|
An Anti-Gay Debate (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Back to defining terms... who is condemning? Man condemns because man fears anything outside of what they consider to be acceptable, acceptability defined by societal norms or accepted standards of behaviour. |
But "social norms or accepted standards of behaviour" are either the direct result of specific religious hegemonies or belief systems transmitted from person to person in the exact same way that religion is. Of course man publicly condemns things which are bizarre and "unnatural" to him: religion helps him maintain the things he knows and is familiar with all the while villifying those things which are strange to him. It is the taboos that religion hinges upon that have made its mode of thought so incredibly resilient, so incredibly virulent. It's a common enough notion that religion is merely there to control people through fear, but this is not quite true; No, it is out of fear that religion is there in the first place - fear is what keeps religion in check.
But that's of course not to say that this is all there is to religion or anything. I don't have the patience to go down that path with you.
| quote: | | I have to disagree; love is natural and necessary in order to foster the relationships required for our young to survive childhood and for our species (which is terribly evolved for survival alone without technological advantage) to survive until we reached a level of technology sufficient to make up for our other deficiencies. |
Is that all there is to love though? I know you would answer that there is more, but can sympathy for one's young truly be considered an amorous or even spiritual sort of love, or is it merely hard-wired survival efficiency at its most deceptive (and thus most safe, if the resilience of taboos is so intrinsic to our survivability)?
I don't believe that man's history knows a time without taboos and thus religious practices of some sort. As such, it is impossible to sift through what is truly religious and what isn't, but universal taboos imparted upon us by moral engineers keep telling man what to do and, more important for surviving within the superorganism that is society, what not to do. If mankind is seperate from animalkind, then it must be out of taboo - out of the near-universal boundaries we have set for behaviour and of acting out of base instincts (at least in public). Taboo is Tantalus' grapes. It is what we want most but cannot have. I think this is about as technologically advanced as we shall ever become. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| In addition, all of the examples in the bible that are against homosexuality are clearly just metaphors for how God loves chocolate chip cookies. I mean, that's how I interpret them, it's what I believe and have faith in, so how could it possibly be incorrect? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ania_xox
If your girl made out/ed around with another girl, would you consider it the same thing? Is it not as bad? Just as bad? Worse? |
You know, there are two sides to it. Instinctively, the first distinction I could make between homosexual and heterosexual infidelity, concerning straight guys, was the following:
- Every member of the opposite sex has the potential to be a mate, as long as she fits my standards;
- My actual mate's other-mate can be a potential mate;
- If this other-mate is a member of the opposite sex, and is my actual mate's mate, odds are she can be my actual mate as well. My relationship is not threatened, and I can have 2 for the price of one - so far, so good;
- The problem that many guys seem to ignore, or that instinct doesn't bring up quite as quickly, is the fact that not only this other-mate may not be interested in you (even if you're a potential partner), but it may not even see you as a potential partner at all, thus leading to the scenario below:
- However, if the other-mate is a member of the same sex, and I've got him ruled out by default (or a member of the opposite sex that has ME ruled out by default), some tension inevitably builds up and I can lose my actual mate to this other-mate. 2 guys, 1 girl, and it's a zero-sum game;
- Therefore, if the other-mate is a girl, I'm bound to get lucky. If the other-mate is a guy, I'm automatically in trouble.
As you can see, unless you dig deep enough (reason why I reasoned using HTML lists), having a bisexual girl is awesome. That's why it's hard to see at first why they're both almost equally bad scenarios. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
But "social norms or accepted standards of behaviour" are either the direct result of specific religious hegemonies or belief systems transmitted from person to person in the exact same way that religion is. |
I think you are showing the bias of having come from a society that has its roots in the Abarhamic traditions. There are no religious based taboos regarding homosexuality supported in the Vedas yet there are social taboos against homosexuality amongst Indo-Hindu peoples. There is no evidence to suggest any of the woodland north american aboriginal peoples had any religious basis for taboos against homosexuality yet they existed. While I commend you on your deductive reasoning I don't believe it is backed up by evidence. I think you actually have it backwards... I would contend that taboos against things such as homosexuality, incest, cannibalism, etc. likely existed in most societies prior to the evolution of the great faiths and these pre-existing taboos were transposed onto the newly developed religions. Of course all of this rests on the position that taboos and religion are not one in the same, which I imagine we would argue over.
| quote: | | Is that all there is to love though? I know you would answer that there is more, but can sympathy for one's young truly be considered an amorous or even spiritual sort of love, or is it merely hard-wired survival efficiency at its most deceptive (and thus most safe, if the resilience of taboos is so intrinsic to our survivability)? |
Indeed, I believe there is more to love; however, I was taking a strictly utilitarian view as to try and remove all religious contentions surrounding love, as I do not view them as being particularly relevant to a discussion on whether or not love is natural. I argue it is natural because emotional attachment is necessary for our survival as a species thus this attachment is an evolutionary advantage born from an evolutionary process thus natural. We are hard wired to love; it does not go against our nature. |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| quote: | Originally posted by L.E.N.
This is why Im not religous and live guilt free. |
+1 |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think you are showing the bias of having come from a society that has its roots in the Abarhamic traditions. There are no religious based taboos regarding homosexuality supported in the Vedas yet there are social taboos against homosexuality amongst Indo-Hindu peoples. There is no evidence to suggest any of the woodland north american aboriginal peoples had any religious basis for taboos against homosexuality yet they existed. |
If there are no taboos regarding homosexuality in a specific religion, then it's clearly not the religion I would be referring to. I did specify Christianity before, which most certainly has established taboos on homosexuality, but I did not mean to imply that Christianity was the only religion with something against gays, nor that taboos were the only possible explanation for the irrational behaviour that people display when confronted with the topic. But taboos are how ignorance breeds, memes are the legs they get around on - and yes, I think we would probably dispute whether religion is a complex of taboos or not... But I would still be interested in knowing what you have to say about it, if you think that it is something else entirely.
| quote: | | While I commend you on your deductive reasoning I don't believe it is backed up by evidence. I think you actually have it backwards... I would contend that taboos against things such as homosexuality, incest, cannibalism, etc. likely existed in most societies prior to the evolution of the great faiths and these pre-existing taboos were transposed onto the newly developed religions. Of course all of this rests on the position that taboos and religion are not one in the same, which I imagine we would argue over. |
I would agree with that though... I believe that taboos came first as a way to suppress - primarily sexual - behaviour in an effort to curb violence on a social level. Religion may have arisen dogmatically seperate from this, but with taboos already in place, it would be remarkably simple to fabricate any belief system you like given the via negativa of "sin".
| quote: | | Indeed, I believe there is more to love; however, I was taking a strictly utilitarian view as to try and remove all religious contentions surrounding love, as I do not view them as being particularly relevant to a discussion on whether or not love is natural. I argue it is natural because emotional attachment is necessary for our survival as a species thus this attachment is an evolutionary advantage born from an evolutionary process thus natural. We are hard wired to love; it does not go against our nature. |
We are hard-wired for some things, but love is something I doubt. I very much agree that we have developed sensitivites to both our young and our potential mates and that this delicacy is quite beneficial on a competitive biological level, but can love be reduced to mere emotional attachment? I do not underestimate emotional attachment, but I do not think it's really "love" under the same condition that I would say I "love" something and most certainly not under the same condition in which you "love" your God.
If taboos are a seemingly natural inclination, which I hold, to curb natural behaviour, then it follows that it is human nature to both embrace as well as often deny those things which come most naturally to us. It is the function that a taboo serves.
Love, to me, is a contradiction to this, in that it is an unnatural liberation of the things which bind our behaviour. It's freedom and peril and treachery as well as compassion disconnected from the competitive imperative which guides the majority of supposedley altruistic endeavors. Perhaps it is possible that love is "natural" in that it is possible for everybody, but I am quite sceptical of this. Yet still, I am not denying that love exists in our world, if at least in short intervals. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
But taboos are how ignorance breeds, memes are the legs they get around on - and yes, I think we would probably dispute whether religion is a complex of taboos or not... But I would still be interested in knowing what you have to say about it, if you think that it is something else entirely. |
I think one would be taking an exceedingly simplistic view of any religion to reduce it to a series of taboos. I will admit that there is great overlap and things that were taboo independent of a religion often become taboo within that religion and other things that are contrary to the prescribed path to a good and righteous life within a given religion will often become taboos as well; however, all the great faiths endeavor to teach a moral code based on things that should be done as opposed to things that should not be done (with the exception of Judaism under which morality is equally defined by what one should not due as by what one should do). Thus I would argue that the foundation of religious observance is in the positive rather then the negative, which is to say in the recommended activities rather then the prohibited. I think societies and individuals adopt taboos because it is easier to have a hard and fast list of things one ought not do rather then a nebulous description of what one ought to do.
| quote: | | I would agree with that though... I believe that taboos came first as a way to suppress - primarily sexual - behaviour in an effort to curb violence on a social level. Religion may have arisen dogmatically seperate from this, but with taboos already in place, it would be remarkably simple to fabricate any belief system you like given the via negativa of "sin". |
There are many taboos that have little to do with sex; however, I will agree that taboos were developed to control behaviour. I would contend that most taboos addressed a very important need during the time in which they developed, beyond curbing violence. For example; the taboo against homosexuality is ancient, it has been present since the time of very small bands of humans living in isolated groups with high mortality rates. Given this social reality it is makes sense that these isolated populations would have a need to increase their population in order to improve the chances of their band surviving. If increased numbers are needed then procreation is the easiest way to reach that goal... homosexual acts cannot result in procreation but do satisfy sexual urges... thus they are contrary to this goal. In order to curb these acts social pressure was brought to bear. Perhaps adultery as a taboo would be a good example of a sexual taboo that developed over a need to put an end to jealousy over sexual partners resulting in violence.
| quote: | | We are hard-wired for some things, but love is something I doubt. I very much agree that we have developed sensitivites to both our young and our potential mates and that this delicacy is quite beneficial on a competitive biological level, but can love be reduced to mere emotional attachment? I do not underestimate emotional attachment, but I do not think it's really "love" under the same condition that I would say I "love" something and most certainly not under the same condition in which you "love" your God. |
The difference in our positions seems to be rooted largely in the fact that love is poorly defined.
If taboos are a seemingly natural inclination, which I hold, to curb natural behaviour, then it follows that it is human nature to both embrace as well as often deny those things which come most naturally to us. It is the function that a taboo serves.
| quote: | | Love, to me, is a contradiction to this, in that it is an unnatural liberation of the things which bind our behaviour. It's freedom and peril and treachery as well as compassion disconnected from the competitive imperative which guides the majority of supposedley altruistic endeavors. Perhaps it is possible that love is "natural" in that it is possible for everybody, but I am quite sceptical of this. Yet still, I am not denying that love exists in our world, if at least in short intervals. |
Maybe it's your definition of natural and unnatural that's throwing me off here. It seems you believe taboos to be entirely natural whereas love is unnatural in that is stands (often) in contradiction to taboos. I would argue that love is an innate emotion and therefore natural whereas taboos are a response to a societal problem (most of which have outlived their usefulness incidentally) and are therefore social constructs, which make them unnatural. |
|
|
| st3nc |
| wow so much reading in these threadddd |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by st3nc
wow so much reading in these threadddd |
sorry... I'll do my next post by charade. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
sorry... I'll do my next post by charade. |
Does God frown upon lesbianism even when they're both hot? |
|
|
| Xan_2v2 |
| quote: | Originally posted by boris_the_bear
is homosexuality natural? - NO
|
homosexuality occurs in hundreds of species, the theory is that the genes that might make offspring gay also improve the prospects of the siblings who are straight, genes dont just perform one function, say a gene increases the chance of being gay but also improves fertility all that would be necesarry is for the increase in number of offspring to outweigh the ones that are gay.
2 always straight offspring
2
2 2
22 22
22 22 22 22
16 straight offspring
3 offspring 1 is gay
3
33*
33* 33*
33* 33* 33* 33*
24 straight offspring & 4 gay
oversimplified but the principal is the same & it could be genes for fertility, immunity, intelligence ,social interaction(you know the sterotype of gay guys being able to get on with girls, well maybe his straight brother might find talking to girls easy aswell) & those genes either remian since they cause 0 negative effects or with a positive effect they proagate (look at the family/species not the individuals, its about the bigger picture)
tl:dr its is natural, turning water into wine is unnatural.
now heres some fun bible qoutes probably taken out of context
And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. -- Leviticus 26:29
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters. -- Deuteronomy 28:53
And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend. -- Jeremiah 19:9
im feeling hungry --Me 01:01 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Does God frown upon lesbianism even when they're both hot? |
okay, I acted out my reply... did you get it? |
|
|
|
|
