Displaying all 4 posts by 2 people.
Post #1
Andrzej Skulski wrote on Dec 28, 2006 at 10:26 AM
CITE your stats, CITE your quotations, REFERENCE everything that can be proven and is not a moral statement.
Post #2
1 reply
Andrzej Skulski wrote on Dec 28, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Chelsea- right and wrong, yes i did base it on economics because as a moral judgement, few other things can determine whether homosexuality is good or not. u, Chelsea, cannot choose based on religion/morals because your ideology has done that for you- it must therefore be done on utilitarian terms, as John Stuart Mill would have had it.
[editors note: i skimmed these arguments because they are the same: a weird maladjusted uncle, a weird mother]
also, yes, adults have grown into society from one parent or orphanages, as an example you gave. but how well have they adjusted? my uncle, having been raised by a nun orphanage, seriously lacks some social skills today because he never had a father figure to teach him to be strong and face challenges head on. he never had a mother to show him how to show tenderness to his loved ones. He learned to live as a good human being, being considerate and caring as the nuns taught him, but if you were to meet him, you'd notice he's different.
another example is my own mother. i never met my grandfather from her side because he ran off when my mom was born. her mother raised her for about 3 years until she couldn't support her by herself anymore and was given to an orphanage. again, my mom is the apogee of a loving mom, but she lacks skills in marriage with my father because she was never able to witness an example of marital care. now wouldn't you agree with me, based on these two cases, that a strong marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) founded on love and mutual selflessness would be the best example a child could learn from?
in having said so, you agreed with me that nowadays a lot of marriages fall apart, heterosexual and homosexual. why? because they are not founded on religion. yes, i understand that a many marriages made in a church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc. DO fall apart. again, why? because the married couples' faith wasn't strong enough to realize that challenges of married life are to be overcome, not forfeited. see, the underlying quality of marriage is the union before a supreme being. if your faith is strong enough, your fear/respect/adulation of the supreme being will motivate you to conserve your marriage against all odds, since it is before this supreme being that you have vowed faithfulness to your better half.
by contrast, having been married before the law, you're a (hopefully permanent, but realistically semi-permanent) bedmate. if love is gone, you'll have nothing else binding you together, paving the way to divorce. that is why non-religious or shallowly-religious couples fall apart after even 20 years of marriage.
following- to my knowledge, there are very few religions that allow homosexual marriage within their churches, meaning that the ancients (peoples and scriptures) these religions base their faiths on were of the same opinion back in the day: that homosexual marriage is wrong.
thus, we can take two conclusions out of this: 1) that homosexuality shall not ever have a religious character (because no ancient religion accepts it. of course you can found your own but how convincing is that?) and thus will not be a strong as religious heterosexual marriage, which provides the ideal example of social conduct to the young child, 2) that since the ancients were all of similar opinion that homosexuality is wrong, the fact that it surfacing today could be a product of two things- that humanity throughough the ages was wrong (as it was with blacks, for example), or humanity has advanced to such a level that now we can easily have our values reinversed.
the last thing, Chelsea, you said that most confused minds come from Christian heterosexuals. again, ask yourself why? because homosexual sexual orientation conflicts with ancient religions, it provides no use to society, and does not promote ideal social conduct to young children- all three things emphasized strongly in Christian values. and to support this: do you not think that because this divergence has gained such prominence in latter years, that it possibly could be a product of propaganda?
because de facto, we still don't know what causes it. and there is no scientific proof that it's genetic.
[editors note: i skimmed these arguments because they are the same: a weird maladjusted uncle, a weird mother]
also, yes, adults have grown into society from one parent or orphanages, as an example you gave. but how well have they adjusted? my uncle, having been raised by a nun orphanage, seriously lacks some social skills today because he never had a father figure to teach him to be strong and face challenges head on. he never had a mother to show him how to show tenderness to his loved ones. He learned to live as a good human being, being considerate and caring as the nuns taught him, but if you were to meet him, you'd notice he's different.
another example is my own mother. i never met my grandfather from her side because he ran off when my mom was born. her mother raised her for about 3 years until she couldn't support her by herself anymore and was given to an orphanage. again, my mom is the apogee of a loving mom, but she lacks skills in marriage with my father because she was never able to witness an example of marital care. now wouldn't you agree with me, based on these two cases, that a strong marriage (heterosexual or homosexual) founded on love and mutual selflessness would be the best example a child could learn from?
in having said so, you agreed with me that nowadays a lot of marriages fall apart, heterosexual and homosexual. why? because they are not founded on religion. yes, i understand that a many marriages made in a church, mosque, synagogue, temple etc. DO fall apart. again, why? because the married couples' faith wasn't strong enough to realize that challenges of married life are to be overcome, not forfeited. see, the underlying quality of marriage is the union before a supreme being. if your faith is strong enough, your fear/respect/adulation of the supreme being will motivate you to conserve your marriage against all odds, since it is before this supreme being that you have vowed faithfulness to your better half.
by contrast, having been married before the law, you're a (hopefully permanent, but realistically semi-permanent) bedmate. if love is gone, you'll have nothing else binding you together, paving the way to divorce. that is why non-religious or shallowly-religious couples fall apart after even 20 years of marriage.
following- to my knowledge, there are very few religions that allow homosexual marriage within their churches, meaning that the ancients (peoples and scriptures) these religions base their faiths on were of the same opinion back in the day: that homosexual marriage is wrong.
thus, we can take two conclusions out of this: 1) that homosexuality shall not ever have a religious character (because no ancient religion accepts it. of course you can found your own but how convincing is that?) and thus will not be a strong as religious heterosexual marriage, which provides the ideal example of social conduct to the young child, 2) that since the ancients were all of similar opinion that homosexuality is wrong, the fact that it surfacing today could be a product of two things- that humanity throughough the ages was wrong (as it was with blacks, for example), or humanity has advanced to such a level that now we can easily have our values reinversed.
the last thing, Chelsea, you said that most confused minds come from Christian heterosexuals. again, ask yourself why? because homosexual sexual orientation conflicts with ancient religions, it provides no use to society, and does not promote ideal social conduct to young children- all three things emphasized strongly in Christian values. and to support this: do you not think that because this divergence has gained such prominence in latter years, that it possibly could be a product of propaganda?
because de facto, we still don't know what causes it. and there is no scientific proof that it's genetic.
Post #3
1 reply
first
utilitarianism directly contradicts your later arguments about determinism.
first you say the only way to know things is weighing the utility of it, and let me just say, what the eff is utility other than an implicit good/bad right/wrong ideal because you are evaluating the consequences based on SOMETHING, some presupposed ideals. So utilitarianism is not outside ideology or dogma, because what the eff is happiness? nonsense.
the theory of utilitarianism was developed by people who were anti-deterministic (that nothing is predetermined). BUT for you to then say that children raised by unordinary circumstances are going to be socially maladapted, is to directly contradict the theory that nothing is predetermined, that everything about an individual is chosen based on consequences.
you cant say on one hand everythings a choice, and the other, that nothing is chosen and it is unfair to put people in that position. you are contradicting yourself.
finally, you contradict utilitarianism with any mention of religion. The whole christian, jewish, islamic side of religion is entirely based on deontological claims, and not consequential claims. deontological is something that just is, and consequential is something that might come about because of the is.
i mean you presuppose the idea that what is ancient is correct, and basing ideals on anything but the ancients is not convincing. this is ad populum to the max. it has no bearing on our argument what the ancients thought.
finally, you have the nerve to then bring up science, and no scientific proof that its genetic. WELL, first this contradicts your whole ancients are the smartest and we should listen to them, because otherwise you should be taking your direction from the stars and thinking the sun goes around the earth.
secondly, science cant even explain adequately why bumble bees can fly. what do i care what science says in the face of something that is actually happening? sorry to let you know, but homosexuals exist. whether you can figure out scientifically what makes them so, or not, they still exist.
you see where im getting at when i say that christian heterosexuals have confused minds? get your philosophy straight. you contradict utilitarianism with deontology, religion with science, and you orchestrate this mess of dogma just to feel justified judging someone elses lifestyle.
if you're so convinced that christianity is right, why dont you just love thy anally penetrated neighbour and get over it.
ps. read mills essay On Liberty to read more about how he is against the tyranny of the majority, and how it hinders liberty in many a great ways. mill was a liberal, but resented the possible tyrannies that liberal theory could produce.
utilitarianism directly contradicts your later arguments about determinism.
first you say the only way to know things is weighing the utility of it, and let me just say, what the eff is utility other than an implicit good/bad right/wrong ideal because you are evaluating the consequences based on SOMETHING, some presupposed ideals. So utilitarianism is not outside ideology or dogma, because what the eff is happiness? nonsense.
the theory of utilitarianism was developed by people who were anti-deterministic (that nothing is predetermined). BUT for you to then say that children raised by unordinary circumstances are going to be socially maladapted, is to directly contradict the theory that nothing is predetermined, that everything about an individual is chosen based on consequences.
you cant say on one hand everythings a choice, and the other, that nothing is chosen and it is unfair to put people in that position. you are contradicting yourself.
finally, you contradict utilitarianism with any mention of religion. The whole christian, jewish, islamic side of religion is entirely based on deontological claims, and not consequential claims. deontological is something that just is, and consequential is something that might come about because of the is.
i mean you presuppose the idea that what is ancient is correct, and basing ideals on anything but the ancients is not convincing. this is ad populum to the max. it has no bearing on our argument what the ancients thought.
finally, you have the nerve to then bring up science, and no scientific proof that its genetic. WELL, first this contradicts your whole ancients are the smartest and we should listen to them, because otherwise you should be taking your direction from the stars and thinking the sun goes around the earth.
secondly, science cant even explain adequately why bumble bees can fly. what do i care what science says in the face of something that is actually happening? sorry to let you know, but homosexuals exist. whether you can figure out scientifically what makes them so, or not, they still exist.
you see where im getting at when i say that christian heterosexuals have confused minds? get your philosophy straight. you contradict utilitarianism with deontology, religion with science, and you orchestrate this mess of dogma just to feel justified judging someone elses lifestyle.
if you're so convinced that christianity is right, why dont you just love thy anally penetrated neighbour and get over it.
ps. read mills essay On Liberty to read more about how he is against the tyranny of the majority, and how it hinders liberty in many a great ways. mill was a liberal, but resented the possible tyrannies that liberal theory could produce.
Post #4
AND
for a guy demanding references and citations, where are yours? oh thats right you cant cite nonsense.
for a guy demanding references and citations, where are yours? oh thats right you cant cite nonsense.
1 comment:
"ps. read mills essay On Liberty to read more about how he is against the tyranny of the majority, and how it hinders liberty in many a great ways. mill was a liberal, but resented the possible tyrannies that liberal theory could produce"
Those who live in a glass house should refrain from throwing stones.
Newsflash: It is still a democracy, if the majority votes in favor of something you do not agree with.
Post a Comment