|
Homosexuality and Islam: Firstly, you described yourself as very liberal so you are most likely totally cool with gay dudes and the fun and games that they get up to. And that's awesome. But a lot of Muslim people aren't. quote:Muslims overwhelmingly say that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, including three-quarters or more in 33 of the 36 countries where the question was asked. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/ As far as I can tell, this research is perfectly credible. And it goes a lot further than just thinking behavior is morally wrong, in many of these countries homosexuality is a criminal offences with not fun consequences. Do you have some insight in this? Are these core tenants of Islam? And are these views appropriate for the 21st century? Can these views change, do you think they will? Full disclosure, as a gay person its hard for me not to take an extremely hostile view towards Islam.
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Black Bones posted:Turkey's no more liberal than Iran Turkey is *much* more liberal than Iran. In the sense that homosexual sex is legal there but punishable by death in Iran.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Considering homosexuality exists within the entire natural kingdom, to deny that its natural, is to go against all the evidence. And I would describe as remarkably stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Human nature and animal nature are different. That's basically the definition of ethics. You know humans are animals, right? And not at all sure what ethics has to do with concept of homosexuality being natural.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Is this some kind of rhetorical device? Or can you sincerely not handle the following arguments: That may be so. But I don't think philosophy has *anything* to do with being homosexual. Penguins I don't believe know much about philosophy and they can be homosexual. I certainly didn't know anything about philosophy when I realized I was gay. And certainly no human I know did a course in philosophy before accepting their homosexuality. Perhaps you could try and explain how philosophy in humans effects homosexuality in humans? (The science shows that homosexuality in humans is somewhere between 5-10% and is independent of philosophy) Ras Het posted:2) The concept of "natural" can mean something other than "it exists", and is pretty important to many ethical principles I have no idea what you mean by this. Homosexuality exists in just about all animals, including humans. It exists. There isn't anything more to say about it really. Other than other peoples violence and hate directed towards it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Humans live in a society. Society has principles other than "do what you feel like". I don't think it's worth pursuing this unless you're willing to acknowledge that. Absolutely, and I do acknowledge that. There are societies that treat gay people with respect and dignity, which is awesome. And there are those which don't, which I would describe as deeply unethical for their hateful and bigoted ways. The most awesome societies are those which allow people to do what they want, provided they don't cause harm to others. Those are nice societies to be in. EDIT: Incidentally, penguins let other penguins be gay and don't take any issue with it. No hate or homophobia, penguins can be awesome too. BattleMoose fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jul 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:This is the whole debate I outlined, though. Can you 'be' homosexual, or is 'doing' homosexual acts something separate from your essence / individual nature? Being homosexual and homosexual acts are completely different ideas. The idea of binary sexuality, either homosexual or heterosexual is also wrong. See the Kinsey report. Homosexuality is about an "attraction" to the same sex, and it exists on a spectrum, between being completely heterosexual or completely homosexual. A straight person who engages in a homosexual act is still a straight person, his hetrosexuality is defined by his sexual attractions and not his actions. Purple Prince posted:You're taking homosexuality as something one is when this is the entire question. Absolutely. I was born this way. If you ask other gay people, they will tell you the same. It is a fundamental part of who we are. Ask gay people and they will tell you the same. Its only heterosexual people who argue against this. I am as gay as I am male or caucasian, these are just aspects of who I am as a person. Purple Prince posted:Whether or not animals exhibit homosexual behaviour doesn't have much relevance to this argument. Let me put it to you this way. Why would heterosexual penguins commit homosexual acts? Or form lifelong homosexual partners? And this extends to all animals, not just penguins. The only reasonable position to take is that homosexuality exists in all animals, as fundamental characteristics. Penguins commit homosexual acts because they are homosexual. Same for all animals.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:This is an interesting point, because it touches on a deeper religious and ethical question: can we control our impulses and attractions? If so, then you can blame gay people not only for their actions but also for their very attraction to others of the same gender. One common claim is that participating in certain types of behaviour makes you want to do them more, and that homosexuality is one such behaviour. There's also the monastic and ascetic tradition of various religions, which makes the claim that with spiritual practice we can control all such urges. In this conception, homosexual people are very much to blame for their attraction to others of the same sex, either because they actively indulge their desires, or because they haven't taken strong enough action to suppress the attraction. This to me seems to be more in line with a view which situates homosexuality as 'unnatural', but more liberally you could argue that this sort of repression of sexuality just causes more trouble than it's worth -- the position of Freud, and later 60s counterculture. It seems that you have jumped a few steps without dealing with a more fundamental issue. Why should we control our impulses or attractions? Why should homosexual attractions be controlled or limited? Similarly, why should homosexual actions be controlled limited? There isn't anything in my ethical or moral code that suggests these things should, nor are there within (very liberal) social circles I associate with. Consequently the views you are espousing are extremely alien to me. Perhaps if you could frame, why, homosexuality can/should be limited with explicit connections to ethical or moral values, that would be helpful. Purple Prince posted:This isn't true: the argument that sexuality is socially constructed was stated most famously by Michel Foucault, famous fan of gay BDSM, and there are numerous gay people who accept this view of sexuality. For example, see this article by Julie Bindel. You can find numerous other examples fairly easy by searching for 'social construction of sexuality' and similar terms. Whether being 'male' or 'caucasian' is something you 'are' is also up for debate according to the same theories. I don't really value journalists opinions highly at all. If the point that you want to make, is that homosexuality is socially constructed, that is an extremely extraordinary claim, and requires extraordinary evidence. There is evidence for this, published in the peer reviewed literature, right? Whereas there is an increasing growing body of evidence for biological reasons for homosexuality. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541765 Personally I find the idea that homosexuality is a social construct to be utterly absurd. But will, as always, accept the evidence. Its also interesting to note, that penguins are also able to socially construct homosexuality. Purple Prince posted:See above: regardless of what penguins do, it's not clear that this makes homosexuality (or, here's the kicker, heterosexuality) anything more than a pattern of behaviour. And as Ras Het said, the behaviour of animals has little bearing on ethics. The question stands, why do heterosexual penguins, commit lifelong, exclusive homosexual acts? Seeing as its not an ethical question, its not surprising or relevant, that ethics has no bearing on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Purple Prince posted:
Its the entire crux of the matter. If it can be pointed out that someone's ethical code is irrational, then their position can be described as irrational and that's the end of the discussion. There is no reasoning with irrationality. My ethical code is posited on what produces a "happy" society, for some definition of happy. If my ethics contradict that, then I am required to change them. This is a rational approach. Purple Prince posted:Two points. First, the argument that homosexuality is a social construct isn't a scientific one, but a sociological one. It's not saying that people are only homosexual because they've learned to be that way, but that the idea of a category called 'homosexual' is a recent invention. Nobody denies that some people are attracted to others of the same gender -- what's being denied is that this points to sexuality being a fixed aspect of identity, rather than something which is part of a pattern of emotions and behaviour like anything else. Only interested in scientific discussions, the type that relate to the real world. Where results and conclusions are based on facts and reasoned. As soon as the discussions turn away from basing positions on facts and evidence, then I have zero interest in it. Purple Prince posted:Second, surely because something is biological it doesn't mean that we should tolerate it? For example, XYY syndrome is a genetic condition where males are born with two Y chromosomes. This leads to an increase in testosterone production, and a corresponding increase in violent and antisocial behaviour. You could say that this violent and antisocial behaviour is therefore natural, because they were 'born this way'. Does that mean that we should tolerate such behaviour? I doubt you'd say we should. How does this case differ from that of homosexuality? In both cases they may have a genetic cause, leading to an undesirable (in some societies) pattern of behaviour. Yet it would seem normal to say that people with XYY syndrome should learn coping mechanisms and ways to avoid acting out based on their genetic condition. Behaviour that is not harmful to others should be tolerated. The biological aspect is brought up to dismiss the social construct idea. And to dismiss the idea of it being a choice. Purple Prince posted:Remember, this is a devil's advocate argument. I'm just interested in making the point that you can put forward an argument against tolerating homosexuality which works just as well as one for tolerating it. I am really not interested in arguing against a devils advocate's perspective. You haven't based your argument against homosexuality within ethics or morals and until you do, it cannot be countered with a rational argument based in ethics.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
my dad posted:Just for the record, you are making a textbook case of the is-ought fallacy. You are going to have to be much more explicit.As in I have no idea what you are on about. I am familiar with the is-ought fallacy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
Almost the definition of a waste of time. :/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:58
|
|