Do you beleive in God?
Poll
 | 14 votes (35.89%) | ||
| | 19 votes (48.71%) | ||
| | 5 votes (12.82%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.56%) |
39 members have voted
Do you believe in God?
Please don't ask me to explain why I created an "Other" choice.
If you've selected "Other", please say why.
If you would have asked me 10 years ago, I would have said "Unsure".
Today I say, "No".
I believe God is an invention of Man, not the other way around.
However, I respect differing opinions and beliefs - just don't try to change my mind for me.
* I don't now but am truly open to changing that
* I did but don't now for some reasons (please tell)
* I don't and I'm not open to changing (please tell why)
* I do and I'm not open to changing (please tell why)
* There is some provable, unambiguous piece of evidence that I could be presented with that would make me believe (please tell)
* I'm wavering because of life-events but reluctant to take the plunge (please tell)
* I'm not sure because I "feel" God but am not a big fan of theologies
* I'm not sure because stuff goes on that no good God would allow
... and the like. I know you only get a few characters to describe the choices, but oh well.
Good definition of it: I don't know, and I can't worry about it because I can't know.
Also...reincarnation, regardless of believing/worshipping...as in: "aw shoot!...I'm BAACK!"
Wow. I think you have all the options covered! LOL
Perhaps I should have said "Do you currently believe in God?"
---
For what it's worth, I was believer (although not very strongly), until I was 17. In 1977, my father died from the complications of diabetes and leukemia He was 49.
I understand that we all die, but I took it hard because of the circumstances.
He owned a small business. Sales, installation and repair of car stereos. He was selling it, so he could spend more time with the family and pursue other things.
He died one day before the sale of the business was finalized. For me, that has always symbolized the phrase "Untimely death."
On the flip side, few months later I learned that, 12 years before that, he was given 6 months.
Since that time until just a few years ago, I would have categorized myself as "unsure."
---
in 2006, primarily as a business decision, I became ordained thru the Church of Spiritual Humanism - a church that does not believe in God.
Because of conversations with other members there, I have grown to believe that God is an invention of Man, not the other way around.
---
For scripture, I turn to song lyrics, particularly, a line from Blood Sweat & Tears And When I Die: "Swear there ain't no heaven, but I pray there ain't no hell."
And that's my testimony.
Quote: DJTeddyBear
I have grown to believe that God is an invention of Man, not the other way around.
Yes. One thing nice about science is, two people independently and unknown to each other across an ocean even, can discover the same basic concepts (dropping two differently weighted objects, etc.). So far as I can tell, the concept of god, gods, or even something different (Mother Nature?) take on all different variations when people aren't able to communicate. This makes me very suspicious about origins of religion, to say the least.
.
Quote: EvenBobWho knows. All people and all cultures developed a concept of a divine being completely on their own, without any help from the outside world. Are they all idiots, and everybody who says 'there is no god' (which is the no thinking, no fuss no muss position), are they the gifted ones? I'm not so sure.
Not really. Before about 3500 years ago, basically all human cultures were either polytheistic (Greece, Egypt) or non-theist, believing in spirits/ancestors (China, Native Americans). The idea of a single unifying deity is relatively new to human culture.
Humans live with the knowledge that someday they will die. There are many ways to deal with such knowledge. One is to embrace life and live it pursuing happiness, as it's the only life we will ever have. Another is to invent an "after-life," in order to render death powerless. Humans are also capable of believing in fantasies as if they were real. If you believe in an actual fantasy, you're called insane. But a far-off, unprovable, untestable, other-worldly fantasy can be called religion.
Also let's not forget the role religion plays in the politics of power. Kings traditionally ruled by permission from God. This goes all the way back to the Bible, where the first kings of Israel were annointed (literally) by prophets acting under God's orders. In many non-Western religions, the kings or rulers were also often leaders of the local religion. In Japan the Emperor was held to be Divine himself as recently as WWII. Even today in America the president, and the Congress, take an oath of office with one hand on the Bible.
Many cultures developed astrology, too. This led them to one useful invention: the calendar. other than that, i woudln't put any credence in astrology, contrary to common sense and available evidence, on the strenght that many cultures came up with it.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI think is and religion is the biggest man made scam ever invented. Social security is a close second.
Global Warming might have taken the lead now.
Actually I am one of those rare types, I believe in God as I have gotten out of too many close calls, I just never liked Church very much.
Quote: IbeatyouracesI think is and religion is the biggest man made scam ever invented.
Of course, but who makes the rules... the rich, to smooth things out, keep the poor guys "on track", drive'em from church to bar, and back.
Eg, the REAL meaning of Xmas shall always be commercialism. Why else give a scoundrel like Scrooge a second chance, instead of a desperate "bag boy" like George Bailey?
Quote: DJTeddyBearI believe God is an invention of Man, not the other way around.
There being no one ultimate answer would make the universe pointless. But obviously, we're all freely making points here... the reason that that "answer" can be neither completely available nor unavailable to us. (More a question of being in the universe while simultaneously being out of it, what that means to physics and math. The original question is like just about everyone now subscribing to the notion that mathematics was "used to design" the universe... whereas perhaps the math is just another part of it, to be taken apart and "stomped on" like everything else.)
Quote: rxwineThis makes me very suspicious about origins of religion, to say the least.
A similar question years ago in physics, before Wu's experimental discovery that the magnetic poles are asymmetrical in nature, "Would it be possible to communicate left/rightness by words only (over radio-communication to a far-off intelligent life-form)?" The answer turned out to be, yes! It has to do with the direction of a compass near an electrical flow, and that discovery, as referenced at http://www.voting.ukscientists.com/womensci.htm . ("In Martin Gardner's words: Madame Wu's experiment provided for the first time in the history of science a method of labelling the ends of a magnetic axis in a way that is not at all conventional. The south end is the end of a cobalt-60 nucleus that is most likely to fling out an electron!")
Quote: NareedShow me how an infertile couple can.
I'm pretty sure you know that this is a kibbitz. But since you brought it up, let's explore it a little.
An infertile couple can't have children because something has gone wrong with the sexual reproduction process (starting with attraction, whatever that may look like for lower life forms) as prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever.
I wasn't ready to throw all homosexuals under that bus. If you were, I would suggest that you tap the brakes on that.
But like I said, I think you know it's a kibbitz, meant to confuse and obfuscate. I don't think you believe that homosexuality and an infertile couple are the same thing in any way other than they can't conceive and bear children.
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerAn infertile couple can't have children because something has gone wrong with the sexual reproduction process (starting with attraction, whatever that may look like for lower life forms) as prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever.
What if the man is fertile and the woman isn't? Shouldn't he leave her and hook up with someone who can carry his seed?
Quote:But like I said, I think you know it's a kibbitz, meant to confuse and obfuscate. I don't think you believe that homosexuality and an infertile couple are the same thing in any way other than they can't conceive and bear children.
Two men can't conceive with each other even if they're both fertile. A couple with infertility issues can't conceive either. The root of the problem may not be the same, but the problem is the same and has the same solution.
But let's talk about the legitimacy of marriage between a male/female couple who know they can't conceive or don't want to. For instance my grandmother, who married at age 65 a man aged 70. No way in hell they can conceive, and no way they wanted to. What makes that marriage legitimate?
Quote: NareedWhat if the man is fertile and the woman isn't? Shouldn't he leave her and hook up with someone who can carry his seed?
I thought we were talking about fertility, not fidelity.
Quote: NareedTwo men can't conceive with each other even if they're both fertile. A couple with infertility issues can't conceive either. The root of the problem may not be the same, but the problem is the same and has the same solution.
The end result is the same but you're getting there in entirely different ways, and how you get there means everything. You said that, if a homosexual couple's inability to conceive makes their union "unnatural," then a heterosexual couple unable to conceive must also be "unnatural." This is not the case.
I've already posted at length as to my thoughts on the natural- and/or non-natural-ness of a homosexual couple. But it's pretty clear that it's perfectly natural for a heterosexual couple to be unable to conceive. That inability is due to a breakdown in the natural reproductive process (including attraction) prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever.
If I extend it as you are, then I would have to conclude that homosexuality is a breakdown in a similar way. I'm not making that extension, but it appears you are.
Quote: NareedBut let's talk about the legitimacy of marriage between a male/female couple who know they can't conceive or don't want to. For instance my grandmother, who married at age 65 a man aged 70. No way in hell they can conceive, and no way they wanted to. What makes that marriage legitimate?
No, let's stay on topic of fertility.
As long as a Yiddish term like "kibbitz" is being used, I think it's acceptable to point out:Quote: NareedWhat if the man is fertile and the woman isn't? Shouldn't he leave her and hook up with someone who can carry his seed?
Jewish tradition holds that a man can divorce his wife if she fails to produce a child after 10 years.
I'm not sure if the reverse is true. I.E. I don't know if a wife can divorce her husband if he fails to impregnate her...
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerThe end result is the same but you're getting there in entirely different ways, and how you get there means everything.
What different way? You have two couples building lives together, which involves having and raising children. It's the same road.
Quote:You said that, if a homosexual couple's inability to conceive makes their union "unnatural," then a heterosexual couple unable to conceive must also be "unnatural." This is not the case.
No, I said a gay couple can't conceive by themselves, and neither can an infertile straight couple.
But let's talk about "natural." The "natural" state of Man is a naked savage dependent on the energy of his muscles and his ability to gather and hunt (at that "savage" may be overly charitable). Anything above that is "unnatural." Or do you see any other species making tools and transforming the environment to suit them? Do cars grow on trees? Do houses sprout spontaneously from the ground?
The whole point of our species is that we don't act like other living beings do. That's why we're so successful. That's why we can stand deviations from the norm and, in some cases, egregious deviations from the norm.
Surely even you aren't blind to over 6 billion people inhabiting the world these days. All thanks to a few trillions of neurons, and not doing what's "natural"
And I'll repeat myself now. Menstruation is an awful waste of resources. Do you know how much iron a woman losses every month? How many ova a woman just throws away over a lifetime? That's unnatural. Naturally a woman ought to be pregnant most of her life from puberty to menopause. But by means of very unnatural contraceptives, that's happily not the case. and still we manage to fill up and dominate the planet.
Maybe "natural" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Quote:But it's pretty clear that it's perfectly natural for a heterosexual couple to be unable to conceive.
Right. That's why no straight couple can conceive.
Quote: NareedWhat different way? You have two couples building lives together, which involves having and raising children. It's the same road.
Whatever it is, it's not the same road. This is so self-evident that I am amazed it would require even mentioning. I would say that the failure to see the self-evident difference in the two is delusional at best, and reprobate at worst. It's akin to saying that there is no difference between a dog and a man, because they live in the same house and can't conceive.
If this is truly where you are, I'm not sure there's anything more to discuss.
Quote: NareedNo, I said a gay couple can't conceive by themselves, and neither can an infertile straight couple.
But let's talk about "natural." The "natural" state of Man is a naked savage dependent on the energy of his muscles and his ability to gather and hunt (at that "savage" may be overly charitable). Anything above that is "unnatural." Or do you see any other species making tools and transforming the environment to suit them? Do cars grow on trees? Do houses sprout spontaneously from the ground?
The whole point of our species is that we don't act like other living beings do. That's why we're so successful. That's why we can stand deviations from the norm and, in some cases, egregious deviations from the norm.
Surely even you aren't blind to over 6 billion people inhabiting the world these days. All thanks to a few trillions of neurons, and not doing what's "natural"
And I'll repeat myself now. Menstruation is an awful waste of resources. Do you know how much iron a woman losses every month? How many ova a woman just throws away over a lifetime? That's unnatural. Naturally a woman ought to be pregnant most of her life from puberty to menopause. But by means of very unnatural contraceptives, that's happily not the case. and still we manage to fill up and dominate the planet.
Maybe "natural" isn't all it's cracked up to be.
No, let's not talk about "natural." And I can't think of a better example of obfuscation than trying to apply the amount of iron a woman loses in menstruation to this topic. It appears that you try to change the subject a lot.
Let's talk about why it's not the same thing when a gay couple and a straight couple can't conceive. This will be the third time I've said this, hopefully we'll have some success in your addressing it instead of going on another tangent on infidelity or menstruation or something.
A straight couple could otherwise conceive if something hasn't broken down in the sexual reproduction process (including attraction) as prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever. A homosexual couple could not so otherwise conceive (assuming something hasn't broken down in attraction).
If you're saying that homosexuality is a breakdown in the sexual reproduction process (including attraction) as prescribed by nature/evolution/God/whatever, then say it. I'm not ready to, but it appears you are.
Quote: NareedRight. That's why no straight couple can conceive.
I'm sure this is an error, but it made me LOL!
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerWhatever it is, it's not the same road. This is so self-evident that I am amazed it would require even mentioning.
On one hand you have a man and a woman in love who are married and are building a life together, but can't have children. On the other hand you have two men, or for that matter two women, in love who are married and are building a life together, but cannot have children.
Oh, sure, light years apart.
What is your point? I mean besides bashing gays and lesbians while pretending not to say anything.
The rest of your post isn't worth replying to, as it's mere innuendo about what I mean.
But I will give you a small lesson about context:
Quote:
Quote:But it's pretty clear that it's perfectly natural for a heterosexual couple to be unable to conceive.
Right. That's why no straight couple can conceive.
See? Or is that too self-evident for you?
Quote: MathExtremistNot really. Before about 3500 years ago, basically all human cultures were either polytheistic (Greece, Egypt) or non-theist, believing in spirits/ancestors (China, Native Americans). The idea of a single unifying deity is relatively new to human culture.
So what? All the major religions were started independent of each other, even Native Americans have 'the great spirit'. As Joseph Campbell pointed out, the similarities between the great religions is astounding when you consider the people who created them had no contact with other cultures. I don't know what I believe, but saying there is no god when you have no facts is like a fish proclaiming there is no ocean because he can't comprehend such a thing.
Quote: EvenBobI don't know what I believe, but saying there is no god when you have no facts is like a fish proclaiming there is no ocean because he can't comprehend such a thing.
If i heard a fish say that, or anything else, I'd be willing to entertain the possibility of a deity of some sort ;)
Seriously, saying something doesn't exist because there is no evidence known to support its existence is simply logical.
Quote: NareedOn one hand you have a man and a woman in love who are married and are building a life together, but can't have children. On the other hand you have two men, or for that matter two women, in love who are married and are building a life together, but cannot have children.
Oh, sure, light years apart.
Yup, it is light years apart because a male-female relationship is as nature intended and male/male or female/female is not. Your line of logic has a fault. It is not incumbent upon those who do not believe homosexuality is wrong to prove it is different. It is incumbent upon supporters of homosexuality to show it is the same. And that has yet to be done. I'd have some respect for pro-homosexuality people if they said "I don't care if it is un-natural. It is my *choice* for how I live my life." Just like a smoker who says they will quit smoking when they no longer enjoy it. I mean--MAN UP! I'd also have more respefct if they quit using the slur of "homophobe" for those who disagree with their view, but one battle at a time.
Anyways, that is not what pro-gays say. Pro-gays say, "it's not my choice, I was born this way." Or "It is natural, look at animals in the zoo, they practice it." Or, "you homophobes need to stop haing people for who they are." The common thread is nowhere do they take responsibility for their own actions or practice tolerance for others.
Bottom line is it is NOT THE SAME as a M/F relationship. Not an ounce of proof has been given to show that it is.
Quote: Nareed
Seriously, saying something doesn't exist because there is no evidence known to support its existence is simply logical.
How do you know there's no evidence? There was evidence galore for germ theory before the invention of the microscope, and nobody saw it. I prefer the Occam's Razor approach: "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one". In this case, the simplest explanation is something is going on outside of ourselves, we just don't know what. A wait and see attitude is called for. I translate Occam's Razor as meaning "Don't get too carried away in either direction until you have all the facts. Keep it simple, stupid." For me, its the cornerstone of logical thinking.
Quote: AZDuffmanI mean--MAN UP! I'd also have more respefct if they quit using the slur of "homophobe" for those who disagree with their view, but one battle at a time.
A non-homophobic person has no fear of homosexuals and the way they choose to live.
Thus if you're not homophobic then your arguments are intended only as a logic exercise, and you're not actually dictating that you care one way or the other how they choose to live?
I'm asking.
People who want to control how homosexuals live must feel they are a threat somehow. If not, why bother?
I would add -- I am pedophobic (if that's a word) just to choose something. I think pedophiles are a threat. I can't answer much about what or what not is normal about pedophilia. To me, it's like a tiger. Tiger's (as far as I know) are pretty normal in certain places, but you sure as hell don't want them running loose around your neighborhood regardless. And as far as it goes, if Tiger's are not normal, I still think they are a pretty real threat. So, either way. Same with pedophiles.
So, if someone called me pedophobic, I'd say, yes I am. Homophobic, no.
Quote: AZDuffmanYup, it is light years apart because a male-female relationship is as nature intended and male/male or female/female is not.
If you're talking about reproduction, maybe you are right. But since when is human marriage about reproduction? Marriage is a social construct that rests on many legs: love, compatibility, companionship, financial security, property management and more. Reproduction is one aspect of it, not the whole and not the most important. What good is it to have children if you don't get along with your spouse?
While humans are, in a biological sense, part of the animal kingdom, we are not animals. We do not just live, reproduce and die. We also create, and we also remember. We leave behind us a legacy when we're gone, be it family, work, art. science, etc etc. Marriage and family are very important in this regard. Does it matter how children came about?
Quote:I'd have some respect for pro-homosexuality people if they said "I don't care if it is un-natural. It is my *choice* for how I live my life."
I'm not gay, despite my very strong feelings about the matter, but 1) I am transgendered and 2) I know a few gay men and lesbian women. I can tell you two things based on my knowledge and my life: 1) I don't have a choice about my feelings, but I do have a choice on what to do about them, 2) if I had a choice, I wouldn't have chosen the feelings I currently have.
Ask yourself a question: what made you decide to be straight? How did you come to be attracted to the opposite sex? I'm willing to bet you never made any such decision.
Quote: NareedIf you're talking about reproduction, maybe you are right. But since when is human marriage about reproduction? Marriage is a social construct that rests on many legs: love, compatibility, companionship, financial security, property management and more. Reproduction is one aspect of it, not the whole and not the most important. What good is it to have children if you don't get along with your spouse?
Love being "first" in marrige is only fairly recent. Until very, very recently marrige was a de facto requirement for survival, espically for women. Before the 1910s or so having no kids was a road to poverty for both yourself and your nation. Years ago 8 of 10 children a couple had might die. Today we still need 2.1 kids per woman to keep the population stable. A married, two-parent way is the healthiest way to ensure a supply of new adults. Infertile couples and childless-by-choice couples get the benefits as well, but why not? It still is beneficial to them. But the improtant thing to realize is that marrige was indeed set up for REPRODUCTION FIRST.
Quote:I'm not gay, despite my very strong feelings about the matter, but 1) I am transgendered and 2) I know a few gay men and lesbian women. I can tell you two things based on my knowledge and my life: 1) I don't have a choice about my feelings, but I do have a choice on what to do about them, 2) if I had a choice, I wouldn't have chosen the feelings I currently have.
Ask yourself a question: what made you decide to be straight? How did you come to be attracted to the opposite sex? I'm willing to bet you never made any such decision.
If you have feelings you do not know why you should be having, why no try to work them out with a professional? See, here is my problem with the whole "it isn't a choice" thing. Psyciatrists for years have tried to cure folks with homosexual feelings. Priests and ministers for years have offered counseling. Politely suggest to a homosexual person this course of action and they get very upset. Suggest it to a gay-movement-leader and they get borderline violent.
People get all kinds of weird feelings all the time. At a craps table you might feel like taking the whip off the stickman and knocking over all the cheques at the table. In a nice restaurant you might feel like putting your elbow in your soup. But when you know it is wrong to take the whip and knock over the cheques you don't do it. You make your bets and move on. No one explains to security, "hey, it isn't my fault I have feeligns that make me want to grab the whip from the stickman." If they did they would rightly be sent to the funny farm if they did this enough. The choice to act on the feelings is the choice to be gay.
As to "what made you decide to be straight" you don't have to decide, it is the natural process of life. Same as leaving a place-bet up after a win. You have to choose to takle it down, just like you choose to be gay.
Quote: AZDuffmanLove being "first" in marrige is only fairly recent. Until very, very recently marrige was a de facto requirement for survival, espically for women.
And so? Civilization moves forward, not backward. Should we still regard marriage as we did over a century ago when it's no longer what it was? By that logic we should keep horses for transportation because the car is a recent invention.
Quote:If you have feelings you do not know why you should be having, why no try to work them out with a professional? See, here is my problem with the whole "it isn't a choice" thing. Psyciatrists for years have tried to cure folks with homosexual feelings. Priests and ministers for years have offered counseling. Politely suggest to a homosexual person this course of action and they get very upset. Suggest it to a gay-movement-leader and they get borderline violent.
There are two good reasons for that:
1) Such methods most often do not work.
2) Contrary to most abnormal behaviors, homosexuality does not cause any harm nor does it diminish quality of life.
And why shouldn't homosexuals have such feelings? There are studies indicating differences in brain structures among gays and lesbians compared to the "normal" parts of the population. But regardless of that, see my second point.
Quote:The choice to act on the feelings is the choice to be gay.
So on the one hand there's the prospect of very unpleasant, very expensive, very long therapy with uncertain results for the purpose of what exactly? Conforming to ideals that are shared by a dwindling percentage of society? Conforming to some notion of what is "natural"? Conforming to religious strictures that have no basis in fact?
On the other hand there's the option to just accept who you are and to pursue happiness in your own terms.
The mystery is why anyone would choose your option. Anyone of sound mind, at any rate.
Quote: NareedAnd so? Civilization moves forward, not backward. Should we still regard marriage as we did over a century ago when it's no longer what it was? By that logic we should keep horses for transportation because the car is a recent invention.
Not a valid comparriosn at all. And I don't see how gutting an institution that worked for 1,000s of years as "improvement."
Quote:There are two good reasons for that:
1) Such methods most often do not work.
2) Contrary to most abnormal behaviors, homosexuality does not cause any harm nor does it diminish quality of life.
Doesn't diminish quality of life? Would that be other than higher rates of depression, drug use, STD's, etc?
Quote:So on the one hand there's the prospect of very unpleasant, very expensive, very long therapy with uncertain results for the purpose of what exactly? Conforming to ideals that are shared by a dwindling percentage of society? Conforming to some notion of what is "natural"? Conforming to religious strictures that have no basis in fact?
On the other hand there's the option to just accept who you are and to pursue happiness in your own terms.
The mystery is why anyone would choose your option. Anyone of sound mind, at any rate.
Yes, might be long and expensive. Or a person with such thoughts can simply exercise some self-control and get over them on their own. The "dwindling part of society" is due to going on 30 years now of gay-propoganda saying it is acceptable no matter how un-natural it is. I will keep mainaining my point of, "if it is such an acceptable behavior, why do gays insist they are not responsible for it because it is "who they are?" This excuse-making behavior shows they know homosexuality is wrong.
The mystery is why anyone of sound mind accepts such wrong behavior because someone says, "I was born that way." Serial Killers say "they have feelings to kill" yet no one accepts that excuse. Before you reply on that part, I realize homosexuality isn't murder, but I'm not advocating the death penalty for homosexual behavior, either.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot a valid comparriosn at all. And I don't see how gutting an institution that worked for 1,000s of years as "improvement."
Fine then. At what point should marriages be considered void if the couple cannot produce children unassisted? One year? Five? perhaps arranged marriages should be mandatory, too. While we're at it, let's outlaw divorce.
Quote:Doesn't diminish quality of life? Would that be other than higher rates of depression, drug use, STD's, etc?
How much of that has to do with rejection by family, friends and assorted others? Not to mention prejudice, having to justify one's self constantly, having to endure persecution and many other things. I don't recall anyone who's ever been murdered for being straight. Plenty of men and women have been killed for being gay, lesbian or transgender.
Quote:The "dwindling part of society" is due to going on 30 years now of gay-propoganda saying it is acceptable no matter how un-natural it is. I will keep mainaining my point of, "if it is such an acceptable behavior, why do gays insist they are not responsible for it because it is "who they are?" This excuse-making behavior shows they know homosexuality is wrong.
So it's wrong because it's "unnatural" or it's wrong because gays don't take "responsibility" for how they were born? Make up your mind.
Now, assuming it is "unnatural," how does it hurt you?
Quote:Serial Killers say "they have feelings to kill" yet no one accepts that excuse. Before you reply on that part, I realize homosexuality isn't murder, but I'm not advocating the death penalty for homosexual behavior, either.
You owe every homosexual member of this board an apology for making that statement, your lame disclaimer to the contrary notwithstanding. And I, for one, will have nothing further to do with you until you until you apologize.
Homosexuals don't violate other people's rights by being gay or lesbian. They do NOT hurt other people in any way by practicing sex within their own gender. you should be ashamed of yourself for saying murder and homosexuality are morally equivalent in any way.
Nareed, if you don't mind, I'd like to use your postings here as an example of why I think some things matter, and some don't.
Let me ask; whose opinion, or mental picture, of Nareed has changed since he wrote that he was transsexual? I only know Nareed by what he writes, how he thinks, and how he chooses to express himself. My opinion of him is formed by my interaction with his mind; not with his body, his voice, his mannerisms, or any of those things which might make me less focused on Nareed's thoughts.
Is Nareed his thoughts? Or is Nareed the whole? Should we filter Nareed, and who he is in flesh, with his mannerisms, appearance, voice, accent, and all of that, through our own prejudices and preconceived notions of what all those mean?
My contention is that filtering a person through all of those things prevent us from knowing and enjoying the company of interesting and diverse people. Nareed represents no threat to me. I may or may not like him, either through his posts or if we'd met face to face, but I judge that through how he thinks, who he is in relation to and value to the world, not through how his appearance to my eyes might cloud my assessment of that value.
And once I break that wall, the wall created by what I think I'm supposed to think, created by feelings based on those thoughts, I'm free to accept a person for who that person is and how that person thinks. Just like how I can do it on the internet.
Now, think for a moment about how this applies to... oh, I don't know, let's pick Jerry Logan, for example. If I meet Jerry Logan, my senses might deceive me. I might find him rough, but charming. I might think, because he smiles and jokes, because he looks like me, because we share the same skin color, and because his sexuality and mine are the same, he and I might be able to have fun together, maybe playing some VP and talking about it afterward. But guess what. I know who he really is. I know his thoughts, I know his feelings, I know how he chooses to express himself and what he wants others to think about him. (I don't believe for a second that he doesn't care. If he didn't care, he wouldn't post.) And again, the wall of perception is bypassed, and I get to decide the value of knowing Jerry Logan without having it filtered through my eyes and ears.
My point being: screw all that other stuff, about gay and not gay and god and not god and everything else. People are people. Each deserves all the courtesy and all the consideration I have available to give, in assessing their value and worth to society, and to me and for my friendship (I don't have to like everyone, or anyone for that matter.) And therefore, in turn, each deserves the right to live and love in conjunction with other consenting adults, the only concession to biology and society that I believe is valid. Because their value isn't in their appearance, or mannerisms, or what they believe about divinities, or who they want to push private parts against. Their value is in their thoughts, and the value of their contributions to the world.
So, if anyone can construct a "god" argument that this is not right, based on anything that is not from an old book of "God says NO!", I'd like to see it. Because I kind of think I'm on the right track with my thinking on this one.
Quote: Nareed
You owe every homosexual member of this board an apology for making that statement, your lame disclaimer to the contrary notwithstanding. And I, for one, will have nothing further to do with you until you until you apologize.
Homosexuals don't violate other people's rights by being gay or lesbian. They do NOT hurt other people in any way by practicing sex within their own gender. you should be ashamed of yourself for saying murder and homosexuality are morally equivalent in any way.
I didn't say anything about them being morally equivalent. I said both say they have feelings to do something and both blame those feelings when they act on them. I feel no need to apologize for making an analogy.
Apologies should come from gays who slur me and others with the deragutory term "homophobic" because we find their lifestyle wrong and are tired of hearing celebrations of the gay lifestyle everywhere you look.
Quote: AZDuffmanI didn't say anything about them being morally equivalent.
When you make an analogy on actions based on feelings, you're assuming a moral equivalency whether you later deny it or not.
Quote: NareedWhen you make an analogy on actions based on feelings, you're assuming a moral equivalency whether you later deny it or not.
I guess if you know better than the poster what that poster meant, there isn't a lot of room for discussion.
Quote: CalderI guess if you know better than the poster what that poster meant, there isn't a lot of room for discussion.
No, that's not the case. and I apologize for giving that impression.
What I mean is that an analogy saying "Both X and Y act on their feelings, but we don't excuse X for doing so," assumes a moral equivalence between X and Y. Regardless of whether such feelings are rational or not in either case.
If I were to say, "Well, rapists say they want to have straight sex," I'd be establishing consnsual sex bewteen a man and a woman as equivalent to rape in the moral realm. That would be wrong because the premises on both actions are vastly different.
Comparisons only work with equivalent subjects. When the subjects are inequivalent, the comparison is not valid at all; the famous "apples and oranges" dictum.
Here's another one: "Gay men and artists both claim to act on their feelings, but we don't condemn artists for doing so." That's also wrong, because gays don't create anything by having sex, while artists engage in a creative process both intellectually challenging and of great potential value. There is no moral equivalence between having sex and creating a work of art. Both actions may be moral, but their moral worth does not compare.
That's what I said.
Quote: MoscaLet me ask; whose opinion, or mental picture, of Nareed has changed since he wrote that he was transsexual?
Actually, the pronoun you should use is "she." But then I haven't made a real formal anouncement.
Quote:And once I break that wall, the wall created by what I think I'm supposed to think, created by feelings based on those thoughts, I'm free to accept a person for who that person is and how that person thinks. Just like how I can do it on the internet.
[..]
Quote:My point being: screw all that other stuff, about gay and not gay and god and not god and everything else. People are people. Each deserves all the courtesy and all the consideration I have available to give, in assessing their value and worth to society, and to me and for my friendship (I don't have to like everyone, or anyone for that matter.) And therefore, in turn, each deserves the right to live and love in conjunction with other consenting adults, the only concession to biology and society that I believe is valid. Because their value isn't in their appearance, or mannerisms, or what they believe about divinities, or who they want to push private parts against. Their value is in their thoughts, and the value of their contributions to the world.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but your position seems to be rather close to my own. Namely that all people are individuals and should be judged individually. But also that one shoulnd't substitute prejudice for tought. And that the essential aspects of any person, especially as regards relationships, are what that person says and does and how that affects you.
This is hugely oversimplified because I'm supposed to be working on the stack of papers next to my computer. If you like to discuss this further feel free to start a new thread. Double-hijacking would be too bad ;)
Quote: NareedActually, the pronoun you should use is "she." But then I haven't made a real formal anouncement.
I had to pick one, and I thought about it, and went with the one that had already been defined within the forum, declared status notwithstanding. Based on how I read you through what you've written, I knew you'd understand. I'll use "she" heretoforth, gladly (pun intended).
Quote: MoscaBased on how I read you through what you've written, I knew you'd understand. I'll use "she" heretoforth, gladly (pun intended).
Oh, I understand. besides, as I said there's no formal anouncement or request yet (though I dind't say request before). In any case, thank you.
What I don't see is the pun.
Quote: AZDuffmanjust like you choose to be gay.
So Mozart just 'chose' to be a child prodigy? Shirley Temple just chose to be a natural child actor? (the people who worked with her said they never a kid with so much raw talent and who learned so quickly) I could go on and on. Some people are born a certain way, you can't get around it.
Quote: Nareed
What I don't see is the pun.
GLAD. I know you're not gay. It's a lame pun.
Quote: MoscaGLAD. I know you're not gay. It's a lame pun.
Didn't Isaac Asimov, who loved puns, pretty much say all puns are lame by definition? In any case, you should have written "GLADly," if only just to give me an even chance of spotting it ;)
BTW Here's Asimov's best pun:
Three brothers set up a cattle ranch and ask their father to name it.
He names it "Focus," explaining that's where the sun's rays meet.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to "what made you decide to be straight" you don't have to decide, it is the natural process of life. Same as leaving a place-bet up after a win. You have to choose to takle it down, just like you choose to be gay.
My late grandmother, may she rest in peace, was born left-handed in the early 1900s. Back then, the conventional wisdom was that left-handedness was to be corrected. She was forced, against her nature, to write right-handed and was beaten with a ruler across the knuckles when she strayed into that which was most comfortable to her.
Today the conventional wisdom is that left-handed people are neither better nor worse than right-handed people, and there is no longer any call to "fix" them. It is now universally recognized that handedness is merely a trait of birth, and that one expression of this trait, right-handedness, is merely more prevalent than the other. It took society a long time to realize this for handedness, and it took even longer (indeed, it's still happening) for skin pigmentation. At some point in the future, society will have realized it for sexual preference too. Just, perhaps, not while the biases of men long dead still hold sway over the minds of the living.
Quote: MathExtremistAt some point in the future, society will have realized it for sexual preference too.
More than likely its a gene thing, when its proved everybody will say "I knew that." Our sexual predjudices run so deep that even if you research it even a little, its appalling. You can lay every bit of it at the door of male dominated organized religion.
Quote: NareedDidn't Isaac Asimov, who loved puns, pretty much say all puns are lame by definition? In any case, you should have written "GLADly," if only just to give me an even chance of spotting it ;)
BTW Here's Asimov's best pun:
Three brothers set up a cattle ranch and ask their father to name it.
He names it "Focus," explaining that's where the sun's rays meet.
Oh, GROAN. It took me about 5 re-readings.
Quote: MathExtremistMy late grandmother, may she rest in peace, was born left-handed in the early 1900s. Back then, the conventional wisdom was that left-handedness was to be corrected. She was forced, against her nature, to write right-handed and was beaten with a ruler across the knuckles when she strayed into that which was most comfortable to her.
I had forgotten about this until now. But yeah, interesting comparison.
It's ironic, that in insisting people change sexual preference is likely the actual unnatural act.
