Marlon Bundo

[Mountain Man]

You know I'm right, the fact is your "enlighten" moral view is merely the result of the timing and place of your birth.

Yep, especially given the fact that he openly acknowledges that his sense of morality is subjective and driven by "social trends", which is just another way of saying that his moral grounding is shaped by whichever way the winds of popular culture happen to be blowing at any given time.

[Roy]

You know I'm right, the fact is your "enlighten" moral view is merely the result of the timing and place of your birth.

AFAICT seer and carped were born in the same country, and are about the same age.

[Mountain Man]

The difference, of course, is that all of the people/acts you listed are people doing harm to other people. The homosexual is simly a person who has fallen in love with someone you don't think they should love - based on the nature of what exists between their legs - which is essentially no different than making that judgment on the basis of the color of their skin. In both cases, the judgment is being based on the basis of a physical trait.

It is bigotry, Seer. Nothing less. I understand the roots of this bigotry in history and religion, but that does not change it's nature. I don't hate you for it. I used to be angry about it, when that view held sway and there was more overt discrimination against these people. That is changing, and now I find myself more feeling sorry for people who can harbor such...beliefs (for lack of a better word).

Bull. Even if we remove religion from the equation, there is no case to be made for homosexuality based on the simple fact of biology: males and females are biologically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not. It is, in a word, unnatural.

But you also find yourself hoisted by your own petard, because it could just easily be argued that "The pedophile is simply a person who has fallen in love with someone you don't think they should love - based on the arbitrary notion of 'age of consent' - which is essentially no different than making that judgment on the basis of the color of their skin." The winds of society are slowly shifting on this point, and whatever "moral high-ground" you think you're standing on is eroding under your own feet. I just wonder how you're going to respond when the pedophiles inevitably come at you with the exact same arguments you use to defend the abominable practice of homosexuality.

[Mountain Man]

AFAICT seer and carped were born in the same country, and are about the same age.

As John Bradford famously said, "There but for the grace of God go I."

[carpedm9587]

And that has moral weight why?

Odd question. It has moral weight because it is the moral code I have derived based on what I value.

You know I'm right, the fact is your "enlighten" moral view is merely the result of the timing and place of your birth.

I will leave you to your opinion, Seer. As I've said before - this type of "what if" is pointless. A waste of time.

Yeah, you are speaking of a small minority. And if the true Muslims got a hold of them they would throw them off buildings too...

Calling extremist Muslims "true" Muslims displays your ignorance and your bigotry towards Islam. Statistically, extremists are a small fraction of the Islamic population, even in Islamic countries. They do tend to have power, so they set the laws in many of these countries. But worldwide, that is not true.

And yes - the percentage of Muslims that are pro-LGBTQ is not a dominant percentage yet, which is also true of Christianity. But it is apparently ahead of evangelical Christianity here in America, as the articles I linked to show.

Right, but there really is no progress. It is like saying most/more people agreeing with me that brussel sprouts are horrible is progress...

Measured against your (reprehensible) moral code (for this issue), you will see it as a lack of progress, Seer. That is how subjective morality works. Measured against mine, and the general social/group trend, it is progressing.

Whose general social trends? Like what we find in the Muslim world?

Already answered, so I won't repeat myself. But you shoud note that the "Muslim world" is worldwide, not just in the Middle East.

[carpedm9587]

The fact is that, unlike you, I am willing to recognize and acknowledge sin for what it is, so you have no moral standing from which to judge me.

Not a moral stance you will recognize, MM, that is certainly true. But I do have a moral standing - and I judge your moral stance as immoral.

And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, you should note that I have not judged you. I've merely quoted what the Word of God says about those who are spiritually blind and enamored by sin.

Right...

[carpedm9587]

Thank you sharing your opinion Carp... BTW - skin color is not behavior...

Ummm... where did I say it was?

LOL, so now you are judging me on my religious beliefs! Bigots, sodomites - it's all the same. Who cares...

Justifying an immoral stance on the basis of "god says so" does not make it moral, Seer - as odd as that sentence probably will sound to your ears.

[One Bad Pig]

Actually - I was not expecting people here to approve or agree, OBP. But I thought I would provide both links so people could support whichever charity they see fit. And a book about homosexuality is deliberate - but only offensive to those who choose to be offended. It is, after all, just about two critters who love each other wanting to be together.

You bought five copies of the "protest" book, then thought about buying the original too. You may drop your pretense of neutrality. You may drop your pretense that the book was not intended to be offensive, too; Pence is well-known for his stance against homosexuality - therefore writing a book wherein his pet is imagined to be homosexual cannot be anything but offensive. Your bland definition of homosexual "love" can apply equally well to pedophilia, adultery, incest.... and you claim to have the moral high ground.

Frankly, I'm beginning to prefer Starlight's flamboyant opposition to your well-meaning non-confrontational habitual redefinition of words. I know where he stands on things. You, not so much.

[carpedm9587]

Bull. Even if we remove religion from the equation, there is no case to be made for homosexuality based on the simple fact of biology: males and females are biologically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not. It is, in a word, unnatural.

Given the number of instances of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom - where evolution is hard at work - your use of "unnatural" is simply uninformed. And if procreation were the only reason for two people to be together, then we have a serious problem with a LOT of marriages.

But you also find yourself hoisted by your own petard, because it could just easily be argued that "The pedophile is simply a person who has fallen in love with someone you don't think they should love - based on the arbitrary notion of 'age of consent' - which is essentially no different than making that judgment on the basis of the color of their skin." The winds of society are slowly shifting on this point, and whatever "moral high-ground" you think you're standing on is eroding under your own feet. I just wonder how you're going to respond when the pedophiles inevitably come at you with the exact same arguments you use to defend the abominable practice of homosexuality.

I am not hoisted in the least. Pedophelia is defined as sexual activity between a mature human being and an immature one. Different cultures set that bound everywhere, but the basis of the proscription is the inability of the child to make decisions and handle the sexual encounter. You're comparing apples to oranges. And that is exactly what my response will be to them, should they come in my direction. No problem.

[carpedm9587]

You bought five copies of the "protest" book, then thought about buying the original too.

Yes.

You may drop your pretense of neutrality.

At no point did I say I was "neutral." I bought the five protest books because I find Pence's positions reprehensible. I have bought one of the original book because I admire Charlotte's actions, and think her example is a good one to follow - given that the proceeds are also going to charity.

You may drop your pretense that the book was not intended to be offensive, too;

The book is a protest book. It focuses on two bunnies fighting bigotry to be together. It is clearly going to offend those who agree with the "stink bug." (I have to admit, that stink bug is definitely a dig at Pence, but one I concur with).

Pence is well-known for his stance against homosexuality - therefore writing a book wherein his pet is imagined to be homosexual cannot be anything but offensive.

I'm sure it will offend Pence. It will probably offend those who agree with Pence. It is not going to offend any of the rest of us who believe that stance is immoral.

Your bland definition of homosexual "love" can apply equally well to pedophilia, adultery, incest.... and you claim to have the moral high ground.

Pedophelia, no (see above). Adultery - maybe. I've spoken on that in another post. Incest, no. The reason there is different. First of all, incest is usually a form of pedophelia. But even when it is not, the chance for pregnancy and resulting likelihood of genetic problems makes the act morally problematic.

Frankly, I'm beginning to prefer Starlight's flamboyant opposition to your well-meaning non-confrontational habitual redefinition of words. I know where he stands on things. You, not so much.

Then you are not reading what I am writing. I am fairly clear on where I stand and why. But you certainly won't be the first here to accuse me of being disengenous. There's a handful of you that seem to do it on a fairly regular basis - usually when I say/post something you take exception to.

[Mountain Man]

Given the number of instances of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom - where evolution is hard at work - your use of "unnatural" is simply uninformed. And if procreation were the only reason for two people to be together, then we have a serious problem with a LOT of marriages.

As I said, it's a simple biological fact that males and females are physically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not. Whether or not a heterosexual couple is willing or able to procreate is beside the point. How often is a young married couple asked, "So when are you two going to have kids?" People intuitively understand that offspring are the naturally expected result of sexual activity.

It's also curious to me that you imply that we should derive our sense of morality from the animals. In that case, is it OK to kill sexual rivals in the interest of ensuring that it's one's own genes that are passed on? After all, it happens all the time throughout the animal kingdom.

I am not hoisted in the least. Pedophelia is defined as sexual activity between a mature human being and an immature one. Different cultures set that bound everywhere, but the basis of the proscription is the inability of the child to make decisions and handle the sexual encounter. You're comparing apples to oranges. And that is exactly what my response will be to them, should they come in my direction. No problem.

As you say, "that bound [is set] everywhere", which implies that the bound can be set anywhere. On what basis would you argue that one culture got it right while another got it wrong. What if a culture decided to remove the bound entirely? What then?

Your "moral high-ground" is nothing but a puddle of Jell-O that allows you to slip and slide any way that your personal desires and current cultural norms demand.

[seer]

Odd question. It has moral weight because it is the moral code I have derived based on what I value.

Right your moral opinion has weight because you hold it - rather circular don't you think?

I will leave you to your opinion, Seer. As I've said before - this type of "what if" is pointless. A waste of time.

But my point stands, your moral sense is largely the result of the timing and place of your birth - something you had no control over.

Calling extremist Muslims "true" Muslims displays your ignorance and your bigotry towards Islam. Statistically, extremists are a small fraction of the Islamic population, even in Islamic countries. They do tend to have power, so they set the laws in many of these countries. But worldwide, that is not true.

I'm not sure what you mean by extreme, I think that is a rather bigoted statement. Did you ever read the history of what Muhammad actually did? They are just following his lead...

And yes - the percentage of Muslims that are pro-LGBTQ is not a dominant percentage yet, which is also true of Christianity. But it is apparently ahead of evangelical Christianity here in America, as the articles I linked to show.

"Ahead of?" Because, again, they agree with you...

Measured against your (reprehensible) moral code (for this issue), you will see it as a lack of progress, Seer. That is how subjective morality works. Measured against mine, and the general social/group trend, it is progressing.

Reprehensible? You just can't stop judging me, can you Carp! But when I judge homoxexual behavior you get your panties in a wad... A bit hypocritical don't you think?

[seer]

It's also curious to me that you imply that we should derive our sense of morality from the animals. In that case, is it OK to kill sexual rivals in the interest of ensuring that it's one's own genes that are passed on? After all, it happens all the time throughout the animal kingdom.

Never mind the fact that forced sex is quite prevalent with the higher primates. So I guess that is OK too...

[carpedm9587]

As I said, it's a simple biological fact that males and females are physically compatible in a way that two males and two females are not.

Yes, it is.

Whether or not a heterosexual couple is willing or able to procreate is beside the point.

No, it's not.

How often is a young married couple asked, "So when are you two going to have kids?" People intuitively understand that offspring are the naturally expected result of sexual activity.

Sometimes - not necessarily. Human sexuality is also an expression of love and companionship. Which is why I have no problem with sex between two people when there is no possibility of procreation - and have no problem with birth control techniques.

It's also curious to me that you imply that we should derive our sense of morality from the animals.

At no point did I say that or anything like it. I refuted your statement that homosexuality is "unnatural" by pointing out its regular occurence in the "natural" world (non human).

In that case, is it OK to kill sexual rivals in the interest of ensuring that it's one's own genes that are passed on?

No.

After all, it happens all the time throughout the animal kingdom.

Yes - it does. But human morality is not based on animal actions.

As you say, "that bound [is set] everywhere", which implies that the bound can be set anywhere.

This confused me, until I went back and read my sentence. Very badly worded. I can understand your confusion. I meant to say "different cultures throughout the world set that boundary at different places." That does not mean it can be set anywhere. In general, it is set at the point where the culture believes the human being has achieved maturity. There is no culture I know of that attempts to claim a 5 year old is "mature."

On what basis would you argue that one culture got it right while another got it wrong.

I would look at the rest of the culture and see if their treatment of the individuals in question is consistent, and in line with reasonable medical evaluations.

What if a culture decided to remove the bound entirely? What then?

Then they would be making the absurd claim that a 3 year old is "mature," so I would disagree. Generally, the line is at sexual maturity or beyond. That means it may be set as young as 12 in some cultures (usually more tribal ones). I know of no culture that attempts to claim someone who has not reached sexual maturity is an appropriate partner for sex with an adult.

Your "moral high-ground" is nothing but a puddle of Jell-O that allows you to slip and slide any way that your personal desires and current cultural norms demand.

Your opinion is duly noted. You're wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Right your moral opinion has weight because you hold it - rather circular don't you think?

Circularity in reasoning implies that the conclusion is contained in the premises. My moral code is rooted in what I value and reasoning acting upon it. That is not circular. Your question was what gave it moral weight - that is what gives it moral weight. Perhaps my expression of that was less than clear, so I can understand your confusion.

But my point stands, your moral sense is largely the result of the timing and place of your birth - something you had no control over.

Partly. Not completely. Ergo - you don't know. Waste of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by extreme, I think that is a rather bigoted statement. Did you ever read the history of what Muhammad actually did? They are just following his lead...

It is not clear to me how pointing out your religious bigotry is itself a bigoted statement. You clearly are aligning all of Islam with the ravings of its most extreme members. It is roughly the equivalent of my equating all of Christianity with the ravings of the KKK at the height of its power (1920s). Such an equivalence would be unjust, and would be bigoted on my part. I would never do it - despite the claims of the KK that they are "following Christian teachings." The same holds true for extremist Muslims.

"Ahead of?" Because, again, they agree with you...

Ahead of because they are futher along in shifting to acceptance of the LGBTQ community. And yes, because it aligns with my moral framework and the evolving framework of our society.

Reprehensible? You just can't stop judging me, can you Carp! But when I judge homoxexual behavior you get your panties in a wad... A bit hypocritical don't you think?

Bigotry should be called out for what it is, Seer. The reason for having it is irrelevant. When a group is being targeted for the nature of their being, good people do not stand by and let it happen unchallenged. It does not mean I hate you - it does not mean I would harm you in any way - it means I find your extreme words (e.g., degenerate sodomites) unacceptable and bigoted. You are welcome to challenge me on any view you find to be bigoted. Since I abhor bigotry, I will look at it. It's not clear to me where there is hypocricy in any of this.

I'm sure that people who said to white supremacists, "your words and actions are bigoted," were also accused by white supremacists of being "bigoted against them." It's a kind of "i'm rubber, your glue" defense. Yes - I am justifiably "bigoted" against bigotry. Your objection is duly noted.