- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 18,536
- Reaction score
- 2,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
As In said this is all question begging. Who says it is bigotry?
Because they said so, damn it. :roll:
As In said this is all question begging. Who says it is bigotry?
Because they said so, damn it. :roll:
You don't have to wish all homosexuals would die to be a homophobe. Just like you don't have to want to kill all spiders to be arachnophobic. It's about wishing a certain "thing" would keep out of your life. You wish it didn't exist, or at least that you wouldn't have to witness its existence. You can't be tolerant or respectful of it when it does appear."Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.
:shrug:
As I said this is all question begging. Who says it is bigotry?
If persecuting a demographic group because they are different than you, and trying to deny them equal rights, isn't bigotry then what the hell would be? Obviously that's bigotry...
This is yet more question begging. Bank robbers and pedophiles are different to me, I do not mind persecuting them. You are simply assuming, without arguing, the homosexuality is completely moral and legitimate and it deserves what you call 'equal rights'. You may or may not be right, but you have to argue for it and not keep assuming it.
Or try to argue for your position. Why is directly hurting other people the standard of what is moral and valid?Bank robbers and pedophiles hurt other people. Try another example maybe?
Or try to argue for your position. Why is directly hurting other people the standard of what is moral and valid?
"Homophobe" implies irrational fear/contempt/hatred for homosexuals. Christians who view homosexuality as a sin have none of those ill feeling towards homosexuals.
:shrug:
Teamosil, actually my entire point has been trying to get you to argue your position rather than simply keep assuming it and begging the question. You are half-way there, you give some arguments in favour the validity and morality of homosexuality. You do start with a lot of spiel about what rights are which is largely still question begging. You still have a lot of work to do before you get over the urge to just post you own views as if they were gospel and without even seemingly recognising you were just begging the question. But you are moving in the right direction, it is good to see.
All the stuff about rights, what marriage is and its effects on society requires a good deal more argument and less unexamined assumptions though.
You are half-way there, you give some arguments in favour the validity and morality of homosexuality.
Why do homosexuals need to validate their morality anymore than heterosexuals?
If you aren't having a relationship with another man...then what's concern? There's no proof that homosexual behaviors negatively impact heterosexuals.
There's a reason for incorporating the terms "homo" and "hetero" with the suffix sexuality. Homo= same ....hetero different...
But yet...there's no link to homo behaviors that damage hetero communities. I'd say it's the opposite. Or at least thats my observation as a heterosexual man.
Who says it isn't your business. The problem with you Teamosil is you can't seem to stop making claims which require support, support you don't give them.You just fundamentally are going off in the wrong direction on this whole inquiry. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is "moral". That has nothing to do with anything whether one particular moral system approves or it or doesn't. The point is that it isn't any of your business what other people do in their personal lives so long as it doesn't effect you, so it doesn't matter one iota whether you think it is moral or not.
The point is that Teamosil was making claims like Christians, who believe homosexuality is a sin, are bigots without ever arguing his position or backing up his assumptions. I'm not about to have an in depth argument about the matter, I was just trying to get him to stop making massive, unexamined and unsupported assumptions.
TEAMOSIl said:You just fundamentally are going off in the wrong direction on this whole inquiry. I'm not arguing that homosexuality is "moral". That has nothing to do with anything whether one particular moral system approves or it or doesn't. The point is that it isn't any of your business what other people do in their personal lives so long as it doesn't effect you, so it doesn't matter one iota whether you think it is moral or not.
Who says it isn't your business. The problem with you Teamosil is you can't seem to stop making claims which require support, support you don't give them.
You may be right it no one else's business, but you have to argue it. Otherwise why can't I just say the opposite back to you with just as much back up, or lack thereof.
Or just perhaps I'm talking about an entire discussion that has gone on for many pages now.WHAT THE Hell you talking about Wessexman?
Read the following and repeat your point above. You must be reading somebody elses post...
Excuse me...but that's far from you're claim above...way far off.
Sure, anyone can oppose it, but it doesn't mean that one's use of the accusation of bigotry is a legitimate complaint.
You supported it with more question begging. You supported your unproved assumption that such Christians are bigots with the unproved assumption it is not their business what homosexuals do.I did support my position. You haven't come up with a counter argument. Again:
This is closer to an argument. It is very brief and needs a lot of its points exploring much further however. For instance you are simply asserting they'd not be worse off and ignoring the social meanings and place of marriage. You would have to address these before your argument was even slightly useable, but you are getting there. You aren't quite just making the most completely unsupported assumptions any more.There are two parties in this question- you, who thinks gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, and gay people who want to marry the people they love. If you succeed in prohibiting them from getting married, you are not any better off. You aren't affected in any way. But they are worse off- they no longer can marry the person they love. So you hurt them and didn't even get anything out of it yourself. That is, obviously, a bad trade, right?
You supported it with more question begging. You supported your unproved assumption that such Christians are bigots with the unproved assumption it is not their business what homosexuals do.
This is closer to an argument. It is very brief and needs a lot of its points exploring much further however. For instance you are simply asserting they'd not be worse off and ignoring the social meanings and place of marriage. You would have to address these before your argument was even slightly useable, but you are getting there. You aren't quite just making the most completely unsupported assumptions any more.
Perhaps, but you cannot simply say such and such is wrong and not give any support to this and when you finally do give support to it you cannot simply give a similar sort of assertion, like it is wrong because people should mind their own business.I'm not really sure what you're looking for. There isn't such a thing as like objective evidence and proofs of answers to moral questions. Morality is just subjective preferences people have. The closest we can do is to explain to somebody why what they are doing is hurting other people and hope that their morals tell them that hurting people is wrong.
My response would be you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of marriage and about what is right or wrong in this instance that need further argument and explanation. I'm not actually going to argue the issue with you, I've simply been trying to get you to stop relying so heavily on assumptions and unexamined and unproven assertions.Of course it hurts somebody to be forced to live a life unable to marry the person they love and stigmatized and insulted... You can't really deny that....
So go ahead, what's your response?
Perhaps, but you cannot simply say such and such is wrong and not give any support to this and when you finally do give support to it you cannot simply give a similar sort of assertion, like it is wrong because people should mind their own business.
When we argue we all have to make certain assumptions, otherwise we'd never finish laying out our argument, but you were only really relying on question begging and assumptions. You would make one quick assertion and when you finally got around to backing it up you'd do so with an almost equally brief and controversial assertion. This is not an acceptable way to prove your point. If I did, if I said homosexuality is wrong and then backed it up by saying it is unnatural, you'd be up in arms.
My response would be you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of marriage and about what is right or wrong in this instance that need further argument and explanation. I'm not actually going to argue the issue with you, I've simply been trying to get you to stop relying so heavily on assumptions and unexamined and unproven assertions.
You make assumptions such as Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin are bigots.
I could at least match you by saying homosexuality is a sin and wrong, and then finally that it is a sin and wrong because it is unnatural or God says so.
Your back up for that is just it is none of their business. Which is question begging and manifestly unacceptable.No, I emphatically never said that. In fact I have explicitly said that that was not the case many times. As I keep saying, Christians (or anybody else) are totally free to believe whatever they want. But when they start persecuting people for being different than them, then yes obviously they are bigots at that point.
And your argument on this have been little more than question begging on a huge scale.Again, that would still be totally irrelevant to the discussion. The question isn't "is homosexuality wrong?", the question is "do you have the right to persecute others because you believe the demographic group they are a member of are 'sinners'?"