginize you. Please post anything I have said that you consider as hostile towards you. I have tried to present well reasond arguments as to why a person who decides what is morally acceptable based on their observation of the world develops a set of relative morals. Why have you taken such great offense to that? It is a simple concept. God gave us a set of morals that never change. According to God, homsexual activity is wrong. Hat is an absolute statement. According to you, based on your observation of the world (your words), homsexual activity is acceptable. Based on the definition you posted from Wiki, which is the relative position?

 

[Revelation]

I have not been hostile towards you in the least. I have not called you any names. I have tried to not insult you or belitle or intentionally antoginize you. Please post anything I have said that you consider as hostile towards you. I have tried to present well reasond arguments as to why a person who decides what is morally acceptable based on their observation of the world develops a set of relative morals. Why have you taken such great offense to that? It is a simple concept. God gave us a set of morals that never change. According to God, homsexual activity is wrong. Hat is an absolute statement. According to you, based on your observation of the world (your words), homsexual activity is acceptable. Based on the definition you posted from Wiki, which is the relative position?

I think it is quite hostile when you insinuate that I'm a whore. There was no justification for which you could ask me if I "test drive" people. Since the very beginning of this thread I have had people making assumptions about how I live my life based solely on my sexual orientation.

Also you continuously try to put me in the category of a "moral relativist" on the basis that I don't accept your interpretation of God based upon your Holy Scriptures. That hints at a dichotomous kind of mind set, in which you have an "us versus them" mentality, with little complexity for variation in faith. Either people accept that your God is the absolute or they are a moral relativist and can be readily dismissed as people who pick the moral truths that are convenient for their personal circumstances.

I've stated numerous times that I believe in universal truth separate of cultural, historical, and personal circumstances, that can be derived from careful observation and study of the world, and yet you continue to insult my intelligence by trying to define me as a person who doesn't believe in universal truth and who believes truth is dependent on cultural, historical, and personal circumstances. I do not derive truth that is convenient for me, but truth that is observable and objective. If you can provide reasonable evidence outside of your Holy Scriptures that proves homosexuality within a monogamous relationship is wrong, then I will change my position.

That is all you have to do!

 

[CabinetMaker]

I think it is quite hostile when you insinuate that I'm a whore. There was no justification for which you could ask me if I "test drive" people. Since the very beginning of this thread I have had people making assumptions about how I live my life based solely on my sexual orientation.

I apologize for the assumption.

Also you continuously try to put me in the category of a "moral relativist" on the basis that I don't accept your interpretation of God based upon your Holy Scriptures. That hints at a dichotomous kind of mind set, in which you have an "us versus them" mentality, with little complexity for variation in faith. Either people accept that your God is the absolute or they are a moral relativist and can be readily dismissed as people who pick the moral truths that are convenient for their personal circumstances.

I've stated numerous times that I believe in universal truth separate of cultural, historical, and personal circumstances, that can be derived from careful observation and study of the world, and yet you continue to insult my intelligence by trying to define me as a person who doesn't believe in universal truth and who believes truth is dependent on cultural, historical, and personal circumstances. I do not derive truth that is convenient for me, but truth that is observable and objective. If you can provide reasonable evidence outside of your Holy Scriptures that proves homosexuality within a monogamous relationship is wrong, then I will change my position.

That is all you have to do!

You still fall in the category of moral relativism because you have at least some morals that are not defined by universal truths. Go back and look at my second or so response to you. I said that most people do have some degree of absolute truth that they cling to. You do as well. But homosexuality is not a universal truth. Universal truth would mean that it is accepted universally and it has already been shown that there are countries that do not accept it as an acceptable life style. It, therefore, cannot be universal.

The facts are there in front of you. You are offended by them. Deal with it.

Outside of scripture, your homosexual preference is meaningless. Monogamous or not, outside of scripture homosexual behavior is abnormal but that is really all. It is within the context of scripture that should worry you. You cannot be an active homosexual and a Christian.

 

[Revelation]

I apologize for the assumption.

You still fall in the category of moral relativism because you have at least some morals that are not defined by universal truths. Go back and look at my second or so response to you. I said that most people do have some degree of absolute truth that they cling to. You do as well. But homosexuality is not a universal truth. Universal truth would mean that it is accepted universally and it has already been shown that there are countries that do not accept it as an acceptable life style. It, therefore, cannot be universal.

If you believe in any absolute moral truths, then you are not a moral relativist. That is the definition. Get over it. Sorry I don't fall into your little arbitrary category of your personal definition of "moral relativist".

The facts are there in front of you. You are offended by them. Deal with it.

If the evidence is so apparent, the state it. If you can make a reasonable case outside of your Holy Scriptures then do so. We both know why you won't. Because you can't.

Monogamous or not, outside of scripture homosexual behavior is abnormal but that is really all.

This is the best argument you could come up with? Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of different species of animals on this planet and has existed consistently within humans since prehistoric times. Homosexuality is uncommon, for it occurs in only a minority, but it is not abnormal.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you believe in any absolute moral truths, then you are not a moral relativist. That is the definition. Get over it. Sorry I don't fall into your little arbitrary category of your personal definition of "moral relativist".

That conclusion does not follow logically. It is more accurate to say that you have some universal morals and some relative morals. Overall, since you do not have an absolute and unchanging basis for your morals, you observations of what is true are subject to change and are, therefore relative to your current beliefs.

If the evidence is so apparent, the state it. If you can make a reasonable case outside of your Holy Scriptures then do so. We both know why you won't. Because you can't.

Which does not make you right. All it means is that you reject an absolute standard that does not agree with your observational standards.

This is the best argument you could come up with? Homosexuality has been observed in hundreds of different species of animals on this planet and has existed consistently within humans since prehistoric times. Homosexuality is uncommon, for it occurs in only a minority, but it is not abnormal.

I suggest you look up the meaning of abnormal. Heterosexual behavior is the norm across all species that have two sexes. Homosexuality is an abberant behavior that lies outside the normal behaviors of a given species. Assuming you believe in evolution, homosexuality serves no evolutionary benefet and natural selection actively selectes against it since a homosexual pair cannot normally reporduce.

The evolutionary argument is one of the storongest arguments that homosexual paring is abnormal. Nature selects against such behavior by preventing such pairs from reporducing.

 

[Revelation]

Which does not make you right. All it means is that you reject an absolute standard that does not agree with your observational standards.

All it means is that I don't accept your Holy Scriptures.

I suggest you look up the meaning of abnormal. Heterosexual behavior is the norm across all species that have two sexes. Homosexuality is an abberant behavior that lies outside the normal behaviors of a given species. Assuming you believe in evolution, homosexuality serves no evolutionary benefet and natural selection actively selectes against it since a homosexual pair cannot normally reporduce.

The evolutionary argument is one of the storongest arguments that homosexual paring is abnormal. Nature selects against such behavior by preventing such pairs from reporducing.

I agree that homosexuality is not the norm, but just because something is not the norm does not make it wrong.

If the evolutionary argument is your strongest argument, then you are out of date. Homosexuality does serve an evolutionary purpose. It provides an ecological advantage via kinship. Homosexual males in primate populations help overlook their sibling's youth in their tribes, and increase the chances of their survival, thereby increasing the fitness of the entire tribe and further ensuring the survival of their family's genes. In fact, even in human populations, it has been observed statistically that the sisters of gay men reproduce at higher rates, and the chances of child being gay increases approximately 30% for every child a mother has. The fraternal birth order studies have completely changed how scientists interpret homosexuality in nature.

Here is a nice little video to explain some of the natural processes that are being explored right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liAlLNA9cbY&feature=channel_page

 

[CabinetMaker]

All it means is that I don't accept your Holy Scriptures.



I agree that homosexuality is not the norm, but just because something is not the norm does not make it wrong.

If the evolutionary argument is your strongest argument, then you are out of date. Homosexuality does serve an evolutionary purpose. It provides an ecological advantage via kinship. Homosexual males in primate populations help overlook their sibling's youth in their tribes, and increase the chances of their survival, thereby increasing the fitness of the entire tribe and further ensuring the survival of their family's genes. In fact, even in human populations, it has been observed statistically that the sisters of gay men reproduce at higher rates, and the chances of child being gay increases approximately 30% for every child a mother has. The fraternal birth order studies have completely changed how scientists interpret homosexuality in nature.

Here is a nice little video to explain some of the natural processes that are being explored right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liAlLNA9cbY&feature=channel_page

S---T---R---E---A---T---C---H

 

[Revelation]

S---T---R---E---A---T---C---H

Supported by scientific evidence does not equal stretch. At least that is what I'm assuming you were trying to spell. Watch the video. You might actually learn something. Of course, I'm assuming you are an open minded individual.

But of course, had I lived several hundred years ago, I'm sure Christians would have loved to hear my theories about the earth being round, circling the sun, and not being the center of the universe. Or might they have considered that a stretch?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Supported by scientific evidence does not equal stretch. At least that is what I'm assuming you were trying to spell. Watch the video. You might actually learn something. Of course, I'm assuming you are an open minded individual.

But of course, had I lived several hundred years ago, I'm sure Christians would have loved to hear my theories about the earth being round, circling the sun, and not being the center of the universe. Or might they have considered that a stretch?

That homosexual individuals can be useful in society does not mean that they provide an evolutionary benefit. Any society is capable of adapting to deal with abnormal situations that arise. The simple fact remains that homosexual individuals do not normally reproduce. Homosexual pairs cannot. While it is possible for a homosexual to mate with a member of the opposite sex, that is not the norm for homosexual attraction. Natural selection works against homosexuality.

 

[Revelation]

That homosexual individuals can be useful in society does not mean that they provide an evolutionary benefit. Any society is capable of adapting to deal with abnormal situations that arise. The simple fact remains that homosexual individuals do not normally reproduce. Homosexual pairs cannot. While it is possible for a homosexual to mate with a member of the opposite sex, that is not the norm for homosexual attraction. Natural selection works against homosexuality.

Apparantly, I need to break it down for you.

1. Homosexuals look after the young of their siblings. (Families share the same genetics)
2. The chances that the young will survive to reproduce themselves is increased.
3. The genes can continue on.

What an "ecological advantage in kinship" means is that you don't have to reproduce yourself to help continue the genes. In short, scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality is naturally selected since those tribes that would not have developed it would not have had the benefit of extra help and protection for the tribe's offspring, and the offspring would have had less chance of survival, thus less chance to reproduce, and less chance for the genetics of that tribe to continue.

Ecological advantages via kinship have been observed in countless species of social animals and have lead to wide variety of behaviors.

Of course, you have to have more than 6th grade understanding of evolution to understand this, so I might be wasting my time.

 

[CabinetMaker]

That conclusion does not follow logically. It is more accurate to say that you have some universal morals and some relative morals. Overall, since you do not have an absolute and unchanging basis for your morals, you observations of what is true are subject to change and are, therefore relative to your current beliefs.

I note you did not respond to this. Why?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Apparantly, I need to break it down for you.

1. Homosexuals look after the young of their siblings. (Families share the same genetics)
2. The chances that the young will survive to reproduce themselves is increased. (Hence the genes can continue on)

What an "ecological advantage in kinship" means is that you don't have to reproduce yourself to help continue the genes. In short, scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality is naturally selected since those tribes that would not have developed it would not have had the benefit of extra help and protection for the tribe's offspring, and the offspring would have had less chance of survival, thus less chance to reproduce, and less chance for the genetics of that tribe to continue.

Ecological advantages via kinship have been observed in countless species of social animals and have lead to wide variety of behaviors.

It is still an attempt to stretch data to fit a hypothesis. How is the homosexuality passed on since natural selection is not selecting for it?

 

[Revelation]

It is still an attempt to stretch data to fit a hypothesis. How is the homosexuality passed on since natural selection is not selecting for it?

That is your simply opinion. I've already provided some of the supporting data. Such as observations of primate populations and also what I said here.

In fact, even in human populations, it has been observed statistically that the sisters of gay men reproduce at higher rates, and the chances of child being gay increases approximately 30% for every child a mother has. The fraternal birth order studies have completely changed how scientists interpret homosexuality in nature.

And I suggest you watch the video. Of course, if you can provide a better explanation for all these natural processes, then I would love to hear it.