Brad Pitt Rocks!
Out of context: Reply #45
- Started
- Last post
- 58 Responses
- BRNK0
This may be a bit scattered, but bear with me. :)
In regards to removing religion/religious figures from the crimes committed in their name, I have this to say: Guns kill no one without a murderous person pulling the trigger, but this fact does not make guns any less dangerous or any less of a weapon. The same applies for religion. The fact that it's the people leveraging it toward malicious ends does not absolve it of containing the tools for such mischief. Furthermore, religion lacks the necessary tools to remedy the situation because any meaningful changes to religious doctrine can easily be correctly identified as moving "away from god" by any fundamentalist that would choose to do so. What defense does a religious moderate have in that case, when his opponent has "the word of god" on his side? He has no argument other than to say that he somehow knows better than the holy book. When you start down this path of thought, and then consider the myriad reasons the judeo-christian go demands that you murder your fellow man, it becomes clear to a rational minded person that there is no consistent moral narrative at work there.I guess I'm a bit behind on the gay gene debate, it seems earlier claims that it indeed exists are under dispute now... and I'm certainly no geneticist, so I won't go on defending that position, especially since it doesn't really matter, as you said.
I have to say that I feel your reasoning on homosexuality is colored quite strongly by religious dogma and isn't really rational. Your whole argument against homosexuality is based on some perceived intention for humanity. Who's intention? (I know, I know... god.) Where is your proof of this intention?
If you were honest about your naturalistic point of view, you'd have to admit that over population is a serious threat to humanity and homosexuality is a good countermeasure that really hurts no one. Since you disagree, I challenge you to prove that homosexuality is very harmful and dangerous... you must think so if you can justify wanting to dictate a very private aspect of people's lives (remember, using law to dictate rules for harmless, private behavior of citizens is the hallmark of fascism).
It seems to me that your stance on this issue is weaving quite the complicated and sticky web of logic.Your alcoholism analogy is simply broken. Alcoholism is a behavioral disease that some people are more likely to get due to genetics, like OCD or dyslexia. I never came anywhere near inferring that people should be punished for not not fulfilling their perceived "genetic destiny" or bent as you call it. People should be allowed to live in or out of the closet, to suggest that I inferred anything else is contentious hyperbole.