Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Book Check
    Guest

    Morality v. Tradition

    In todays society, the issue of sexual orientation is one that has sparked attention, anger and outrage from some people. It is such a delicate issue, as it touches on what we view as moral, and what we view as acceptable. Before I give you my view on this issue, I would like everyone to come here with a spirit of ingenuity and honesty, humbleness and a willing to listen whole heartedly to other people's views.

    I personally believe that it is wrong to hate homosexuals and reject them from society. I know the old argument that states, religion condemns such people. But, have we ever stopped to wonder whether that tradition (of a religion calling homosexuality evil) was invented by just another human being?

    Whether they should be allowed to get married, or have children is a different story, but as far as hatred, and calling them evil. I say, no. No religion that preaches harmony and justice in society will condemn a human being AT BIRTH for something they cannot control. It is unethical.

    With that, it is, as a see it, necessary that our society be tolerant.


    What do you think. If there is a reason why you believe another human being should be hated just for being born a certain way, then I would like to hear it.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Book Check View Post
    In todays society, the issue of sexual orientation is one that has sparked attention, anger and outrage from some people. It is such a delicate issue, as it touches on what we view as moral, and what we view as acceptable. Before I give you my view on this issue, I would like everyone to come here with a spirit of ingenuity and honesty, humbleness and a willing to listen whole heartedly to other people's views.

    I personally believe that it is wrong to hate homosexuals and reject them from society. I know the old argument that states, religion condemns such people. But, have we ever stopped to wonder whether that tradition (of a religion calling homosexuality evil) was invented by just another human being?

    Whether they should be allowed to get married, or have children is a different story, but as far as hatred, and calling them evil. I say, no. No religion that preaches harmony and justice in society will condemn a human being AT BIRTH for something they cannot control. It is unethical.

    With that, it is, as a see it, necessary that our society be tolerant.


    What do you think. If there is a reason why you believe another human being should be hated just for being born a certain way, then I would like to hear it.
    Aren't pedophiles born that way, too? Are we not allowed to disapprove of them, either?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #3
    Book Check
    Guest

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    @CliveStaples: What have you read or heard that suggests that an unlucky few are BORN to be a pedophile?

    If there were TRULY people born to be pedophiles, then they should be helped not hated, because it wouldn't be their fault.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Book Check View Post
    @CliveStaples: What have you read or heard that suggests that an unlucky few are BORN to be a pedophile?

    If there were TRULY people born to be pedophiles, then they should be helped not hated, because it wouldn't be their fault.
    Well, speaking from a Christian perspective, you never hate the person, only the sin. Is it hateful to disapprove of someone's actions when they are acting on desires they were born with? I don't think so.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  5. #5
    Book Check
    Guest

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Well, speaking from a Christian perspective, you never hate the person, only the sin. Is it hateful to disapprove of someone's actions when they are acting on desires they were born with? I don't think so.

    In your previous comment, " Aren't pedophiles born that way, too? Are we not allowed to disapprove of THEM, either?" You disapproved of the pedophile and not of his actions. However if you meant to say you disapprove of their actions, then yes I would agree with you.

    Back to the topic of sexual orientation, What I am protesting is the act of hating PEOPLE themselves. Do you hate homosexuals? or do you hate homosexuality? VERY different things.


    Also speaking from a Christian perspective by the way.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Book Check View Post
    In your previous comment, " Aren't pedophiles born that way, too? Are we not allowed to disapprove of THEM, either?" You disapproved of the pedophile and not of his actions. However if you meant to say you disapprove of their actions, then yes I would agree with you.

    Back to the topic of sexual orientation, What I am protesting is the act of hating PEOPLE themselves. Do you hate homosexuals? or do you hate homosexuality? VERY different things.


    Also speaking from a Christian perspective by the way.
    I agree, that's a key distinction to make.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #7
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Book Check View Post
    Back to the topic of sexual orientation, What I am protesting is the act of hating PEOPLE themselves.
    I don't believe that there are any Christians on this site who will seriously contend that it is morally correct according to the Christian faith to hate homosexuals, per se. Jesus clearly told his Disciples that we should love one another, and that sentiment echoes throughout his words and teachings. Only someone who doesn't understand his Bible very well would seriously take the position that we should hate homosexuals as people, as opposed to disapproving of their sinful actions.

    I guess my problem is this: what are you really trying to find out? It seems self-evident to me that if we're all talking about Christian values, it's never acceptable to hate any person under any circumstances. Unless your aim is to uncover some ignorant Christians' beliefs and educate them, I'm kind of failing to see the point. Perhaps if you could refine your position a little bit and provide some more detail, it would be easier to have a good discussion.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Aren't pedophiles born that way, too? Are we not allowed to disapprove of them, either?
    Well, pedophiles do cause harm to other people. (Molestation). So that's a perfectly valid analogy, because. . . homosexuals cause harm too? Yup. Perfectly valid.

  9. #9
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Book Check View Post
    In todays society, the issue of sexual orientation is one that has sparked attention, anger and outrage from some people. It is such a delicate issue, as it touches on what we view as moral, and what we view as acceptable. Before I give you my view on this issue, I would like everyone to come here with a spirit of ingenuity and honesty, humbleness and a willing to listen whole heartedly to other people's views.

    I personally believe that it is wrong to hate homosexuals and reject them from society. I know the old argument that states, religion condemns such people. But, have we ever stopped to wonder whether that tradition (of a religion calling homosexuality evil) was invented by just another human being?

    Whether they should be allowed to get married, or have children is a different story, but as far as hatred, and calling them evil. I say, no. No religion that preaches harmony and justice in society will condemn a human being AT BIRTH for something they cannot control. It is unethical.

    With that, it is, as a see it, necessary that our society be tolerant.


    What do you think. If there is a reason why you believe another human being should be hated just for being born a certain way, then I would like to hear it.
    Before we get to whether or not morality has anything to say here (and whether or not where one looks to find their morality makes any difference), we should clear away a couple of assumptions you've made above that appear, at least to me, and according to numerous studies of human sexual orientation, to be false.

    First, though, a few terms. When I say "homosexuality", I mean both the sexual orientation and a lifestyle characterized by participation in same sex sexual relations. If I mean otherwise, such as limiting my meaning to sexual orientation alone, I will so specify.

    Second, as I certainly hope has become clear by now in the thread, "Re: Is atheism capable of supplying a moral code", for a "morality" to have any potential for providing a person with the ability to make a "moral judgment", the source for that morality must, at a minimum, reside in a transcendent relationship with the one who adopts it. So to make any external moral judgments we must "consult" something other than our own thoughts, beliefs, and experiences. We can't have ten sources of morality for every ten people on the planet, if you get the principle here, otherwise "morality" just becomes a euphemism for "doing what I want to do, and judging all others by that fact); a euphemism that completely empties the term "morality" of any substantive meaning.

    Third, and leaving definitions, we can't lump all religions into one basket just to make things "simple" here, if the objection you're making is to "hating" homosexuals, because not all religions teach hatred.

    In fact, of the three main theistic religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, the first condemns hating anyone, teaching instead that we are to love our "neighbor" as ourselves, and defining our "neighbor" as anyone in need.

    The second actually does still teach hatred of homosexuals, and provides, even today, for capital punishment of them, but in most Muslim countries Muslims conveniently "wink" at this section of their sacred writings (as they do many others), and it is, at best, enforced in a hit and miss fashion throughout the Muslim world. In any case, there is no systemic harrassment of homosexuals by Muslims in this country of which I'm aware, and it goes without saying (since Sharia Law doesn't prevail here...yet), no punishment of them.

    The Jewish scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality (as do the Christian scriptures that include them), and also provide for their capital punishment, but I know of no instance where a Jew has ever killed a homosexual based on the fact they were a homosexual and because that Jew was attempting to obey his/her sacred writings. It seems to me if we can lump all Jews together here (problematic at best), the most we get is social ostracism, ranging to the least we get, which is total acceptance, this range paralleling the range from ultraorthodoxy to nearly complete secularism within Judaism.

    So out of the three, in today's world there is only the one theistic religion still preaching hatred of homosexuals that actually leads to anything physically threatening anywhere in the world, but even in this religion the scriptural condemnation doesn't lead to much social ostracization, and even less to actual punishment. Of course, religious ostracism is another thing, but then, except for the odd instance noted above concerning Islam, religious ostracism no longer follows one in the secular world in a systematic way, as it did centuries ago for Christianity, and millennia ago for Judaism.

    Finally, as to your assumption homosexuality is something one is born with, or that being a homosexual is something one simply can't change, like they can't change their gender, both notions are apparently false on the actual hard data. For example, the data shows that certain percentages of young women, and a much smaller percentage of young men, over time spontaneously change sexual orientations, and that the is far and away more prevalent in the direction from homosexuality to heterosexuality than the other direction. The prevailing theory to explain this asymmetrical shift in sexual orientation is that the norm exerts a pull on the individual that is hard to resist, and much more difficult for women than for men.

    As for being born a homosexual, studies show humans aren't born with a sexual orientation at all, beyond some minimal degree provided by gender, which is virtually never ambiguous or immutable. There is no evidence at all that any such thing as a heterosexual infant, much less a homosexual infant, is ever born.

    Now, all that said, it is my belief that within society homosexuality should be treated as it was in the 70's; i.e., as a sexually devient behavior that is basically parasitic within whatever society in which it exists as a significant phenomenon. Corporate homosexuality generally consumes more than it contributes to society. There has been nothing of any scientific import since the 70's to change this basic view on any purely scientific basis, and all the changes in society's views on homosexuality since the 70's have been, instead, driven by a polemical political narrative produced and diseminated by politically active homosexuals and the organizations they established for that purpose, furthered by a receptive media. I'm all for change when it is driven by fact based argument and opinion, but not when there is nothing substantive undergirding it. Change just for the sake of change itself, is stupid, not progressive.

    As an exercise in noticing how the homosexual political narrative conflicts with the facts, let's take a look at one aspect of that narrative, the idea homosexuals are particularly discriminated against in this country by religious people, and just see if that's actually the case. In that regard, below I'm providing the following data from the FBI's Hate Crimes statistics, for the years 1999-2009, the last year for which complete data is available at this time:

    (Note: in the FBI Hate Crimes tables I'm using, anti-homosexual offenses are broken down into those against males, those against females, and a third category simply called "Anti-homosexual", that I don't understand. However, in an attempt to assiduously refrain from exaggerating or minimizing the data, my category below, "Anti-homosexual", adds all three categories together. Also, for each year's statistics I've included here, under the catetory "religion", the FBI has included hate crimes against atheists, which I didn't bother to back out, because there isn't more than 20 of them in any one year, and in a majority of years the number is a single digit. A guesstimate of the total for all years would be about 100-110)

    1999: Anti-religion = 1,532; Anti-homosexual = 1,446

    2000: Anti-religion = 1,556; Anti-homosexual = 1,444

    2001: Anti-religion = 2004; Anti-homosexual = 1,555

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...002/02sec2.pdf: Anti-religion = 1,576; Anti-homosexual = 1,423

    2003: Anti-religion = 1,426; Anti-homosexual = 1,406

    (I must apologize here, because the FBI changed formats so that without Excel you can't actually access what is in all other years their "Table 1", either on the home page for the year, or in "Section II" where pdf format is used.)

    2004: Anti-religion = 1,480; Anti-homosexual = 1,353

    2005: Anti-religion = 1,314; Anti-homosexual = 1,121

    2006: Anti-religion = 1,597; Anti-homosexual = 1,366

    2007: Anti-religion = 1,477; Anti-homosexual = 1,410

    2008: Anti-religion = 1,606; Anti-homosexual = 1,561

    2009: Anti-religion = 1,376; Anti-homosexual = 1,390

    As we can see at a glance, over the last ten years (for which the FBI has final statistics) there have been 16,944 Anti-religion hate crimes offenses committed, and 15,475 Anti-homosexual hate crime offenses, or 1,469 fewer Anti-homosexual hate crime offenses than Anti-religion hate crime offenses, for an average of 147 per year more hate crimes against religionists in this country than homosexuals!

    Is this what the politically active homosexual narrative leads us to expect when we turn to the data? Do we hear that when it comes to hate crimes in America, race takes top billing in a walk, with religion coming in second, and homosexuality a distant third? No!

    What we hear is how horrible Westboro church is (which is true, but can be exaggerated as a problem until it's no longer true, and similar exaggerations are being promoted in this area nearly every day in this country!) And why don't we receive this informaton in the media? Because it doesn't square with the political narrative of the homosexual lobby, designed to advance homosexual "rights"; and "outing" that lobby's narrative for it's extremely self-serving distortion of fact is not something a left leaning media is much interested in doing. So instead of hearing that religionists in this country are more threatened by bigots than homosexuals are, we get scores of reports filed each year on the Westboro church, a percentage of the American population and American Christianity so infintesimal it may as well not exist! Why this obsession with the gnat's eyelash, while ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room? It almost has to be the unconscious result of, or the conscious promotion of a bigoted narrative in which facts are only important as they are useful to achieving the desired political goal, and this is what greatly concerns me about this whole subject.

    Societal changes driven by theories poorly supported by the hard data of science are generally harmful to the society that adopts them, much as most random mutations are to the organism in which they occur. These types of narratives remind me of certain cancers, where the cancerous cells start to produce proteins the body interprets as a signal to direct energy resources to those cells. These types of false, but sympathetic sounding narratives that tug at the heart strings of every normal American, and come with comic book heroes and villians, act in a healthy society just like those proteins do in the body that is slowly contributing to its own maligant demise. It's time to put the comic book down.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Manteca, CA
    Posts
    1,443
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    Quote Originally Posted by Book Check View Post
    @CliveStaples: What have you read or heard that suggests that an unlucky few are BORN to be a pedophile?

    If there were TRULY people born to be pedophiles, then they should be helped not hated, because it wouldn't be their fault.
    Support that anyone was born a certain way and has to act accordingly.
    There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.
    Nahj ul-Balāgha by Ali bin Abu-Talib

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    184
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Morality v. Tradition

    In todays society, the issue of sexual orientation is one that has sparked attention, anger and outrage from some people. It is such a delicate issue, as it touches on what we view as moral, and what we view as acceptable. Before I give you my view on this issue, I would like everyone to come here with a spirit of ingenuity and honesty, humbleness and a willing to listen whole heartedly to other people's views.
    I fail to see how sexual orientation between two consenting adults, can have its moraility judged by another. It does not affect any one else. Because one dislikes something, or finds it distastefull, how is that a moral judgement?

    Its easy to do, I realize I my self was doing that rmy self in the Polygamy thread. I was wrong, for this same reason.


    I personally believe that it is wrong to hate homosexuals and reject them from society. I know the old argument that states, religion condemns such people. But, have we ever stopped to wonder whether that tradition (of a religion calling homosexuality evil) was invented by just another human being?
    For sure Religion can and does, read what it wants into so called sacred texts. The most famous verse used from leviticus to justify prejeduice against Gays, is used in correctly. It is actully referring to men married to woman, not to go with men as , because it is adultery.

    So, while I think, it was only written by other human beings, even if one thinks its inspired, one can still argue that man has misinterpreted what it says. To fit their prejeduice I think.

    Whether they should be allowed to get married, or have children is a different story, but as far as hatred, and calling them evil. I say, no. No religion that preaches harmony and justice in society will condemn a human being AT BIRTH for something they cannot control. It is unethical.
    Gay marriage, also allowing them to have kids, has no affect on society.

    Using gay marriage in Canada here, where its been legal for years, it has had zero affect. I think Gay marriage has only acccounted for less than .5% of all marraiges. Remember, many Americans have come up here as well, for that, so the percentage is even smaller.

    Since it has no affect, on any one else, how can it be a moral question for the general population?

    With that, it is, as a see it, necessary that our society be tolerant.
    I would argue, it is immoral, if our society is not tolerant. Those who are against what others do, when it has no affect on society or others, might be doing so out of their own distaste of something. That is not a moral judgement to begin with I think.


    What do you think. If there is a reason why you believe another human being should be hated just for being born a certain way, then I would like to hear it.
    I fail to see that there is a valid moral; reason to do so. Even though I admit I have been guilty of this my self at times ( I opposed Gay marraige initially as one example). I called my distaste for something a moral judegment, which in its self, was immoral on my part. IMO

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •