Homophobia, or Justified ignorance

[Jetsetlemming]

I'm sympathetic to the anti-abortion crowd (I hatehatehatehate pro-life and pro-choice. Pro life of dependant cells? Pro choice to murder?), but refuse to actually choose a side because a whole lot of people have reactions like Lulujayne's: anger.
Anyway, a fetus is a life of a sort, it's it's own seperate organism with it's own circulation and functioning brain, and will one day be a full human, and killing a human is very wrong.... But like I said: I refuse to go with anyone on the issue. At this point, I don't care if you get an abortion as long as I don't have to hear about it. >.>

[Fnyunj]

Abortion:
I've had my share of spirited debate on this topic. There's generally two kinds of anti-abortion folks. The first type - if you discuss it with them, and boil it down, you usually get them to a point where they'll admit that it's all about "behavior has consequences" - which is really code for "keep da wimmin in da kitchen".

The other kind (me) - has a genuine concern for the unborn. For me, it came from feeling my offspring moving in their mother's womb through her belly. The feeling that, at some point, that lump of cells transitions from being "tissue" to "a person". And science does not know, just yet, where that happens during the development process, with a sharp enough distinction to define abortion at X as "a medical procedure" and abortion at X+1 as "murder". There are difficult consequences, for the offspring, for the mother, for the father, on EITHER side of X. Whether the circumstances threaten the mother's life, or simply her lifestyle. So most folks tend to have rationalizations one way or another, because it's wiser to err on the side of caution, right?

If you go by scripture for guidance, you're really fucked, because there's scripture that seems to indicate that the child is not human until it's OUT and takes it's first breath. Then there's scripture that indicates that the child is human at the beginning of time, when God first imagined it. Then there's scripture that indicates that causing a woman to miscarry is a crime that is roughly equivalent to shoving someone. (nowhere near that of murder).

So what is the consequence of "mudering" a fetus? To an atheist, there is no consequence. It's just tissue, and another lump of tissue will come along following more sex, or surgical procedure, if a child is desired. To a fundamentalist, the consequences are violating God's will, not just the prohibition against murder, but also the prohibition against sexual immorality (ie. having sex for reasons other than procreation). To an agnostic, the consequence is angst. Because an agnostic does not KNOW what the consequences are, and will generally try to do what he/she thinks is right, weighing factors they know. But that's for personal feelings. What's the consequence of LETTING OTHER PEOPLE get abortions? You'll get all kinds of angsty answers about "what kind of society are we living in?" or "I have to protect THAT baby, even if his mother won't" - - - sigh. What kind of society ARE we living in?

I don't like abortions. I'm not going to get one.

When/if I ever have to make this gut-wrenching choice for my daughter, I suppose I'm going to have to think a lot harder on it. Maybe the fact that it IS gut wrenching, is a good sign.


Teh Gay:
There are some controversial studies that show structural differences in the brains of gays (as well as activation patterns on brain scans - WRT which structures are active during arousal and attraction) - and there ARE physiological differences. Though that doesn't establish cause-effect. Correlation is not causation. And to my knowledge, they have not identified a "gay gene" (yet).

The troublesome bit about this line is that, some gay activists actually oppose this kind of research, because one day it may lead to a "cure". Even though it would win them the argument against the fundamentalists, that it's not a "choice". Well, in any case, the fundies have already gone there, with special "camps" that they send you to to cure you of gayness. (fun fact: the two male founders of the first such camp fell in love and ran off together).

So the argument is not really whether it's a moral choice to BE gay, or to partake in gay sex.

The argument is: does any one of us have a RIGHT, to tell someone else how to live their lives (if it doesn't harm anyone)? Which leads to the question: define "harm". Am I responsible for my brother's immortal soul? (most Christians will tell you; Scripture says yes). Well gee - then maybe I should also make it my business to check on what my brother is thinking, who he votes for, what he reads, what tv shows he watches, etc.

Well, I have no such RIGHT. And in offering to protect my brother from harming himself, there are limits in what I can do. Arguing that letting two gay men get married and live together and walk hand-in-hand down the street DOES harm others (cuz it might turn OTHER people gay, see?) is about the closest thing to a legitimate concern there is in this particular horse-race.

So now you have to experiment with human beings to find out whether this really does cause harm to society. Well, happily, there are people that have already volunteered for this noble experiment. Look at all the other fine places in the world where gay marriage is permitted. Is society harmed? Are hetero marriages disintigrating? Are children, en masse, turning gay? Two gay guys (or girls) should have at least the same rights as Pam Anderson and Kid Rock.

[Schwalker]

Does anyone have a "right" to anything or is it simply that all of us are given what everone else got..a life?

A tiny bacteria might survive for just minutes while an oak might last för several centuries but they both got a life.
So in a way the question about morals and human rights are insignificant..Because whatever your point of view everyone will face death att some point.

So this gives us the old question, do we have a choice? Do we have to do specific things? Think specific thoughts?...And if we don´t, does anyone notice the difference?
All cultures "mold" their citizens in certain ways and thus morals are created.
Don´t care to much about morals or common values as they will differ from spot to spot.
Just try to live a strong and happy life that fills you with a certain satisfaction...That is my advice which you might disregard as you please..

[WangyJohn]

My stance is, that whilst contraseptives is a better alternative, abortion should remain an option for those in need.

On the end, you can theorise about the fetuses brains and nerves for as long as you want, but the fact is, that earth has enough trouble supporting the current 6 billion two legged locust.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

So what is the consequence of "mudering" a fetus? To an atheist, there is no consequence.

This statement bothers me simply because you're stating that all athiests are pro-abortion.

On the whole "homosexuality is a choice" debate, my general response is that if homosexuality was just a choice than suicide would not be the leading cause of death among young homosexuals. They could just make a different choice.

[Katjapurrs]

(By the way KatjaPurrs, I can't wait to see you here in the Mango either!!! I've got bags of grapes and chocolate awaiting your stay )

Wooohoooo! *bounces up and down!*Chocolate!*Grapes!*Lulu!*18 days!*GASP!*passes out with a smirk*

<<Original Post>>

My... you really surprise me SZ... congratulations on an elegant, honest and insightful post! I'm sorry to hear your childhood wasn't all it was supposed to be, neither was mine. my (single) mother and later (secret pervy tranny chaser guy) stepfather "devout [ed. "sick, twisted, spiteful, self-righteous hate-mongers"] christians" managed to retard my personal development by quite a few years, effectively by crushing my spirit (among other things)...eventually you make it though...

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my dreams, pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind, all they are is dust in the wind.
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do, crumbles to the ground, though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind, all we are is dust in the wind

[Swordsman3003]

I don't have time to talk about these two issues right now. But I'll be back. With weapons!

[Harper128]

Heh, two highly controversial issues...what fun to play with.

Lets start with abortion, shall we? Personally, I am against the pro-choice/pro-life groups. They're both chock full of extremist, more holy-than-thou, narrow-minded, self-centered assholes, which are the ones that we most often hear from and about. They also include many people who are not so extreme, but are often much less vocal about it. They both label themselves so that they will be seen in the best possible light (just look at their names) and choose to take only the data which supports their viewpoint, ignoring any information which may be adverse to their cause.

Is abortion wrong? Perhaps, what are the alternatives, and have all alternatives been adequetely explored? Can the parent(s) support the child properly? Are there complications which may endanger the mother? Could the child, if the parents are unwilling or unable to support it, be adopted by another couple? etc... Ultimately, whether abortion is wrong or not is between the woman (or couple) and God.

On to Homosexuality.

Just because I wanted a common reference, I looked at dictionary.com for a definition of the word. While there were some definitions which stated that it was sexual activity with a person of the same sex, most of them stated that it was sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. One even stated that it was erotic activity with a person of the same sex. Now, the bounds of what erotic is and is not strech very far, as far as I can tell, so we'll leave that one out for now.

So, let us first assume that homosexuality is a sexual attraction for persons of the same sex. We shall also assume that it is a continued attraction for persons of the same sex because it has been concluded from studies that everyone has some type of homoerotic fantisies at some stage in their life, and if that were the only guideline we would all be homosexual, or at least bi. We'll also assume that the attraction is for more than one person (there may be that one person in the world that you're attracted to even though they are of the same sex as yourself and you're straight.)

So, homosexuality is a continued sexual attraction for persons of the same sex over a broad spectrum of individuals. That is our first definition of what homosexuality is, everyone with me so far? I'm not defining what causes this, be it genetic, environmental or whatnot, just what the word means.

So, is it wrong or right? Well, I would suppose it depends upon the person and their religious beliefs.

If we first focus on Christians, then, it will depend upon if you act upon these attractions or not. If you can resist the temptation to act upon such feelings, then it is not wrong. Just as it is not wrong to want to engage in pre-marital sex, but it is wrong to do so. Although you are suposed to try to avoid wanting to engage in such acts as well. As well, many other religions hold such beliefs, although I am not familiar enough with them to point out specific scriptures to support it.

If anyone would care to point out the viewpoints of Taoists, Buddists, or any other belief systems, I would love to hear them.

As well, if you are in support of evolution, it would be wrong. As evolutionists point out, our whole drive is focused towards procreation and passing along our genes. Homosexuallity is a bit of a dead-end in that respect, is it not? Therefore, if you would rather engage in recreational sexual activites with someone of the same sex which will prevent you from passing along your genes, you must be flawed. Sounds resonable, does it not? (Personally, I have problems with evolutionists, but that's another argument for another day)

As to my own, personal views. I'm against abortion, for the most part, but can understand the need for it. As well, I believe that homosexuality is a choice, and is wrong because of my religious beliefs, which, oddly enough, puts me at odds with the curch that I grew up in.

However, I also believe that if you don't try and shove your pro-choice/pro-life views or homosexuality in my face or force me to "accept" your opions as the "correct" ones, then I have no right to force mine upon you. I'll have to deal with the consequences of my actions eventually and so will you.

On to messing with the comments from a few other posts: (heh)

From warmachine:

And if anyone says homosexuality should be banned because the bible, or other holy book, says so, they should be repeatedly hit with a clue by 4 and asked why homosexuality is harmful. Any claim that their god says so is unacceptable as it is either deceitful or willful ignorance to claim wisdom without knowledge and understanding. The world needs more love and understanding.

Way to discredit one empherical force and support another. After all, you're telling me that my belief system is WRONG because it says that something is bad, but love is "right". Don't forget that love can be expressed in many different ways, not just in a sexual manner. I love my brother, but I have no intentions on bedding him. And, while I may agree that more love and understanding is needed in the world, I do disagree with how that love should be expressed.

As well, physically harmful and spiritually harmful are two entirely different subjects, and to attempt to remove God (and a persons belief system) from a discussion of how something is spiritually harmful is like removing the motor from someones car and expecting them to be able to drive away.

From JohnnyTwoEyes

On the whole "homosexuality is a choice" debate, my general response is that if homosexuality was just a choice than suicide would not be the leading cause of death among young homosexuals. They could just make a different choice.

Suicide is also a choice, a very poor one in my opinion, but a choice nonetheless. As well, if homosexuality were not a choice, there would be very few men who returned to a hetrosexual lifestyle. However, studies have shown that the majority of men who live a homosexual lifestyle return to a hetrosexual lifestyle later. I did, however, only hear about these studies, I have not examined the results myself and they may have been skewed by the persons who made the study (I try to take all studies of such types with a grain of salt, sometimes a shaker), if I can find the information, I will attempt to post a link to it.

To Spiral Zer0:

I said abortion is murder, you took my statement and put words in my mouth.

I don't want to argue so I'll just say again, please listen to what I have to say before snapping at me.

also try to understand where I'm coming from as well if that helps.

it never hurts to ask =P

Squidflakes had every right to be indignant about your Abortion is Murder statement. That was all you said, a very strong opinion with no qualifiers listed. Had you posted your thoughts further, there may have been more debate instead of anger. I would hope that you think about the fact that there are people who believe that abortion is murder, no matter the circumstances. People who would rather see the mother and child both die in childbirth, believing that it is "God's will" than see a fetus aborted, even though the child will not survive birth and the mother will most likely die as well.

I have go wander off to a team meeting for a class, I may post more rambling later though, you have been warned.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

From JohnnyTwoEyes

On the whole "homosexuality is a choice" debate, my general response is that if homosexuality was just a choice than suicide would not be the leading cause of death among young homosexuals. They could just make a different choice.

Suicide is also a choice, a very poor one in my opinion, but a choice nonetheless. As well, if homosexuality were not a choice, there would be very few men who returned to a hetrosexual lifestyle. However, studies have shown that the majority of men who live a homosexual lifestyle return to a hetrosexual lifestyle later. I did, however, only hear about these studies, I have not examined the results myself and they may have been skewed by the persons who made the study (I try to take all studies of such types with a grain of salt, sometimes a shaker), if I can find the information, I will attempt to post a link to it.

I have never heard of that study and it seems contradictory to many studies that i have read. And yes, suicide is a choice. However, it is NOT an easy choice to make. If homosexuality was purely a choice then I think far more people would choose to be homosexual instead of choosing to kill themselves.

I'm sure that a portion of sexual orientation is choice, almost everything is. However, saying that it is entirely a choice is a gross oversimplification. Few things in life are that simple.

[Warmachine]

Way to discredit one empherical force and support another. After all, you're telling me that my belief system is WRONG because it says that something is bad, but love is "right". Don't forget that love can be expressed in many different ways, not just in a sexual manner. I love my brother, but I have no intentions on bedding him. And, while I may agree that more love and understanding is needed in the world, I do disagree with how that love should be expressed.

As well, physically harmful and spiritually harmful are two entirely different subjects, and to attempt to remove God (and a persons belief system) from a discussion of how something is spiritually harmful is like removing the motor from someones car and expecting them to be able to drive away.

I am saying a belief system is wrong if it cannot explain why it considers something harmful. If I claimed reading Ghastly's comics should be a criminal offence, I would be wrong because I failed to explain why it's harmful. Assuming you're talking about the christian god, he creates humans with the capacity for reasoning and moral judgement and expects us to follow his commands without using our reasoning or moral judgement? I don't think so. Even if this is correct, I'm going to use my reasoning and consider anyone who refuses to explain their commandments as tyrants. I stopped believing my parents were right merely because they said so at the age of ten. If homosexuality should be banned, why?

What does expressing the love of your brother have to do with homosexuals expressing their love? My statement about encouragement of expression of sexuality was describing 'a form of love', specifically homosexuality, not love in general.

As for spiritual harm without the christian god, there are many belief systems that don't involve the christian god and some that have no divine powers at all, such as humanism. To not discuss the christian god is like discussing a car without referring to a particular engine model. Indeed, as people make their own decisions and moral philosophy, each person could be said to have their own engine. Discussing spiritual harm is like discussing an engine and it's design without referring to the design engineer himself. Take away the design engineer and a person can use and maintain his own engine and consult maintenance engineers if need be. After all, a car owner may decide that the manufacturer is a problem, avoid them and his recommended maintenance engineers and use other engineers who better suit his needs.

[BriHahn]

My personal mantra regarding homosexuality is best summed up by the Wiccan rede: "An it harm none, do as ye will."

I believe that homosexuality is engendered in an individual by numerous factors; environment, genetics, background, race, religion, etc. Each of them plays a very small part in determining someone's predisposition to being homosexual, but it does, to my way of thinking, come down to someone CHOOSING to acknowledge that those factors have had that effect on them. I have no personal issue with homosexuality; I have had gay friends in the past and more than likely will in the future. Heck, my dad discovered later in life that he was gay. Overall, I'm of the opinion that, so long as it is causing me no physical or mental harm, I am perfectly okay with it.

As to abortion... well, there I gotta agree with Lulujayne. There are countless factors one has to take into account when considering an abortion; financial, social, cultural, religious, population size (I throw that in there because we're overpopulating the planet as it is). The choice has to be INDIVIDUAL though; there should not be some overarching law dictating to a woman how her body is used. If we create a law like that, eventually it will lead to a law coming into being that says men who populate the earth indiscriminately should be sterilized for life. That's a drastic argument, mind you; not one I actually think would be enacted. The point being that once we start telling people what they should do with THEIR bodies, the less freedom we have.

Would I ever have an abortion? I couldn't say. But I would want the option available in the event that I cannot raise the child myself and for some reason cannot carry the child to term and offer it for adoption.

My two cents.

[Indigo Violent]

As well, if you are in support of evolution, it would be wrong. As evolutionists point out, our whole drive is focused towards procreation and passing along our genes. Homosexuallity is a bit of a dead-end in that respect, is it not? Therefore, if you would rather engage in recreational sexual activites with someone of the same sex which will prevent you from passing along your genes, you must be flawed. Sounds resonable, does it not?

You are so many kinds of wrong it's not even funny. Evolution is not a moral theory, it's a scientific one - it describes the world as it is, not as it should be. Claiming that accepting evolution means believing the moral thing to do is passing on one's genes is tantamount to saying that accepting the theory of universal gravitation means you should push people off tall buildings.

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

There are a lot of scientific studies showing that homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom and does in fact serve a purpose in maintaining unity among groups. One group of primate comes to mind (If I can remember the name I will edit it) where the males lead a solitary life and the females live in groups. The females engage in homosexual activity which prevents infighting among the group during breeding season (when the females greatly outnumber the males).

There are advantages from a biological standpoint to homosexual behavior for survival of the group. Granted that this behavior tends to be bisexual, it is still interesting.

[Swordsman3003]

On Homosexuality:

Have you ever considered that being homosexual is analogous to being left handed? Let me explain.

There is not a 'gene' for being left handed [as far as we know], but nearly all people have a preference for one hand or the other. Some people are extremely dominant with one hand, a few use both equally, and every degree in between.

Golf courses, cars, all sorts of things, are designed for the right handed world. Left handed people just deal with it.

For a very long time, being left handed was considered a good sign of devil worship or whatever. Kids were actively discourged not to use their left hands. Now, nobody cares.

But think about it: I can force you to write with your other hand, but can I force you to be a different kind of "handed"? It's impossible! You no more choose your sexuality than your handedness.

[Linkara]

While that's a rather intriguing way to look at it, swordsman (that is fascinating, I hadn't thought about it that way! ^_^), you can force someone to be other-handed. ^_~ After the longest-time of continually having to write with the other hand, it'll get easier and more comfortable using that hand until eventually it becomes habit and either ambidextrous or a full switch to the other hand.

[Oniphire]

So what is the consequence of "mudering" a fetus? To an atheist, there is no consequence.

This statement bothers me simply because you're stating that all athiests are pro-abortion.

I think it was intended more to convey the idea that the only consequences for an atheist are their own moral values rather than having to deal with those taught by religions in addition. It doesn't sound reasonable to assume that fnyunj was implying a unified opinion from all atheists. Just as not every person with faith will have the same opinion on a subject, not every person without faith will have the same opinion on a subject.

[Ctholhic]

Before I begin, I should tell you all that I've had to come to the unfortunate conclusion that free will is a fallacy, the brain is a processing machine that seeks out the best actions based upon observable results, even if the information is flawed. From what I've seen there are no deities.

For abortion; I see that the property of being a human is determined by humans, physics & mathematics & chemistry don't care whether you're a human or not. Since the law grants special status to all humans (the requirements for designation of which aren't legally codified anywhere from what I remember, relying on the general consensus) I have to conclude that the choice is remarkably arbitrary, given this I therefore say that it should be placed at the point where the organism is fully capable of supporting itself, I also accept that this is completely unacceptable to people who want to protect all "humans" from harm (the general aim of society in general), but it's simply my arbitrary choice on this matter.

As well, if you are in support of evolution, it would be wrong. As evolutionists point out, our whole drive is focused towards procreation and passing along our genes. Homosexuallity is a bit of a dead-end in that respect, is it not? Therefore, if you would rather engage in recreational sexual activites with someone of the same sex which will prevent you from passing along your genes, you must be flawed. Sounds resonable, does it not? (Personally, I have problems with evolutionists, but that's another argument for another day)

You must have trouble explaining ants, wolves, termites, and a whole range of other organism social structures.

Inclusive fitness provides a reason that homosexuality to continue to exist. Given that exclusive homosexuals won't reproduce but their normal social bonds of attachment continue to exist to a degree roughly the same as normal people (I'm not saying they're necessarily higher or lower than average), then the degree of genetic similarity between them and their kin ensures that the alleles or social tendancies are passed on, quite possibly more successfully given that homosexuals may enjoy economic benefits from a reduced number of dependants and will still provide assistance to their heterosexual relations.

For homsexuality, I don't give a damn, I'm not accustomed to it, but I'm not going to damn it because it's something that doesn't matter in the end.

(I was actually motivated to post based entirely on the evolution comment)

[JohnnyTwoEyes]

I think it was intended more to convey the idea that the only consequences for an atheist are their own moral values rather than having to deal with those taught by religions in addition. It doesn't sound reasonable to assume that fnyunj was implying a unified opinion from all atheists. Just as not every person with faith will have the same opinion on a subject, not every person without faith will have the same opinion on a subject.

I can see what you are getting at, but the statement still rubs me the wrong way.

[MistressMaggie]

*rubs JohnnyTwoEyes the OTHER way*

[Toawa]

Before I begin, I should tell you all that I've had to come to the unfortunate conclusion that free will is a fallacy, the brain is a processing machine that seeks out the best actions based upon observable results, even if the information is flawed. From what I've seen there are no deities.

Concerning Free Will, I've come to the conclusion that the answer to the question of whether or not it exists is immaterial; the best course of action is to proceed as if it exists, by way of an argument that will look suspiciously similar to Pascal's Wager, but in this case I define "Predeterminism" as a complete lack of all Free Will, that is, given the complete state of the universe, and a complete understanding of the laws of Physics, one could accurately predict everything that will happen in the future. (This is generally known as Hard Predeterminism. I do not deal with Soft Predeterminism in this argument.)

If (Hard) Predeterminism is true, then it doesn't matter what you do, because all things are predetermined and nothing can change that (indeed, there is nothing to change; any appearance/thought/feeling otherwise is just an illusion which was predetermined to occur.)

If Free Will is true, then the future can be modified with choices, and as such one is capable of planning for the future, avoiding bad events, etc. by making choices.

So, if Predeterminism is true, it does not matter what you believe or how you act. If Free Will is true, then it is best to act as if you have Free Will, as that will motivate you to plan ahead and try to change your situation. If we have Free Will but you believe we have Predeterminism, then you would declare it impossible to change your circumstances, and so you will not even try to (forming a self-fulfilling prophecy). Thus, the best course is to act as if you have Free Will and attempt to change the direction of your life, even if you might fail or it might not be possible, because if you don't try, you'll definitely fail.

As for the other topics of the thread; I withhold comment except to say that (concerning abortion) both sides are depressingly silent on the issue of eugenic abortion. Particularly the "pro-life" side, who by and large seem to hem and haw and avoid the issue...