T Nation

Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Religion is morally neutral?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays.[/quote]

The point is not whether you use derogatory terms for gays. The point is that the relevant “tactic” is really nothing more than a reasonable point which naturally lends itself to the debate. That is, the point is that the “tactic” is really just a thing that a skilled debater (though this one is obvious enough that it requires little skill) would do.

[quote]
Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.[/quote]

Well good luck proving this, because that’s what you’d have to do in order for me to accept it.

But it misses the point. The comparison is not between sexuality and religion. The comparison is between a good debater in one instance and a good debater in the other. The point again being that the listed “tactic” is nothing more than good debate advice (with, again, some attendant Orwellian jargon).

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Religion is morally neutral? [/quote]

Nope.

Or were the children of Moloch’s votaries members of families with morally neutral pastimes?

Religion, like sexual behavior, can be evil or neutral.

I’d like to see anybody show, without fallacy, that homosexuality is the former and not the latter.

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Religion is morally neutral? [/quote]

Not necessarily the orthodoxies of religion but rather the practitioners. Being a Muslim does not necessarily mean one is immoral despite the immorality of Islamic teachings.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point is not whether you use derogatory terms for gays. The point is that the relevant “tactic” is really nothing more than a reasonable point which naturally lends itself to the debate. That is, the point is that the “tactic” is really just a thing that a skilled debater (though this one is obvious enough that it requires little skill)
[/quote]

You’re cherry picking. The author advises demeaning his opponents without reference to facts, logic or reason. A tactic also recommended by Goebbels.

[quote]

Well good luck proving this, because that’s what you’d have to do in order for me to accept it.

But it misses the point. The comparison is not between sexuality and religion. The comparison is between a good debater in one instance and a good debater in the other. The point again being that the listed “tactic” is nothing more than good debate advice (with, again, some attendant Orwellian jargon).[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Orwellian jargon as harmless. BTW, can you prove that it is immoral to marry your adult daughter by mutual consent? Some things don’t require proof. They are instinctual.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I’d like to see anybody show, without fallacy, that homosexuality is the former and not the latter.[/quote]

I’d like to see anybody show that right and wrong actually exist without recourse to scripture. For the atheist right and wrong are purely subjective and exist without facts, logic or reason.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Religion is morally neutral? [/quote]

Not necessarily the orthodoxies of religion but rather the practitioners. Being a Muslim does not necessarily mean one is immoral despite the immorality of Islamic teachings.[/quote]

But your religious doctrine itself determines what is right and wrong. The religion itself of the Muslim or Christian is what informs them that acting on gay feelings is immoral.

In that sense it’s really hard to say that religion is neutral. It actually seems like an attempt to hide behind religion as some sort of shield without subjecting it to criticism.

I can’t speak for you, but I know growing up it was both American culture as well as religion that told me gays were bad. Grew up playing smear the queer and all the same stuff you probably did.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point is not whether you use derogatory terms for gays. The point is that the relevant “tactic” is really nothing more than a reasonable point which naturally lends itself to the debate. That is, the point is that the “tactic” is really just a thing that a skilled debater (though this one is obvious enough that it requires little skill)
[/quote]

You’re cherry picking. The author advises demeaning his opponents without reference to facts, logic or reason.[/quote]

In a good number of words, I explained fairly carefully that the substance of the “tactics” is in fact logical. There is literally nothing illogical about descrying the connection between the words “faggot” and “kike.” Nothing. Likewise, there is literally nothing illogical about endeavoring to present an argument in its most accessible and least offensive form.

As for the demeaning of opponents, take a look through this forum, including my posts, including your own posts. Then maybe we can talk about the horror of an obscure book in which anti-gay advocates were demeaned a quarter of a century ago.

[quote]
A tactic also recommended by Goebbels.[/quote]

Oh boy.

[quote]

[quote]
Well good luck proving this, because that’s what you’d have to do in order for me to accept it.

But it misses the point. The comparison is not between sexuality and religion. The comparison is between a good debater in one instance and a good debater in the other. The point again being that the listed “tactic” is nothing more than good debate advice (with, again, some attendant Orwellian jargon).[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Orwellian jargon as harmless.[/quote]

If you can find the energy to worry about silly jargon in a book nobody reads, you are too fearful by several orders of magnitude.

[quote]
Some things don’t require proof.[/quote]

This isn’t one of them.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I’d like to see anybody show, without fallacy, that homosexuality is the former and not the latter.[/quote]

I’d like to see anybody show that right and wrong actually exist without recourse to scripture. For the atheist right and wrong are purely subjective and exist without facts, logic or reason.[/quote]

I’m not the one making the claim that homosexuality is immoral. The claim-maker assumes the burden of proof.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

But your religious doctrine itself determines what is right and wrong. The religion itself of the Muslim or Christian is what informs them that acting on gay feelings is immoral.

In that sense it’s really hard to say that religion is neutral. It actually seems like an attempt to hide behind religion as some sort of shield without subjecting it to criticism.

I can’t speak for you, but I know growing up it was both American culture as well as religion that told me gays were bad. Grew up playing smear the queer and all the same stuff you probably did. [/quote]

No I never played that game. However it’s not just religion, it’s also natural law. The biological and social function of sex is the continuation of the species. To institutionalise and normalise something that is evidently against natural law is harmful to society and the individual. Homosexuality is an unnatural sterile union that circumvents the natural order.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The point is not whether you use derogatory terms for gays. The point is that the relevant “tactic” is really nothing more than a reasonable point which naturally lends itself to the debate. That is, the point is that the “tactic” is really just a thing that a skilled debater (though this one is obvious enough that it requires little skill)
[/quote]

You’re cherry picking. The author advises demeaning his opponents without reference to facts, logic or reason.[/quote]

In a good number of words, I explained fairly carefully that the substance of the “tactics” is in fact logical. There is literally nothing illogical about descrying the connection between the words “faggot” and “kike.” Nothing. Likewise, there is literally nothing illogical about endeavoring to present an argument in its most accessible and least offensive form.

As for the demeaning of opponents, take a look through this forum, including my posts, including your own posts. Then maybe we can talk about the horror of an obscure book in which anti-gay advocates were demeaned a quarter of a century ago.

[quote]
A tactic also recommended by Goebbels.[/quote]

Oh boy.

[quote]

[quote]
Well good luck proving this, because that’s what you’d have to do in order for me to accept it.

But it misses the point. The comparison is not between sexuality and religion. The comparison is between a good debater in one instance and a good debater in the other. The point again being that the listed “tactic” is nothing more than good debate advice (with, again, some attendant Orwellian jargon).[/quote]

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Orwellian jargon as harmless.[/quote]

If you can find the energy to worry about silly jargon in a book nobody reads, you are too fearful by several orders of magnitude.

[quote]
Some things don’t require proof.[/quote]

This isn’t one of them.[/quote]

It’s a famous book that has been used by gay radicals for 20 years. And I can honestly say there is very little I fear. I have been resigned for some time to watch the world go to hell in a hand basket.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

But your religious doctrine itself determines what is right and wrong. The religion itself of the Muslim or Christian is what informs them that acting on gay feelings is immoral.

In that sense it’s really hard to say that religion is neutral. It actually seems like an attempt to hide behind religion as some sort of shield without subjecting it to criticism.

I can’t speak for you, but I know growing up it was both American culture as well as religion that told me gays were bad. Grew up playing smear the queer and all the same stuff you probably did. [/quote]

No I never played that game. However it’s not just religion, it’s also natural law. The biological and social function of sex is the continuation of the species. To institutionalise and normalise something that is evidently against natural law is harmful to society and the individual. Homosexuality is an unnatural sterile union that circumvents the natural order.[/quote]

–Natural law exists and is related to teleology, which also exists.

–Violations of natural law are ipso facto harmful to the individual and to society.

If we do this, you will keep running in circles, keep relying on some enormous and unwarranted leap of faith. But you are free to go for it. You’ll have to prove–prove–these two claims here, for starters.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

But your religious doctrine itself determines what is right and wrong. The religion itself of the Muslim or Christian is what informs them that acting on gay feelings is immoral.

In that sense it’s really hard to say that religion is neutral. It actually seems like an attempt to hide behind religion as some sort of shield without subjecting it to criticism.

I can’t speak for you, but I know growing up it was both American culture as well as religion that told me gays were bad. Grew up playing smear the queer and all the same stuff you probably did. [/quote]

No I never played that game. However it’s not just religion, it’s also natural law. The biological and social function of sex is the continuation of the species. To institutionalise and normalise something that is evidently against natural law is harmful to society and the individual. Homosexuality is an unnatural sterile union that circumvents the natural order.[/quote]

–Natural law exists and is related to teleology, which also exists.

–Violations of natural law are ipso facto harmful to the individual and to society.

If we do this, you will keep running in circles, keep relying on some enormous and unwarranted leap of faith. But you are free to go for it. You’ll have to prove–prove–these two claims here, for starters.[/quote]

You clearly don’t understand natural law. Natural law is not rooted in scientific proof but rather experience, observation, history and biology.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

But your religious doctrine itself determines what is right and wrong. The religion itself of the Muslim or Christian is what informs them that acting on gay feelings is immoral.

In that sense it’s really hard to say that religion is neutral. It actually seems like an attempt to hide behind religion as some sort of shield without subjecting it to criticism.

I can’t speak for you, but I know growing up it was both American culture as well as religion that told me gays were bad. Grew up playing smear the queer and all the same stuff you probably did. [/quote]

No I never played that game. However it’s not just religion, it’s also natural law. The biological and social function of sex is the continuation of the species. To institutionalise and normalise something that is evidently against natural law is harmful to society and the individual. Homosexuality is an unnatural sterile union that circumvents the natural order.[/quote]

Eh, there are some theories as to why homosexuality occurs, and why it’s attached to the x chromosome. One explanation, with more male children it’s already known that the likelihood for women to have gay children is increased exponentially.

How would this benefit a social species like humans? I don’t know, maybe having a young man in your clan, who wont run off and marry, and actually stay home would be a boon for a mothers survivability? This is an anthropological explanation as to why it could be a relatively normal thing to happen.

It also seems to happen in nature outside of humans. If it’s such a bad thing then how come it seems to increase survivability? In situations of overpopulation homosexuality might also be a good thing?

It just seems a little hasty to call it wrong or against nature, when it seems to be a product of nature, and likely a boon for survivability in some very foreseeable and practical circumstances.

But yeah, smear the queer. It was a game I played as a kid where we would just have a football, whoever had the balls to pick up the football would get labeled the queer, and get tackled. Then, another guy would pick it up and get tackled… Played it before I even knew what a queer was.

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Eh, there are some theories as to why homosexuality occurs, and why it’s attached to the x chromosome. One explanation, with more male children it’s already known that the likelihood for women to have gay children is increased exponentially.

How would this benefit a social species like humans? I don’t know, maybe having a young man in your clan, who wont run off and marry, and actually stay home would be a boon for a mothers survivability? This is an anthropological explanation as to why it could be a relatively normal thing to happen.

[/quote]

But not a very good one as a gay man would be just as likely to run off with another man. And in biological terms a young man is more valuable to the species than a menopausal woman.

It doesn’t increase survivability. Quite the contrary. And overpopulation is dealt with by famine, plague and war.

It seems to me that you’re grasping at straws.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

I’d like to see anybody show, without fallacy, that homosexuality is the former and not the latter.[/quote]

I’d like to see anybody show that right and wrong actually exist without recourse to scripture. For the atheist right and wrong are purely subjective and exist without facts, logic or reason.[/quote]

And you think that scripture is the go to source for right and wrong?!?

I’d like to see you prove that absolute right and absolute wrong actually exist. And if you can prove that, then I’d like to see how you will prove that scripture is the path to that idea of absolute right and wrong.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

And you think that scripture is the go to source for right and wrong?!?

[/quote]

Yes.

I can’t prove it. However it is self evident that right and wrong cannot be determined by individuals as this would preclude universality.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

But your religious doctrine itself determines what is right and wrong. The religion itself of the Muslim or Christian is what informs them that acting on gay feelings is immoral.

In that sense it’s really hard to say that religion is neutral. It actually seems like an attempt to hide behind religion as some sort of shield without subjecting it to criticism.

I can’t speak for you, but I know growing up it was both American culture as well as religion that told me gays were bad. Grew up playing smear the queer and all the same stuff you probably did. [/quote]

No I never played that game. However it’s not just religion, it’s also natural law. The biological and social function of sex is the continuation of the species. To institutionalise and normalise something that is evidently against natural law is harmful to society and the individual. Homosexuality is an unnatural sterile union that circumvents the natural order.[/quote]

–Natural law exists and is related to teleology, which also exists.

–Violations of natural law are ipso facto harmful to the individual and to society.

If we do this, you will keep running in circles, keep relying on some enormous and unwarranted leap of faith. But you are free to go for it. You’ll have to prove–prove–these two claims here, for starters.[/quote]

You clearly don’t understand natural law. Natural law is not rooted in scientific proof but rather experience, observation, history and biology.
[/quote]

The misunderstanding here is on your end.

History, biology, observation, and experience–your criteria–confirm the existence of homosexuality. They also confirm the existence of lactation, smallpox, orgasm, necrophilia, and restless leg syndrome.

Again, if you want to do this, we can, but you’re going to wander in circles until the end of time. This is, in other words, an unwinnable argument for you. But maybe you don’t believe me, so let’s try. The first step is for you to prove, specifically, what “natural law” is, and what constitutes a violation of it.

Then–and this is your real problem–you will have to prove, specifically, why a violation of natural law is ipso facto harmful to the individual and society.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

The misunderstanding here is on your end.

[/quote]

On the contrary I’m very familiar with the argument you’re making. It’s a specious one.

And murder, suicide, alcoholism, necrophilia, cannibalism…so where does that leave us?

[quote]

Again, if you want to do this, we can, but you’re going to wander in circles until the end of time. This is, in other words, an unwinnable argument for you. But maybe you don’t believe me, so let’s try. The first step is for you to prove, specifically, what “natural law” is, and what constitutes a violation of it.

Then–and this is your real problem–you will have to prove, specifically, why a violation of natural law is ipso facto harmful to the individual and society.[/quote]

I can only repeat what I have already said. I cannot prove that. However by observing human nature, the nature of the world and of biology it is self evident.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I can only repeat what I have already said. I cannot prove that. However by observing human nature, the nature of the world and of biology it is self evident.
[/quote]

What is self-evident? That homosexuality is immoral? Well, in what form, exactly, do “human nature” and “biology” communicate this to you?