dk

Hi keyser_soze:
Great questions
dk:
The proposition…To escape being a homophobe requires a proven bias against homosexuals… devalues everyone because it generates the “ill will” that makes homophobia rational. From any universal perspective being a homophobe doesn’t count any more (for) or less (against) a person than being gay, bi or lesbian. Any unbiased examination of Christian people finds a diverse agrumentive lot vulnerable to all the ills, thrills and flaws that non-Christians suffer, and any rational hope for Christians rests upon reliable traditions rooted in Judaism. Any rational examination of homosexuality and homophobia finds both caricatures fundamentally flawed and unnecessary.
…The allegation of “Christian homophobia” made by homosexuals attack the Bible as an unsuitable pedagogical source. In fact the Bible was made taboo in a public education system that ranks a right to liberty above a right to life, even though freedom of religion is clearly a liberty right. Why?…because its necessary in a secular world i.e. teleological. Homophobia rests upon the reliability (not rational) of homosexual psycho semantics. The concept of Homosexuality rests solely upon the concept of sexual orientation rooted in a system of egotism absent any rational or empirical basis. Heterosexuality is not a concept but a form that weds men and women to produce and raise children. My point is that the homosexuality is teleological, irrational and unnecessary, based upon fundamentally unsound psycho semantic babble. While Christian morals are based the pedagogical values proved reliable across the millennium. The impasse between homosexuals and Christianity requires us to love our enemies in the light of reason, the question imposed by the existing impasse is necessary to make a secular world possible, not rational, logical, reliable or empirical.

keyser_soze: But then again, you want to base your whole basket on "god says it's wrong". But considering some of the ethics proposed in the bible, I think you would be hard pressed to find homosexual behaviour the worst of anything in that trash novel you people pray to.
dk: The Bible isn’t a scientific source, and ethics is a science. To treat the Bible like a science, or teach the Bible as a science is irrational and problematic. Therefore to criticize the Bible for not being a science is equally irrational.

keyser_soze: So what's it to be? Please lay out WHY you believe that homosexuals should all burn in hell while you cheer from the bleachers. Remember not to use crappy, easily refuted studies from fundy sites that are long on rhetoric and short on fact. Go ahead and lay it out brother, give it to us. We can handle it. Hmm..You know, I think it's just an insecurity thing, every homophobe I've ever seen has been scared shitless that some gay guy is going to hit on them...I wonder if that's the fear, or if they are just scared they might say yes? Spent so much time around gay folks in the last few years, I think I have a pretty good feel for them. And not being an unattractive male, I don't think I've been hit on but once, and I took it as a complement. Man, it's just like the fundies are scared of anyone having fun...even themselves.
…Or maybe you have a RATIONAL reason as to why a behavior exhibited by other species in the animal kingdom, of which we belong....is taboo? Is it disease propogation? Sorry, plenty of heteros are getting that as well. Everyone is at risk that has sex. But then again, STD's have been killing humans for several thousand years. It's the price you pay for close proximity to other humans. I don't see you complaining about the chinese keeping swine in their homes, after all, the flu kills more people in asia each year than aids by far. But that's them, and not us...is that it? Come on, TRY to come up with a good supportive argument for you position. Try to leave god out of it, as he's less supported than the rest of your tragically flawed argument.
dk: I submit the proposition, “homosexuals should burn in hell” is unethical, but not irrelevant or material. Ethics is the science of “ought/should” applicable to the here and now. Heaven and Hell don’t exist in the here and now so on appearances don’t concern the science of ethics. Yet, the rise of reason, ideas, concepts and forms essential to civilization, empirically become… in and of themselves… a fundamental force of nature, and thus certainly raises questions that the science of ethical must consider i.e. if ethics is the science of “ought/should” then by necessity… ethics must consider metaphysics.
…hmmm, That poses a quandary, the science of ethics can’t ignore metaphysics and can’t know metaphysics in any material sense. Therefore metaphysical assumptions about knowledge and truth are necessary to ethics, in any ethical system in any possible world, or the science of ethics is contingent upon a metaphysical reality that is non-contingent. Any other supposition is teleological. The question… Should homosexuals go to heaven and hell?… was approached by Aristotle and Aquinas by deducing from the real world and experience through intellect causes i.e. material causes, efficient causes, formal causes and final causes. Empirical sciences can only consider efficient causes (tools and mechanisms necessary to change). Empiricists (objectivists) believe (propose) human knowledge has developed sufficiently to ignoring other causes. Positivists look to pragmatism and stare decisis in an attempt to deduce ethics from a self contained systemizing of logic, concepts, forms ideas and experience. I could go on, and on,,,, but will conclude with this rather disconcerting fact. Clearly people lack an intuitive understanding of the all the nuances, explanations and theories science offers. and no matter how much energy, time and effort we put into the question of knowledge the answers only impregnate the question. Generally speaking, people are washed by ethics, not cleaned or perfected. What people absorb about science (ethics, psychology, sociology,,,) has become a monster that can only be known from public opinion polls that change from issue to issue with the season. I submit in a secular world ethics has no meaning, only folk ethics, folk psychology,,, etc… that that washes us in a media shower with personal experience. Consider this implication, Folk Ethics is false, because it has no basis in science. In such a world the question, “Is homosexuality unethical” has no meaning.” Yet, its quite evident the question means a great deal, to a great many people.

keyser_soze

So basically, you're not planning on putting forth your argument as to why homosexuality(strictly male on male anal sex, excluding all else) is wrong.

I see. So what was your point? Because, the philosophical ramifications about what is and is not ethical is not the subject of the debate, so if you'll kindly STOP DISTRACTING and support your assertions,(i.e. get back to the point), we'll gladly continue the discussion. Well, maybe not me, I'm off to the inlaws to paint a car and build a fence, but someone will take up the slack I'm sure...at least, that is....as soon as you get to the point.

dk

Before we so arrogantly take our "answers" to fix the world's problems, lets make sure we aren't selling snake oil.


I think all medical and government people agree the hiv virus exists, cause AIDs and is spread by
a) intimate contact by through an exchange of bodily fluids
b) contact with contaminated blood products or instruments
c) mother to child.

We've know this much since 1986. The question is...
1) how to stop the spread?
2) how to treat hiv+ people?
3) how to best allocate the limited resources availble most effectively.

Obviously we have objectively failed in the US, so don't have all the answers to how?
It appears, with respect to the world's hiv problem, we should have utilized more resources to develop a vacination, and develop infrastructure.

Its rather fallacious to credit me with remarks I never made.

Hey, I've contended, and contended, and contended that the term "homosexuality" has no legitimate form, and is merely a concept based on the idea of a "sexual orientation meter" that has no empirical basis.

dk

Homosexuality is merely an idea based on the concept of sexual orientation, it has no (nil, null) necessary forms, therefore has no ethcial form.

Whereas

Heterosexuality is a form that weds a man and woman to concieve and raise children.

homophobia is a plan to rationalize homosexuality in some form.

Dr Rick

So childless couples such as my wife and I are neither wed nor heterosexual? What makes heterosexuality a "form" but not homosexuality other than your arbitrary assertion? Does your distinction have any utility other than to rationalize bias?

Oh, right...and hydrophobia is a plan to rationalize water in some form...

But, wait...didn't you just get done posting that homosexuality has no form?!

yguy

Don't know that I can. I believe I've shown conclusively that any particular slice of morality ultimately appears to have no basis whatever, if the same logic used to deconstruct it as apologists for homosexuality use to deconstruct the traditional Judaeo-Christian view on the matter.

I don't know that any of the charachteristics you describe are central to humanity. Show me the chimp who can realize he's wrong about something without anyone telling him, and we'll talk. A chimp can't possibly be wrong, because acting according to their programming is what animals do; and it is to the extent that humans do likewise that they become more animal and less human.

Bands of monkeys are inclined at times to attack smaller monkeys and essentially eat them alive. This doesn't remind you of Jeffrey Dahmer on a small scale, or Stalin on a larger one?

You lost me.

Perhaps much of human interaction doesn't deserve that halo. That would explain a thing or two, wouldn't it?

dk

Thank you,

Jacob was mama's favorite, he seldom left the tent or his mother skirts (not that they wore skirts back then). Esau was Isaac's favorite, a boy after a father's heart, that needs a father's nurture and example. Jacob was home cooking one day when Esau came home famished from the hunt, and tricked Esau into trading away his blessing for a hot meal. In today's world Jacob would fit the stereotype commonly called a moma’s boy, and more scientifically called a boy with a confused gender identity. In today' post modernist world its unlikely Jacob would have fit into competitive boys play, and surely would have been isolated and teased as a moma's boy, perhaps even recruited by a gay councilor that runs the local gay boys club. What do you think?

keyser_soze

keyser_soze

Actually I know a lot of momma's boys, and they are neither effeminant, nor gay. I think you have broken your leg with your leap in interpretation. But thanks for playing anyway.

dk

I don't believe I mentioned childless couples. Necessity makes heterosexuality a form. The form is universal amongst all civilized people.

No, hydrophobia is an irrational fear of water. Water has the necessary form H2O. Hey, like the nuclear family drawn metaphorically from the nuclear model that describes the nuclie of atoms. Do you think gay nuetrons, electrons and protons exist, like gay mom's, dad's and children exist?

I love you Dr. Rick.