QUOTE (Ferris Wiel @ Mar 11 2004, 09:17 AM)
Hi, my name is Ferris Wiel and I'd like to say a few words about my earlier comments. My "reductio ad absurdem" and other attempts like it were an attempt to inject a degree of levity in these debates if only to amuse myself because I know that if I get too serious I'll end up alienating nice people ...
Huh. All right; I'll allow that. But you have to acknowledge that every single time you use a technique like that it invalidates youtr entire argument. So you have to decide whether you want to make a point (if you have a point to make), or whether you want to crack wise about your opponent's position. Personally, when a fellow says "I really have strong points ot make, but I don't want to get too serious," it sets off my recently-lauded bulshit detector. Get serious. I can take it, and Supes is the Man of Tomorrow.
Noone cares whether Jordan can take it or not. He's just our mascot anyway =)
QUOTE
I would point out that incest occurs in the animal kingdom with high frequency as does pedophilia, the answer to those, of course being, who cares? Cannibalism also occurs in nature, it doesn't make it right, particularly for humans.
Yeah, uh huh. And where did I ever argue in FAVOUR of what is "Natural?" See, this is a case of you arguing against the wrong point. MURDER and RAPE occur in nature, and yet they are illegal. get ready for it: I agree that they should be.
The argument goes like this: Homosexuality is unnatural, says Mr Falwell, and therefore against the Lord, and so should be illegal. then Mr Humanist pipes up, "Who cares about what is natural? We're trying to define human rights here." And then Mr Falwell jumps in with "Well if we're supposed to declare that homosinuality is Natural, then let me how you some examples of other "Natural" things that you don't like. hah! QED!"
Pay attention: my stand aginst rape and incest and pedophelia has the common thread of coersion. Yes, I believe that if an adult wants to make the whoopie with his/her adult parent, and there is no evidence that they made the whoopie when one was a minor, then no coersion is evident (I am also pretty sure this will just about never come up); (I also would not stone consensual brother-sister or brother-brother incest). My stand in favour of gay marriage is that if it is recognozed and made legal couples will literally trip over one another to get to the altar (yes; literally!). This is something people want, and it is something that hurts noone. And my point of view, like my opinion on say, the driving age, has nothing to do with what is "NATURAL." If I speak of nature, it is only after you have brought it up. But it's not your main point. You argue that even if homosexuality is "natural," it is STILL "Wrong."
This is the thing you need to prove.
QUOTE
Every word Paul wrote, per his claims, was on authority of Jesus.
My thumb is on my nose, my tongue is out, I am waving all my fingers in the air. I don't care about Paul's claims to divine inspiration. Paul basically invented Christianity; a set of the inspired and often beautiful statements of a peaceful man were warped by this ruthless demagogue into a typically hierarchical and frequently restrictive religion. Paul made up some vulgar story about God speaking to him directly, and used this as the basis of his teaching. Others have done the saem since him, with similar success (recent examples being Charles Russell, Joseph Smith, Oral Roberts and David Koresh).
But you've made my point for me. Jessus never said anything about homosexuality. He also never said anything about for how long a woman is "unclean" during her period. So, yes, this doesn't mean that he didn't have opinions about these things. Jesus did not come along to be a lawgiver. He had other things on his mind. But that's no argument that we should listen to Paul, just because the Council of Nicea preserved his letters. There's all sorts of other stuff that could have made the cut but didn't. Jeez; none of this ought to be the basis of civil lawmaking.
QUOTE
So yes, while Jesus did not verbatim speak on homosexuality (or any of the other topics I cited), he gave implicit support and lent credence to the law of Moses.
Except for all that stuff he said about working on the sabbath and what he MAY have said about eating whatever you want (I disagree on this, and insist that Jesus kept kosher, but I'm not going to rehash that one. Chefelf archivists remember it well). Oh, and all that stuff about resurrection, which isn't in Moses. ANYWAY, if Jesus lent "implicit" support to the moasic law, then should we also stone adulterers and outlaw divorce?
Where's your Moses now?
QUOTE
I would like to point, though, out that the seeming outrage with the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and incest exposes biases in some ways, though.
Hmm. Yes. I am biased in favour of honest argument! You got me! =)
The most mainstream of attacks on homo-sin-uality is that homosexuals are pedophiles and killers. BUT! Most pedophiles are straight, along with most rapists. Even in jail, male-to-male rape is committed by straight men. And this business about incest is out of left field, since again, most of it is father-daughter or brother-sister. This has nothing to do with homosexuality, even if we ignore that a couple of the things you are talking about involve coersion, while homosexuality does not. It's a false association, like say the business of connecting mass murder with video games. Homosexual rape and homosexual incest I oppose. I am not arguing to make those thigs legal; in fact, we already have laws against rape and incest that will work quite wel for any gender preference. I'm talking about gay marriage. Is my bias becoming more clear?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).