|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 4:28 pm
xxEternallyBluexx brainnsoup One thing I would like to add to the arguments people have already posted, the author of this propaganda makes a few obvious, objective faults in his logic from the get go...15 Reasons Why Homosexuality Is Wrong and Hurts Society A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy.
He does this a lot, proving that homosexuality is bad because homosexuality is bad.
And my other huge problem with his logic- not even his points, but his logic, is that he tries to imply that correlation is the same as causation with points 4-7.15 Reasons Why Homosexuality Is Wrong and Hurts Society 4. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of infidelity. wikipedia Example 3 As ice cream sales increase, the rate of drowning deaths increases sharply. Therefore, ice cream causes drowning. The aforementioned example fails to recognize the importance of time in relationship to ice cream sales. Ice cream is sold during the summer months at a much greater rate, and it is during the summer months that people are more likely to engage in activities involving water, such as swimming. The increased drowning deaths are simply caused by more exposure to water based activities, not ice cream.
And I found that on the wikipedia page about "correlation does not imply causation" linked here
So even if there was a correlation between homosexuality and infidelity, he has not proved that homosexuality causes infidelity or that they have anything to do with each other at all. You can say homosexuals aren't evil, but the lifestyle is. I have a bi friend at my school who's awesome, but she's also VC of the gay-straight alliance. I really like her and the other people I know in the club, but I'm not part of it, and I definitely think homosexuality is wrong. I think he's saying the same thing. Hate the sin, not the sinner, as the saying goes. And you can, that's the reflexive property. You just don't start out with it. There's usually some correspondence. Ice cream sales increase because of a higher population, and therefore there's more deaths, or more people have been visiting the beach because of good weather and therefore they eat more ice cream and drown more. XD Usually even if there's no direct correlation, there's a cause between the two that is the same. Besides, if correlation was never effective, people wouldn't use it. You just have to look at the two variables and see if it's possible one's causing the other.
And it's flawed logic to say that something is wrong because you say it's wrong. Otherwise it's just an uneducated opinion.
If that's how debate works, I can disprove his entire argument just by saying that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality because homosexuality is not wrong.
People shouldn't assume that correlation implies causation. Advertisers and politicians trick you with it all the time. For example, have you heard of parents playing classical music while the baby is still in the womb? It's supposed to make the child smarter somehow. And while that may or may not be true, there's probably a correlation between playing music in the womb and smart kids because the kinds of parents that are trying every silly trick to put their baby ahead are probably more involved in their kid's life and are giving him the tools to get ahead, regardless of if the music actually works or not. And that goes for a lot of pop-psychology tricks you hear about in parenting magazines.
Another way I've heard the ice cream example used is that there's also a positive correlation between ice cream sales and rape for the same reason.
But what person would seriously imply that ice cream causes rape, or the other way around?
They both tend to happen in the summer, but ice cream on its own has nothing to do with rape on its own.
And if you're not satisfied with that, I'll post a link to an article that I found at the Gaian Atheists Guild:
Researchers Link High Intelligence With Atheism
There's a link to the full story at the end of the mini article. The researcher found a positive correlation between IQ and atheism. Does that prove that we're smarter?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:12 pm
Your argument, is rather false, actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:19 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Your argument, is rather false, actually.  You fail to state not only who your talking to, but you don't even give information. This will confuse many people including me. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:22 pm
Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Your argument, is rather false, actually. You fail to state not only who your talking to, but you don't even give information. This will confuse many people including me. neutral I was talking to brainnsoup, and her argument that atheists are smarter. That argument fails, because it's like comparing race and intelligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:30 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Your argument, is rather false, actually. You fail to state not only who your talking to, but you don't even give information. This will confuse many people including me. neutral I was talking to brainnsoup, and her argument that atheists are smarter. That argument fails, because it's like comparing race and intelligence.
First, the website she gave doesn't relate Christians to Atheists but linking being a genius to Atheism.
Second, she didn't make the website.
Lastly, she isn't saying Atheism makes you smarter.
She posted the link with her argument to show that even if there is some variables that could prove something, there could be other variables to disprove it. Her whole post was about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:34 pm
Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Your argument, is rather false, actually. You fail to state not only who your talking to, but you don't even give information. This will confuse many people including me. neutral I was talking to brainnsoup, and her argument that atheists are smarter. That argument fails, because it's like comparing race and intelligence.
First, the website she gave doesn't relate Christians to Atheists but linking being a genius to Atheism.
Second, she didn't make the website.
Lastly, she isn't saying Atheism makes you smarter.
She posted the link with her argument to show that even if there is some variables that could prove something, there could be other variables to disprove it. Her whole post was about that.
The thing is, it starts from that information, then one could get comparisons not unlike the race linked to intelligence issue, if one is not careful, or has malicious intent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:38 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Your argument, is rather false, actually. You fail to state not only who your talking to, but you don't even give information. This will confuse many people including me. neutral I was talking to brainnsoup, and her argument that atheists are smarter. That argument fails, because it's like comparing race and intelligence.
First, the website she gave doesn't relate Christians to Atheists but linking being a genius to Atheism.
Second, she didn't make the website.
Lastly, she isn't saying Atheism makes you smarter.
She posted the link with her argument to show that even if there is some variables that could prove something, there could be other variables to disprove it. Her whole post was about that.
The thing is, it starts from that information, then one could get comparisons not unlike the race linked to intelligence issue, if one is not careful, or has malicious intent.
She used the site to show that because there were variables stated doesn't make it correct.
If someone just checked the link and thought she was trying to say Atheists were the smartests in a Homosexuality thread, then where is that lead to?
I'm just saying, the site is just an example, it isn't being used as correct information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:42 pm
Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Your argument, is rather false, actually. You fail to state not only who your talking to, but you don't even give information. This will confuse many people including me. neutral I was talking to brainnsoup, and her argument that atheists are smarter. That argument fails, because it's like comparing race and intelligence.
First, the website she gave doesn't relate Christians to Atheists but linking being a genius to Atheism.
Second, she didn't make the website.
Lastly, she isn't saying Atheism makes you smarter.
She posted the link with her argument to show that even if there is some variables that could prove something, there could be other variables to disprove it. Her whole post was about that.
The thing is, it starts from that information, then one could get comparisons not unlike the race linked to intelligence issue, if one is not careful, or has malicious intent.
She used the site to show that because there were variables stated doesn't make it correct.
If someone just checked the link and thought she was trying to say Atheists were the smartests in a Homosexuality thread, then where is that lead to?
I'm just saying, the site is just an example, it isn't being used as correct information.
But, I've seen how the site was used as correct information, with rather sad circumstances.
Suffice to say, they didn't verify it. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:44 pm
Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV Captain_Shinzo Emperor Angelo XXV I was talking to brainnsoup, and her argument that atheists are smarter. That argument fails, because it's like comparing race and intelligence.
First, the website she gave doesn't relate Christians to Atheists but linking being a genius to Atheism.
Second, she didn't make the website.
Lastly, she isn't saying Atheism makes you smarter.
She posted the link with her argument to show that even if there is some variables that could prove something, there could be other variables to disprove it. Her whole post was about that.
The thing is, it starts from that information, then one could get comparisons not unlike the race linked to intelligence issue, if one is not careful, or has malicious intent.
She used the site to show that because there were variables stated doesn't make it correct.
If someone just checked the link and thought she was trying to say Atheists were the smartests in a Homosexuality thread, then where is that lead to?
I'm just saying, the site is just an example, it isn't being used as correct information.
But, I've seen how the site was used as correct information, with rather sad circumstances.
Suffice to say, they didn't verify it. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:53 pm
I guess everything's worked its self out, but I'll still clarify.
With my last argument I was backing up my point that correlation doesn't necessarily prove anything. My point is exactly that the researcher's assumption that he's proved anything by finding a correlation is false.
It's all there in the giant block of quotes preceding it. :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:47 pm
First I would like to point out that while all the other correlation-examples were caused by outside data the one about ice cream causing rape its TRUE... My evidence:ice cream is incredibly sexy and irresistable (even if it says no)
On to seriousness....
Asto the babies of parents who play classical music being smarter because of parents who spend more time on their children. This made me think about the children of divorcee parents (some of this is from observation as my parents have been divorced (my dad twice now)) Most parents who get divorced get divorced because they didn't get married for the right reasons, love, and rather got married for selfish reasons, or had a marriage full of lies ect.. (not all just most) and generally those with these qualities do not pass on good traits...
Asto gays making good or bad parents or being more or less violent. From what I hear they are less violent and make better parents (possibly because homosexuals only have kids when they want to and not by accident ect...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:08 pm
brainnsoup I guess everything's worked its self out, but I'll still clarify.
With my last argument I was backing up my point that correlation doesn't necessarily prove anything. My point is exactly that the researcher's assumption that he's proved anything by finding a correlation is false.
It's all there in the giant block of quotes preceding it. :3
I like to go into detail when trying to prove a point. Not always a good thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:04 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo While I am at it, I would like to also debunk ANOTHER of the religious arguments.
People have been telling me things like
" God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and John or Sarah and Eve. "
Are you trying to tell me God, all along, intended on the sole action of reproduction?
I thought the whole problem with eating the damn fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was learning of their nakedness...
My first point:
Why was nakedness invented? God created the naked parts of them and made the organs in them for such sexual desire. If he did not like the idea of sexual desires, he wouldn't have made this possible in the first place.
My second point:
God originally did not want reproduction, or atleast detested it.
If this is so, why did he not just create the same gender so he would not have to DEAL with reproduction?
I mean, think.
Reproduction is only needed to keep a race alive.
'God' gave Adam and Eve immortality.
Not only was created the new gender, Eve, un-needed but it basically proves my point that counter-production or "Adam and Eve" fails at a religious argument or an argument to begin with. I don't see what the cute anime has to do with homosexuality. It seems more like black and white marriage to me. 1st: It's supposed to be sacred and holy. Sex outside of marriage is wrong too. He does want us to enjoy them, but in with the partner He has for us, and in the union of marriage. 2nd: Where's it say that God detests reproduction?
Long ago, people thought blacks and whites were defying 'God' with their marriage idea because of different skin color. How is gender any different?
1st: I have seen many branches of religion that say the exact opposite of such. Problem is, telling me what is sacred or holy would be like telling me your favorite food. It's an opinion pretty much.
2nd: I guess you did not check what I was getting at.
In the story of Adam and Eve, God punished Adam and Eve for discovering their nakedness. This means they grew sexual urges for one another. God never intended them to gain these feelings but to stay as they were, two people and NOT man and woman.Because skin color doesn't have anything to do with sex. 1st: True which is why there isn't much of an argument against homosexuality unless you're Christian. 2nd: No, he punished them for disobeying Him. It had nothing to do with sexual urges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:08 pm
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo I looked over the the reasons.
They were....eh....
I will explain.
1. This rule could not make sense to me mostly because it is religious and more of an opinion biased thing.
2. Not only is this a "What-if" problem, but it also fails to state why sex is the only possible way of keep humanity alive. I am just saying, there is no law saying you have to become pregnant by sex only.
3. Not only do I find the statistics vague and unrepresented, but it fails to state WHY a mother and father is needed.
Most children in America have divorced parents, including me, and live very perfect and healthy lives even though they must face the problem of having to be under the care of a parent more than the other.
It also fails to state why the absent of one of the gender parents effect the child. It might not be the absence, but why the absence was caused and the loved one being gone.
Not to mention Peer Pressure is a terrible thing these days. I bet you could go to any city and find a kid who is made fun of by somebody because his parents are both male/female.
4. This part is also biased to religious beliefs and personal opinion, which does not need to draw my opinion mostly because I wont try to counter non-facts here.
5. This one doesn't make sense because it fails to state WHY homosexuals have a shorter life-span. I'm starting to think these little bits and parts in this website are going to be made up.
6. Please, gay domestic violence?
I KNOW this one was made up. I haven't seen an angry gay man yet.
If anything, my father is more angry than my gay aunt. We had to replace the windows because of his drunken mad self. He is a heterosexual.
I fail to see why gays would even have more of a problem with domestic violence more than heterosexuals anyway.
Why does it feel like most of these are grouping gays together, biasing most gays?
7. What? This doesn't even make sense...
Who was the person that told this guy gays only make up 3% of our population? I mean, what population are you trying to show? America or Earth? Either one would be completely wrong.
Don't get me started on the part where the guy took 1/3 and called them child molesters which is obviously not only wrong morally but just plain ignorant and incorrect.
8. I checked this part. Last time I checked America,we aren't considered a Theocracy and should never be a nation based on religion. Argo, I find this part, which is also of religious taste, null and void.
9. Just do what religious believers do when they have a belief and something is out of place in it: create a branch of it.
Gays can't have a branch of their own religion along with their own marriage? Atheists have their own type of marriage so gays should, too.
Unless your suggesting you don't want gays in your religion. But then we would have a national hate problem, wouldn't we?
10. The same thing was said when blacks wanted to marry whites back long ago in America. Oh look....I want to see a marriage with a woman and horse. However, those marriages exist today. A Japanese man married a video game character, a female.
However, you can't blame that on homosexuality.
Another biased opinion.
11. Again, they said the same thing with blacks and whites being together back in the 1800s-1900s. I can't see how a small title like marriage will cause Terrorism to happen in your home.
You did state that something 'wrong' is going on but what gives you the right to make the decision on what is 'right'?
Again, back in the 1800s-1900s, most people thought blacks and whites marrying was 'wrong' and unjust. What do we think about it today?
12. I never heard of a**l sex causing cancer. Call me when someone dies from having it up the butt. Till then, this argument also is small and easily pushed by.
Besides, we all know the genitalia is being misused by intended purposes. That is why people are having a fit about gays in the first place. Still doesn't tell me how it is 'wrong'.
13. I'm getting tired of the religious arguments here. Bring up something new. Besides, I don't see why a branch of Christianity can't be made to allow gays. It is possible.
14. This not only doesn't make sense and is based on false statistics, but I find the idea of 'Not being born gay' a poor excuse of an argument to begin with. No matter what side of the hedge you take on this argument, it still doesn't get to the point where why homosexuality is 'wrong'.
15. Again, your not given the right to decide what is moral and immoral. What if I said you had no right to write entries online about religious topics because you weren't gay?
Special Note by the Author:
Contradiction and Quote Mining.
Need I say more?
=====================================================
Bottom Line is, I can't see how that was suppose to convince me or show me how homosexuality is wrong in an anti-religious way. Not to mention 2/3 of the arguments were religious or at least religious based or related.
Those who have read my quote, open the other site in another tab and read his argument. Then, read my argument aligned with the one he stated. This way, you can understand better what I am addressing. 1) True, but I didn't point that one out. wink 2) Eh, again I didn't point it out 3) Did you even read the links? And I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Some children of divorced parents might do well, but as a whole they don't do as well as their peers who have both parents. Google it if you don't believe me. And personally speaking, my parents are divorced too, and it was the healthiest decision for our family but it still made things hard. My mom is constantly stressed over financial difficulties, my sister misses the fact she barely has a father, and on the whole it sucks for all of us. 4) Again, links. And at the rate I think there is a correspondence, plus infidelity does hurt children and the people it occurs to. It matters. 5) Link. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657?maxt-show=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=QID_NOT_SET&FIRSTINDEX=&volume=26&first page=657&journalcode=intjepid6) You're basing this opinion on personal experience. You gotta look at the majority of the people who practice a lifestyle to know if it's healthy. And again, there's links there you missed. 7) Again, link. cool That's why I didn't point it out. 9) Eh, didn't like that one for debate. It's too hard to defend. 10) I think it's true. If man wants to marry man, then why should it stop there? 11) If nothing's wrong, and nothing's right, then why can't people act arrogant, and why must we be polite? Right and wrong have to be defined. 12) And again you missed the links. 13) There is a branch. It's rather small, and I don't care for their pro-homosexuality arguments. Otherwise I wouldn't want a homosexual man turned away from a church, but I certainly think it's a sin. And I don't think as much of it is religious as you think, but think what you like. 14) Because if they aren't 'born gay' then their 'sexual orientation' wasn't forced on them. They can choose another way. 15) Go ahead and say it. It's not going to stop me, but the thing is this isn't my rule, it's God. That means it's not the same. ============================================= According to you, and I was just trying to offer some non-religious arguments. It's fine if you disagree. ^_^
Some things I would like to point out is I never said I wouldn't JUST look at the ones you pointed out. I was going to check all of them.
Secondly, you have repeatedly told me to check the links. However, I don't see how the links prove any kind of math problem or anything else of that matter.
Continuing, you made two statements I have not heard yet going against me I would like to address which would be being born gay and 'God says it'.
I wish for one thing:
Explain how this, in any way, an argument?
When you tell me Homosexuality is a choice, I ask if this is the case then why is that a problem at all? It is a choice, Free Will. If it is allowed, then why is it wrong?
Now for the part where you say God's word is right, I have not seen any PROOF saying the Christian deity has ever pointed out this without being debunked.
===============================================
EDIT: You did say you wanted to send me nonreligious arguments. However, I wanted convincing arguments. CONVINCING.
I saw nothing in there that could possibly be convincing besides the religious ones that could have been...well...easily debunked as well.True, but those are the ones I feel obligated to defend, unless someone says something really interesting on a different one. I think they explain things better and back up the argument more. What do I know though? It is because God has the power to define the world we live in and what is right and wrong. That right belongs to the Creator. We're allowed to choose. That doesn't mean there aren't consequences, or that one choice isn't wrong. What do you mean? Can you restate that please? =============================================== Convincing ones? I'm not sure there are ones for an atheist. Without God, morals don't matter, so the best ones are for Christians or any other religion where it's a sin. There's a few good health and psychological ones out there, but it really doesn't matter much if there's no God because nothing matters much if there's no God. We all live ad die, and whatever effect we have on each will be lost, so nothing counts. (Sorry I tend to get stuck on this. sweatdrop ) If I see any convincing ones though, especially if they aren't religious, I'll definitely post them. ^^
I would love to continue this but this section is completely out of my standards...
You headed the argument into another debate that was made between an Atheist and a Christian and the idea was
" Without a deity (God) there are no morals so life is meaningless. "
Saying this is not only incorrect but also just disrespectful to Atheist beliefs I would say.
I would continue how Atheists don't really need a god to live a nice, happy life and morals aren't made by a higher power but I feel I will fail to get it through to you if your idea is that.
I mean, this is why the argument is still being held today. An answer can't be found until an opinion is incorrect.You know why I think that? Because the universe, one way or another, is gonna come to an end. We, and whatever we do, will eventually be lost if there's not something more powerful then this universe. So yeah, everything is pointless without God. And if morals don't come from God, where do they come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:25 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo While I am at it, I would like to also debunk ANOTHER of the religious arguments.
People have been telling me things like
" God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and John or Sarah and Eve. "
Are you trying to tell me God, all along, intended on the sole action of reproduction?
I thought the whole problem with eating the damn fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was learning of their nakedness...
My first point:
Why was nakedness invented? God created the naked parts of them and made the organs in them for such sexual desire. If he did not like the idea of sexual desires, he wouldn't have made this possible in the first place.
My second point:
God originally did not want reproduction, or atleast detested it.
If this is so, why did he not just create the same gender so he would not have to DEAL with reproduction?
I mean, think.
Reproduction is only needed to keep a race alive.
'God' gave Adam and Eve immortality.
Not only was created the new gender, Eve, un-needed but it basically proves my point that counter-production or "Adam and Eve" fails at a religious argument or an argument to begin with. I don't see what the cute anime has to do with homosexuality. It seems more like black and white marriage to me. 1st: It's supposed to be sacred and holy. Sex outside of marriage is wrong too. He does want us to enjoy them, but in with the partner He has for us, and in the union of marriage. 2nd: Where's it say that God detests reproduction?
Long ago, people thought blacks and whites were defying 'God' with their marriage idea because of different skin color. How is gender any different?
1st: I have seen many branches of religion that say the exact opposite of such. Problem is, telling me what is sacred or holy would be like telling me your favorite food. It's an opinion pretty much.
2nd: I guess you did not check what I was getting at.
In the story of Adam and Eve, God punished Adam and Eve for discovering their nakedness. This means they grew sexual urges for one another. God never intended them to gain these feelings but to stay as they were, two people and NOT man and woman.Because skin color doesn't have anything to do with sex. 1st: True which is why there isn't much of an argument against homosexuality unless you're Christian. 2nd: No, he punished them for disobeying Him. It had nothing to do with sexual urges.
Back long ago, the idea of black flesh touching into white flesh was considered unnatural because the two were different. That's my case.
People said the same thing about blacks and whites as to two men/women.
1st: I wonder why religion has to matter so much in this, why religion makes people annoyed with something that IS natural.
* Yes, homosexuality is natural because it can happen. Anything that is possible is considered natural. *
2nd: It was the concept, though.
It wouldn't be just for disobeying him, but what it caused.
From reading the book of genesis, they ate the fruit of knowledge and realized their nakedness.
When God came, they hid from him realizing their nakedness.
But this also caused sexual urges which originated the first sin.
Saying that it was only done because they disobeyed God is not only a kind of fascist idea, but it sounds like it leads to the moral that knowledge is evil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
