Values and morals. WTF???

[Gunny]

Mix of ideas there. Please let me introduce Occam's Sabre.

It doesn't matter what you believe Gunny - but to be fair it doesn't matter what I believe either. Homosexual behaviour is considered abnormal in some places and times and quite acceptable in other places and times. "Normal" and "deviant" are socially defined (see Durkheim). Sexuality has been around for a while. It has many manifestations. One of the problems I have with condemnation of certain forms of sexuality is that not a lot of thought goes into thinking about why it should be condemned.

To the contrary, it matters very much what I believe. Normal is defined by nature ... as in science, biology. The purpose of sexual function is to procreate. True homosexuals cannot procreate. That is deviating from nature.

Differentiate between condemnation and calling something what it is.

 

[Psychoblues]

Is that it?

That's a common domination stunt, jillian, by rgs.
That is the problem that I see with religion in general.

Avoid the subject?

 

[Diuretic]

To the contrary, it matters very much what I believe. Normal is defined by nature ... as in science, biology. The purpose of sexual function is to procreate. True homosexuals cannot procreate. That is deviating from nature.

Differentiate between condemnation and calling something what it is.

Then we should allow sick babies to die, just like they do in "nature". Or would you like to intrude with a human norm (not a universal norm either) to ensure they survive?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then we should allow sick babies to die, just like they do in "nature". Or would you like to intrude with a human norm (not a universal norm either) to ensure they survive?

Not relevant.

 

[Diuretic]

Not relevant.

Why not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why not?

In Nature most species attempt to take care of even sick offspring. More to the point HUMANS almost always attempt to take care of sick offspring. That would naturally include all the scientific and special means we have, through intelligence, learned , mastered or think we know.

 

[Diuretic]

In Nature most species attempt to take care of even sick offspring. More to the point HUMANS almost always attempt to take care of sick offspring. That would naturally include all the scientific and special means we have, through intelligence, learned , mastered or think we know.

Historically humans have, in different times and places, have chosen to allow the weak to die. Humans who live a subsistence lifestyle have done this, it's normal for them to allow a weak infant to die rather than hinder the group.

Anyway, humans, by definition, are rational animals and are able to overcome the strictures of "nature" as we can see by our ability to assist weak infants to live. Ego, we exercise control over nature. Ergo, we're not slaves to "nature". Ergo, it's "normal" for us to expend much energy and resources to keep an infant alive, such infant may have, in "natural" circumstances, been left to die.

We define what we want, that's our "nature".

Humans are the most adaptable creatures on Earth. That's our genius.

 

[Bern80]

Then you do not believe your own religious scriptures.

Scripture is another thing that needs to be put into perspective. Scripture was written by man. Man is fallable. To believe that everything in scripture is the word of God and not in some cases liberties the writer has taken to put down their personal opinions is silly.

Homosexuality being one of them. People say it's immoral. Don't you have to make a choice to be immoral? Can you be born immoral? I believe you're either born that way, or in some cases could be rooted quite deeply psychologically. I don't beleive it's a choice because if I ask myself "could i choose to be attracted to men?" the answer is no. The answer is probably the same for every straight man here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Scripture is another thing that needs to be put into perspective. Scripture was written by man. Man is fallable. To believe that everything in scripture is the word of God and not in some cases liberties the writer has taken to put down their personal opinions is silly.

Homosexuality being one of them. People say it's immoral. Don't you have to make a choice to be immoral? Can you be born immoral? I believe you're either born that way, or in some cases could be rooted quite deeply psychologically. I don't beleive it's a choice because if I ask myself "could i choose to be attracted to men?" the answer is no. The answer is probably the same for every straight man here.

And what of Bisexuals? Or the fact most people experiment as young people?

 

[mattskramer]

To the contrary, it matters very much what I believe. Normal is defined by nature ... as in science, biology. The purpose of sexual function is to procreate. True homosexuals cannot procreate. That is deviating from nature.

Differentiate between condemnation and calling something what it is.

Okay. Just don’t get into the trap of calling something wrong merely because it is unnatural. Otherwise, based on such reasoning, any unnatural / artificial contraception is bad and wrong. There goes the condom industry. What would you say to sterile people? I suppose that they should never have sex. That which is normal or natural is not the same as that which is right or wrong.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural

The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

Another form of appeal to nature is to argue that because human beings are products of the natural world, we must mimic behavior seen in the natural world, and that to do otherwise is 'unnatural':

"Of course homosexuality is unnatural. When's the last time you saw two animals of the same sex mating?"

My favorite example that actually brought people to realize that things that are natural are not necessarily good and that things that are artificial are not always bad is cancer. Cancer is natural in the sense that if you live long enough, you will get cancer. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment is unnatural but they certainly help.

If you get cancer, why not let nature take its course?

 

[Bern80]

And what of Bisexuals? Or the fact most people experiment as young people?

What about them?

 

[Gunny]

Then we should allow sick babies to die, just like they do in "nature". Or would you like to intrude with a human norm (not a universal norm either) to ensure they survive?

If you want to argue the strict natural order of thing, do think Man's ability to fight disease and prolong life resulting in an overpopulated planet works with, or against nature?

 

[Larkinn]

Interesting. By definition, any group or organization is discriminatory. That's what makes them a group/organization apart from others.

Generally we don't like people discriminating against gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Having spent a good 7 years in Cub/Boy Scouts, I have no problem supporting the organization. It teaches good morals, and responsibility. The fact that it discriminates against abnormal behavior is hardly a bad thing.

Ah this ol chestnut. You never learn do you.

 

[AllieBaba]

Coupla things.

Since when is it discriminatory to have a club which tries to teach young men to be capable, kind, and intelligent young men? Why are we not supposed to do that?

And since when did it become okay for kids to discuss sexual orientation in a group which has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, counseling, or anything else? Such discussion should be inappropriate..therefore, the appropriate stance is to discourage such discussion.

Finally, Boy Scouts is a Christian (or perhaps more accurately, a God-based) boys group. They are should be allowed to uphold Christian values without suffering censure from non-believers and nay-sayers, or being forced to change their agenda to suit those who don't believe the same things they do.

All the hoopla about them being discriminatory is a bunch of b.s. perpetrated by those who want to brainwash children into accepting alternate lifestyles as "the norm" and "healthy".

 

[Larkinn]

Coupla things.

Since when is it discriminatory to have a club which tries to teach young men to be capable, kind, and intelligent young men? Why are we not supposed to do that?

You forgot the part where they discriminate. Of course leaving that out is pretty central to your argument.

And since when did it become okay for kids to discuss sexual orientation in a group which has nothing whatsoever to do with sex, counseling, or anything else? Such discussion should be inappropriate..therefore, the appropriate stance is to discourage such discussion.

Sure, kick them out if they say they are straight as well and we've got ourselves a deal.

Finally, Boy Scouts is a Christian (or perhaps more accurately, a God-based) boys group. They are should be allowed to uphold Christian values without suffering censure from non-believers and nay-sayers, or being forced to change their agenda to suit those who don't believe the same things they do.

They are allowed to. Just they won't be supported by the government. Feel free to take your shitty "values" elsewhere.

All the hoopla about them being discriminatory is a bunch of b.s. perpetrated by those who want to brainwash children into accepting alternate lifestyles as "the norm" and "healthy".

Its amazing to me that uniqueness suddenly became a bad thing. I'm sure you hate everyone in the NFL, all the nobel laureates, all of Congress and Bush as well, right? None of that is "the norm".

 

[Shogun]

I've said it before..

If the boy scouts are not benefiting from taxes and are a private organization then let them enjoy their first amendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

if our society is bent out of shape about what the boy scouts teach then we are perfectly able to create an alternative.






(see, Allie... and I'm an Atheist AND a liberal)

 

[Larkinn]

I've said it before..

If the boy scouts are not benefiting from taxes and are a private organization then let them enjoy their first amendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

if our society is bent out of shape about what the boy scouts teach then we are perfectly able to create an alternative.






(see, Allie... and I'm an Atheist AND a liberal)

Of course...nobody is saying ban them. Just that government should stop subsidizing them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Coupla things.



You forgot the part where they discriminate. Of course leaving that out is pretty central to your argument.



Sure, kick them out if they say they are straight as well and we've got ourselves a deal.



They are allowed to. Just they won't be supported by the government. Feel free to take your shitty "values" elsewhere.



Its amazing to me that uniqueness suddenly became a bad thing. I'm sure you hate everyone in the NFL, all the nobel laureates, all of Congress and Bush as well, right? None of that is "the norm".

Your so full of shit your hair smells of it. A group is by definition discriminatory no matter what it is. The Boy Scouts need make NO changes to their by laws of admission standards. That you think they should is proof of your desire to dictate to others what they can and can not do.

You know as well as we that the attempt is to make them change.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's that belief that libs know what's best for everyone, and if they can't pursuade them to adopt their beliefs, they try to force them...and brainwash them.

 

[Larkinn]

It's that belief that libs know what's best for everyone, and if they can't pursuade them to adopt their beliefs, they try to force them...and brainwash them.

Which is why people are advocating government should shut down the boy scouts, right?

Oh wait...they aren't. Guess you are just lying again, hey?