The Meaning of Life

[Felasco]

Price to be paid for coming out? LOL

Sigh, you're not turning out to be a worthy opponent, and I hope you'll be able to raise your game. Yes, prices to be paid, like if you're gay and your boss thinks homosexuality is an abomination, you probably don't want to share too many details about your life outside of work.

In the U S of A, homosexuality is one of the most powerful groups, that have successfully passed "special gay rights" legislation, which is unprecedented for groups of minority.

If they are so powerful, why have they lost the majority of public votes on the subject (a reality now changing apparently)? Unprecedented activism?? Have you heard of the civil rights movement?

If one objects, that person or persons are labelled homophobic or as you put it homo-haters.

If I tried to pass laws that would prevent you from legally marrying who you love, and was chronically declaring your sex life an abomination, might it occur to you to label me a hater?

I am proposing that homosexuality is not genetic, it is learned behavior.

Is your sexuality a learned behavior, a choice? If every scientist in the world were to provide compelling evidence that homosexuality was superior, would you examine that evidence, apply reason, and then change your sexual preference? Could you change your sexual preference if your life depended on it?

To which I will borrow your reply. I would ask, who cares?

You've repeatedly brought up the issue of children, and now you don't care?

Just picked up the word (norm) during the course of this debate.

You're dodging and weaving. What does the fact that there are fewer gays than straights have to do with anything? There are also more right handers than left handers.

You've brought children in to the conversation, so I'm asking you to explain why you are against some sexuality that doesn't produce children, but not other sexuality that also doesn't produce children.

that is not the issue.

You yourself made it the issue.

It is the practice of homosexuality I condemn. Not "them" as you so eloquently put it.

Ok, I love you too, while publicly declaring your sex life an abomination and preventing you from marrying who you love.

Your concern for homosexuals is touching Felasco, but not reciprocated.

Um, I have gay friends and family members, and my concern for them is reciprocated.

An editorial in Steam, a magazine for homosexuals, quotes a man who has been HIV positive since the early years of the epidemic: "I'm so sick and tired of these Negatives whining about how difficult it is to stay safe. Why don't they just get over it and get Positive." According to Scott O'Hara, Steam's HIV-positive editor: "One of my primary goals is the maximization of pleasure, and just as I believe that gay men have more fun, so too, do I believe that Positives have learned to have much more fun than Negatives. I'm delighted to be Positive. . .The Negative world is defined by fear, ours by pleasure."

So your argument is, because one homosexual is an idiot, we should reject them all.

No I do not have any affiliation with any religion, be it Catholicism, Baptist, there are many more, their names escape me.

So why do you keep talking about the Bible?

OK, well that is insightful, since the discussion is about the Scriptures and homosexuality. Why are you here?

Why are you here quoting the Bible if you don't belong to any religion?

The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1 in 715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1 in 165.

Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death, killing over 400,000 Americans a year, plus millions more around the world. So by your own logic, you should be concerned about tobacco, not gay people.

According to the philologist Max Müller, the root of the English word "religion", the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, which is all that is needed when reading the Scriptures.

Hate is not divine.

[reasonvemotion]

You have harden your heart against the Scriptures and the commandments of God. If God's words can't change you how could I?

Hate is not divine.

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner,” is how the saying goes .

[chaz wyman]

Gotcha? Nope. To venture further into this is now against my better judgment, but here goes.

Homosexuality is statistically practiced by less than 5% of the population, so how can it be considered the norm.

Obviously not, neither is blogging on PN, that involves a percentage so small as to be insignificant. You are not NORMAL.
What you say is irrelevant.

As you believe evolution is how human beings got here, then explain how an inclination toward a particular type of behavior, homosexuality, can survive genetically since it does not produce offspring?

There are a million other things that have no explanation. Sky diving is not a thing that encourages evolution or reproduction. Tying homophobic views on PN is not going to get you laid - how does that practice contribute to evolution?
So what?


Would it make sense, to say, that evolutionarily speaking, that which producess offspring would be the norm. So from an evolution standpoint, homosexuality would be abnormal and it would be a learned behavior.

No. Homosexuality is not learned behaviour Try to use your imagination. How would choose to be the but of jokes; declared non-people; face the death penalty in some countries; face ridicule in others.
I fail to see how any of your reflections contribute to your denigration of others practices.
Gays that I have spoken to faced the same lack of choice as a young teenager that I did. I woke up one morning thinking about sex; for me it was a bout attraction to women, for them it was the same sex.

If you want to push the Naturalism ticket, you are on a hiding to nothing. The fact is that homosexual practices are found in all species of higher animals; and there are so many unnatural practices that do not seem to attract your ire, that I think you are being completely ingenuous.

And on evolved practices. Homosexuality might seem anomalous, but evolution does not have specific aims for fitness to reproduce. Evolution is the favouring of a range of behaviours that are successful in producing progeny, but along with that those practices are not designed to any purpose. Being attracted to other humans of what ever sex and making relationships with loyalty and love between individuals can lead to reproduction- but not always.
If you insist the people should not have sex if they do not intend to have children - then you might need a little luck with that.
I've only one child but that does not mean I've only had sex once.
I have to tell you that most of my semen has been spilled in other practices than child making. And I would bet the same is true for you.

In conclusion you are suffering from moral disgust that many have learned to overcome in the spirit of humanity, fair play and social cohesion. Grow up- you need to get a life and let others live theirs.

So tell me - when were you born again? It seems a recent conversion.
It's a shame to have to loose you.

[reasonvemotion]

You may call me a bigot and a homophobe for my belief that homosexuality is a sin, but I cannot let name-calling soften my belief in the Scriptures which is the moral code to be obeyed.

“The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.”
― Søren Kierkegaard, Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard

[Felasco]

but I cannot let name-calling soften my belief in the Scriptures which is the moral code to be obeyed.

I think this is the heart of it, and we should have tackled this first.

We should have asked you if there was any reason, evidence, discussion etc that might potentially edit your view. This is called philosophy.

But, because you see your viewpoint as being the word of God, it's logical within your world view not to consider any other input.

And it's not too logical for us to debate you, as there is little evidence a process such as philosophy has a chance to accomplish anything in this particular case.

By scriptures do you mean the Bible? Given that we're already completely off topic, we could explore that if you want.

By the way, just so you know, I'm much more receptive to religion than most members of philosophy forums, who tend to be atheists quite often. But I like the love part of religion, not the part you're articulating in this particular thread.

[Bernard]

I believe the derivation of the word religion is 'to link'. The word marry means to 'take wife' (feminine; Ma,Mare). I think its too much too ask people to use a common definition in a way that distorts its meaning. I don't see homosexuality as genetic either, though I think a leaning in that direction can become socially hard-wired early on - though may not manifest for years, like substance abuse and mental escapism.

Marriage doesn't normally work, but I think its not something we should be cynical and dismissive about. We need to try and make it work and be as helpful as we can toward that end via social laws.

Faith can be philosophy as much as reason, Felasco. The evidence of faith is just not the reasonable evidence you seek. Philosophy is more than rationality.

[Felasco]

I think its too much too ask people to use a common definition in a way that distorts its meaning.

Oh poor them. Here's the deal. We've been victimizing gay people for a really long time. There's never been a good reason for it, there still isn't, and it's time for the abuse to stop. That's all there is to it.

I mean no disrespect to Bernard, but I have no patience with those wringing their hands about definitions.

To those folks (not directed at Bernard) I say, let's take away your right to marry, let's insult you repeatedly, let's discriminate against you in a wide variety of ways seen and unseen, and then let's see if you're still interested in word games.

I don't see homosexuality as genetic either, though I think a leaning in that direction can become socially hard-wired early on - though may not manifest for years, like substance abuse and mental escapism.

Heterosexuality might be socially hard wired too, like gang rape and slave holding.

Marriage doesn't normally work, but I think its not something we should be cynical and dismissive about. We need to try and make it work and be as helpful as we can toward that end via social laws.

Agreed, so if people want to try to enter committed relationships backed up by the law, we should applaud, and wish them well. People, human beings, all of us.

Faith can be philosophy as much as reason, Felasco. The evidence of faith is just not the reasonable evidence you seek. Philosophy is more than rationality.

I don't really follow you here, but perhaps I'm just tired.

[Bernard]

I think its too much too ask people to use a common definition in a way that distorts its meaning.

Oh poor them. Here's the deal. We've been victimizing gay people for a really long time. There's never been a good reason for it, there still isn't, and it's time for the abuse to stop. That's all there is to it.

No, don't poor them, you or me. I was watching the cricket yesterday and one of the South African batsman had a thigh injury and the bowler bowled in such a way as to excaberbate his condition and cause him pain. It was obviously victimisation yet the commentators were accepting of it. The guy should have been given better treatment in my opinion, but sport is war, and that sort of thing has to be expected of your bowling opponent. Is this world a world in which we can expect kindness of opponents? The fact is there is a war/sport that occurs between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and I believe its fairly evenly matched, contrary to most opinion. To be one or the other doesn't mean one has to be out there biologically practicing either - its the ideology one adopts at any given moment that gives one either leaning. Both are mistakes, but easily forgiveable mistakes (bisexuality etcetera are still part of the same pie).

One has to empty one's head of stupidity and fixed ideas.

We are reproductive beings, but not always successful at that. A tree drops it seeds and no seedlings strikes; do we sing about that? No, we sing when they strike. But we sing when they flower as well: whether or not the fruit sets later. So, if human sexual flowering is a thing to generally sing about, I think it's not good to judge those, as REV seems to, who just wish to enjoy the flowering of their sexuality, in whatever means they are disposed toward, without worrying about things like 'safe sex'. Yet these same people can't expect the world to be benign toward their activities if they choose to put their sexuality out there as part of a social ideology, as in hetero and homosexuality. It's not a matter of keeping things in the closet that I'm espousing - quite the opposite: social mores are the closet, not biological activity. I've known and know many people who are homo, one of them was the greatest teacher in my life. What he got out of being a poofter was a thing of great benefit to humanity - of more benefit arguably than the reproductive accomplishment. It somehow gave him a source of endless creativity - not directly, but through it being an opposition force in his soul to what he believed was goodness. He hated all they 'outing' stuff of gays, and never thought of himself as gay, deploring the public celebrations based upon gay motivations. He was an Australian writer and was very cautious with how words are used. (BTW 'gay' is an Australian invention). Some things require privacy because of: A) They are very personal, and: B) some people out there will inevitably take a violent dislike to what's being presented.

I mean no disrespect to Bernard, but I have no patience with those wringing their hands about definitions.

No-one is wringing their hands. Definitions need to retain retain integrity in order for us all to be able to communicate efficiently and effectively is all I am sayng.

To those folks (not directed at Bernard) I say, let's take away your right to marry, let's insult you repeatedly, let's discriminate against you in a wide variety of ways seen and unseen, and then let's see if you're still interested in word games.

But that is what you are doing - its all sport/war.

I don't see homosexuality as genetic either, though I think a leaning in that direction can become socially hard-wired early on - though may not manifest for years, like substance abuse and mental escapism.

Heterosexuality might be socially hard wired too, like gang rape and slave holding.

Indeed it is - more so than homosexuality, which is why I find homosexuality a little more forgiveable in a sense.

Marriage doesn't normally work, but I think its not something we should be cynical and dismissive about. We need to try and make it work and be as helpful as we can toward that end via social laws.

Agreed, so if people want to try to enter committed relationships backed up by the law, we should applaud, and wish them well. People, human beings, all of us.

Of course, but lets not mistake something for something else.

Faith can be philosophy as much as reason, Felasco. The evidence of faith is just not the reasonable evidence you seek. Philosophy is more than rationality.

I don't really follow you here, but perhaps I'm just tired.

Is it late where you are? Its morning here. Philosophy is changing. Its no longer dominated by Western enlightenment ideals. Perhaps its making a journey of return to a more intuitive thing within the spirit of humankind. Or perhaps its heading into new territory altogether! Thanks for a considerate response Felasco

[chaz wyman]

You may call me a bigot and a homophobe for my belief that homosexuality is a sin, but I cannot let name-calling soften my belief in the Scriptures which is the moral code to be obeyed.

Rubbish.


“The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.”
― Søren Kierkegaard, Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard

SK - a tragic waste of a good mind.

Your views on homosexuality are a disgrace, you ought to be ashamed of yourself!
When you are menstruating do you consider yourself unclean and hide yourself away from the menfolk???
NO??
Then you are in direct defiance of the scriptures!

[duszek]

Mr Kirkegaard is just one voice, struggling to know the truth, like anyone of us here, and in the world at large.

Scriptures are a written version of the wisdom of the Jews, written in those days and expressing the wisdom valid in those days.

We are invited to get inspired by them, when we are looking for a solution in our lives today.

[chaz wyman]

Mr Kirkegaard is just one voice, struggling to know the truth, like anyone of us here, and in the world at large.

Scriptures are a written version of the wisdom of the Jews, written in those days and expressing the wisdom valid in those days.

We are invited to get inspired by them, when we are looking for a solution in our lives today.

And there's the rub - they are hopelessly out of date

Homer has offered us probably two if the greatest examples of literature ever written. In very meaningful ways it has been called the Bible of the Ancient Greeks. But I would no more consult those works on advice about how to live my life and about the life of the gods than I would the Koran. What would possibly attract me to the Jewish Bible?

[Felasco]

And there's the rub - they are hopelessly out of date

They're hopelessly out of date on the narrow channel that you are listening on.

What would possibly attract me to the Jewish Bible?

On the personal level, I have no idea, as I don't know you.

On the intellectual level, it could be the most popular book in history, so a person of reason who has a genuine interest in better understanding human beings might find such a book a useful resource.

[RickLewis]

On the intellectual level, it could be the most popular book in history, so a person of reason who has a genuine interest in better understanding human beings might find such a book a useful resource.

True. Non-religious people might read the Bible for all sorts of reasons, this among them. I have a friend who despite being an atheist was at one time fascinated by the Book of Revelations and read it several times, mainly for all the "crazy stuff".

[chaz wyman]

On the intellectual level, it could be the most popular book in history, so a person of reason who has a genuine interest in better understanding human beings might find such a book a useful resource.

There is no doubt that the bible is to paper what Macdonald's is to food. Many people of small imagination think that eating a big Mac is the very thing.
Personally there is a much wider smorgasbord to choose from.

[duszek]

Many people read the psalms and think that they are inspiring.
To me they are not so really because a motive coming often is: God will keep me safe and make my enemies perish. This is not uplifting.

Zarathustra´s chants are not better. I tried them many times and was not uplifted by them.

Shakespeare is supposed to be inspiring, his sonnets for example. He was at least a positive man, as shown in the colourful film "Shakespeare in love".

The last resort would be ... to write something good for oneself oneself.
I tried in Italian, a prayer to my guardian angel, starting with the words:

Angelo, amico mio, raggiungi mi, mi sento sola.

Today in the tram I made a variation of this line addressing myself to Mr Baricco whose essays I currently read:

Alessandro, amico mio, spiegamelo, ...


What literature or poetry lifts you up?