Homosexuality: A Survey

[Dwalin]

I don't follow EVERYTHING in the Bible to the letter, because I think it was never the original intention.

Excuse me for asking, but if this is indeed the case, then why do you seem to follow that particular passage?

(Please note that I could be totally wrong in my understanding of your arguments thusfar, so please forgive me if that's the case.)

It's not because of religion, it's the matter of personal preference. There is nothing wrong with having preferences.

[Edogawa4869]

I don't follow EVERYTHING in the Bible to the letter, because I think it was never the original intention.

Excuse me for asking, but if this is indeed the case, then why do you seem to follow that particular passage?

(Please note that I could be totally wrong in my understanding of your arguments thusfar, so please forgive me if that's the case.)

It's not because of religion, it's the matter of personal preference. There is nothing wrong in having preferences.

So you're saying that you'd prefer it if homosexuals didn't have marriage rights or equal rights as heterosexuals?  Or are you just saying that you're confident in your sexuality?

(These things can be construed several different ways, you see. You've got to make it clear the first time, because I can really be an idiot sometimes. )

[Dwalin]

So you're saying that you'd prefer it if homosexuals didn't have marriage rights or equal rights as heterosexuals?  Or are you just saying that you're confident in your sexuality?

(These things can be construed several different ways, you see. You've got to make it clear the first time, because I can really be an idiot sometimes. )

It's just that I PERSONALLY like heterosexual relationships more. PLEASE, don't ask me for a logical explanation like Jd- does! I am just more used to them. Everybody in my family is "straight". The others can do whatever they want, I am not saying they are wrong. I hope I don't always have to point that out.

[c-square]

This has stopped being a discussion and has started to become personal attacks.  I suggest either people stick to discussing the issue calmly in plain text, and refrain from attacking other posters. DCTP is a great place where I feel people can come and feel respected no matter what their background, history or view on the world, and I would hate to see that lost because of personal attacks over a heated issue.

I completely disagree

We disagree, so let's debate this issue.

Assertion
Personal attacks have entered the discourse of this forum topic and have undermined the opportunity to discuss this in a respectful, rational and level-headed way.  

Reasoning
Personal attacks undermine rational discussion
A respectful discussion or debate involves taking ideas and reviewing them, critiquing them and defending them.  As long as only ideas are being discussed, respect for the individual parties remains.  However, when the discussion turns from criticizing ideas and moves to criticizing the people themselves, it no longer is a respectful discourse.  When one becomes personally attacked, the focus turns from trying to discuss the issue to needing to defend the attack.  The topic at hand thus takes a back seat to the personal attacks.

Personal attacks have entered this thread
For many pages now, it seems that personal attacks have become a part of the discussion.  As I am addressing the disagreement between Jd- and myself, I will use examples from Jd-'s posts, but I assert that his posts are not the only ones with personal attacks.

Examples from the past six pages:

Whose fault is it that God encourages people to kill others at every turn in the Bible? When that order is followed, whose fault is it for listening to him? They are threatened with eternal damnation for not following his word, and in the Bible, he clearly outlines in the Old Testament that many people need to die so that his will may be achieved (including homosexuals and nonbelievers). Is it bad to follow the Bible? People felt justified in carrying out a holy doctrine they believed in--were they wrong to feel justified in doing so? This isn't about whether you believe in the Old Testament or not. There is irrefutable evidence that God's name has been used to carry out countless atrocities in carrying out his will according to the Bible exactly as it was prescribed there. No one needed to interpret anything for that--it wasn't "free will" that made people kill millions to satisfy God's endless thirst for blood.

So far, this is a respectful argument, addressing the issue at hand.

There is no debating any of that, but I'm sure you'll try anyway and naturally dig yourself deeper into a hole you're not going to escape.

Here is where the personal attack occurs.  It begins with a declaration that the ideas of the poster are an absolute truth, and that any attempt at debate will fail.  It then becomes personal by presupposing an action by the recipient and divining the result of that presupposed action.  This is an attack because it sets up a win-win situation for the poster and a lose-lose situation for the recipient.  If the recipient doesn't respond, the poster can claim victory because the recipient didn't reply.  If the recipient does respond, the poster can then gain the high ground by saying 'I told you so'.  This sentence adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to try and gain an advantage in the discussion through the attack.

If it were completely proven today that there is no God and that God is the figment of the collective imagination of generations of humankind meant to provide life with an invented yet entirely false sense of purpose, would you stop believing in God today?

This is a completely valid question to ask of the recipient.

No, you wouldn't. If it were the other way around, I would have no problems whatsoever believing in God because I "believe" in things that are real and proven. If God were proven real, I would have no issues believing in God in the same way I acknowledge other facts as facts.

Unfortunately, instead of allowing the recipient to respond, the poster responds for him/her.  It may be fair to say, "From my experience, most religious people wouldn't", or "From your previous comments, [citing comments], I would guess that you wouldn't".  However, to dictate what someone else would do in a given situation is to deny their right to personal choice and individuality.  

But, it isn't the same for you and we both know that. You cannot bring yourself to say here that you would be as content with there being a God exactly the same as you would be content with there not being one, because it goes against your faith to do so. If you admit that here, you are admitting that God is really give-or-take with you and that you don't really need him, and you would never be willing to do that.

The poster continues to speak for the recipient, and moves himself from a position of being equals to a position of higher authority.  A respectful discussion allows for each party to speak their positions.  In this situation, the poster is claiming the authority not only to speak his piece, but to also speak for the recipient.  Although there is no direct attack in the wording, this is still a personal attack, in that the recipient's rights to define what (s)he thinks, believes, knows or does are being undermined.

I'll post a few other examples with the personal attack underlined.  I won't go into detail as to why they are attacks.  However, if the reasons are not self-evident, I'll be happy to explain.

That statement has NOTHING to do with my own knowledge, but I again am not surprised that you have difficulty understanding something even that elementary.

You continue to answer the question as you want it to be while skirting the issue and gleefully opting to interpret it how you want instead of how it is

Read the link if you intend to contribute further to this discussion (not that you've made any contribution so far)
...
If you are that insecure, I'm not sure you're ready for any sort of discussion on anything.

Saying they "should have their freedom" is not the same whatsoever, and Dwalin knows that

You're going to make a reply to this post (you can't resist) and yet you still will not go back and make an actual reply to the post where I very clearly decimated every statement you've made in this topic because you know that you can't. If you have such good points to make, why can you not take the time to form an actual, coherent argument instead of just pulling down random quotes that you feel are advantageous to you? Come on, you can do better than just playing the victim and saying, "B-B-But... t-they're all mad at meeeeeee...".

Conclusion
Personal attacks have become a regular part of this thread, as I have evidenced above.  Personal attacks undermine our ability to discuss a topic rationally and respectfully.  Thus, this thread is compromised due to the presence and continuation of personal attacks.  Unless personal attacks cease completely, this will not be a place where everyone can feel free to voice their thoughts and beliefs and be respected.

I look forward to your acceptance or rebuttal of the points in my argument.

[kyuuketsuki]

Jd-@
I am not debating, I am just trying to defend myself. Have been since you and others accused me of implying homosexuals are immoral, for which I apologized. No need to write such long posts and to repeat the same sentences. I am not that stupid and you know that even if you pretend not to. I understand that everybody with a different opinion in this thread is frowned upon, but why not just reconcile before I go away? I agree religion shouldn't outlaw gay marriage, I am just saying I don't follow EVERYTHING in the Bible to the letter, because I think it was never the original intention.

Fact: You are not defending yourself, you are attacking others and making ill founded arguments based solely on particular statements made by the opposing party. A fact of life is that, in a debate, the only way to defend yourself is to debate. There is no other way. Any other method is futile and makes you look like a fool.

Again, I suggest you reflect on why you believe what you believe and attach reasons for this. Apply logic to your beliefs.

It is pretty evident that you are the product of religious upbringing, and I apologize for that, because unfortunately strict religious upbringing gives you tunnel vision for certain issues. And unless you break away from the doctrine of religion that tunnel vision will not subside. It also prevents logic, because there is no logic. Remember that religious doctrine is archaic and outdated. We are talking about people who took HUNDREDS of years to finally say that we live in a Heliocentric solar system, and HUNDREDS MORE to PARDON the scientist who was trying to explain to them that they were wrong and that science had proven that the earth revolves around the sun for hundreds of years. Know the reason for that? It is actually explained best by a comedy movie of all things... "Dogma" one character basically stated that "The problem with religion is that it took a good idea and made a belief system out of it, you can easily change an idea, but it is not so easy to change a belief."

[PhoenixTears]

@c-square:
Explain the personal attack in the one with "gleefully" underlined, please? I'm missing it.

Although it seems to me that any direct mention of the person you're debating with falls under the personal attack category, according to your list there. If not, please clarify.

I'm not trying to be stubborn right now, genuinely interested.

[c-square]

@c-square:
Explain the personal attack in the one with "gleefully" underlined, please? I'm missing it.

Sure!  

- You continue to answer the question as you want it to be while skirting the issue and opting to interpret it how you want instead of how it is

The above is a statement of opinion.  It is personalized, but is not an attack, simply stating what the writer is witnessing.

- You continue to answer the question as you want it to be while skirting the issue and gleefully opting to interpret it how you want instead of how it is

By adding the word gleefully, the writer now is presupposing the initial commenter's emotional state at the time of writing.  What someone is doing is up to interpretation and discussion.  But unless the initial commenter posted some  ;D  :D  ;), or or to express glee at the time of posting, then the only one who has any right to define what was being felt at the initial writing is the initial commenter him/herself.  Imposing an emotional state on someone undermines their right to define their own feelings, and as such I believe it is a personal attack.

Although it seems to me that any direct mention of the person you're debating with falls under the personal attack category, according to your list there. If not, please clarify.

I'm not sure I understand.  I'm proposing a debate with Jd-.  I don't think mentioning his name, nor the fact that I'm proposing a debate with him would constitute a personal attack.  In my examples, I used words like 'poster' and 'recipient' to try and keep the emphasis on the attacks and not on the individual parties involved.  Like I said, I used Jd-'s posts because it is with him that I am proposing the debate, but there are certainly other examples that I could have used from posts by other people.  It's the fact that personal attacks are happening that is my point, not who is writing them.

I'm not trying to be stubborn right now, genuinely interested.

And I'm glad you asked!  A respectful debate or discussion should be one in which people should never feel afraid or feel like they have to be apologetic for speaking their mind.  Although not all arguments may be valid, all viewpoints should be respected.

[Jd-]

c-square:

From reading your post, it is more than clear to me that there are a number of fundamental and unfortunate flaws in your argument. Foremost, you have changed the implication of your original stance in order to make your current post seem more objective, whether it was unintentional or otherwise. You did not afford me the same interpretation that you afforded yourself, which I will demonstrate below for you to correct if you so wish.

Originally, you posted:

This has stopped being a discussion and has started to become personal attacks.

What you have asserted above is simply not correct. For this to not be the case, there would be no discussion as you have defined it to have been found, but below you cite numerous instances of there being what you consider a "discussion" and then a much smaller "personal attack". What you likely meant to say was:

This has started to stop being a discussion and has started to become personal attacks.

However, that is not what you said, and that is not what I replied to on account of you having not said it. You spoke in absolutes and I replied in turn. What you have said is that this topic has ceased being a discussion and that it has instead started to become a place for personal attacks to take its place. However, in your assertion, you have changed your stance, perhaps to more accurately reflect how you feel now or how you felt prior but did not express clearly enough at the time:

Personal attacks have entered this thread
For many pages now, it seems that personal attacks have become a part of the discussion.

This implies that the discussion is still ongoing and that personal attacks are only a part of it. Originally, you implied that the discussion had ended and that whatever was left was beginning to be taken over by personal attacks. That assumption of yours was clearly not true and is disproved by you, yourself, here by saying that personal attacks have become only a part of the discussion, which you will soon see that I never once disputed whatsoever in my post to you.

When you quoted me to begin the debate, you quoted only this part while maintaining your full argument:

I completely disagree

However, that is not even the full context of that statement. What I said was:

I completely disagree--it is not about personal attacks.

This is an important point because my statement was countering your rather clear and absolute statement that this topic has ceased being a discussion and has become about personal attacks. By cutting the latter half of that sentence, it makes it appear that I completely disagree with the argument you are about to present in that you are purporting to have been consistent in them even though you were not from my view, and I can only speculate as to whether that was intentional or not.

Now, notice that in my annotated rebuttal to your original post below in case it must be said that I never once said to you that there had never been a personal attack in this topic. There is more to discuss on even this one issue, but let us move on for now.

I completely disagree--it is not about personal attacks.[sup]1[/sup] The issue was never lost and is still, without question, the focus of the topic.[sup]2[/sup] I have been and remain completely calm on the subject. Individually engaging fellow posters does not amount to "personal attacks" when they have clearly demonstrated their views.[sup]3[/sup] There are homosexual users in this forum that have read this topic and have mentioned to me how they have felt persecuted against much of their lives as a result of statements made by people like Tawi and Dwalin but feel encouraged because there is finally some people expressing support for them instead of the other way around. If the other side truly believe what they believe, it is not a "personal attack" to call someone out on those views and the basis of those views and I welcome anyone and everyone to do so with me, as they have already in this topic, and I have not yet been offended at anyone doing so.[sup]4[/sup] No, really: I invite them to try, again.[sup]5[/sup]

[sup]1[/sup] My position is asserted here quite clearly: The topic has not become about personal attacks. For it to have become about personal attacks, there would be primarily personal attacks and there would be fewer, if any, mentions left of God, homosexuality, etc. In the statement of yours that this is a reply to, you clearly said that the topic had "stopped being a discussion" and had "started to become personal attacks", when the discussion is still very much so present, making that statement inaccurate.

[sup]2[/sup] This statement is true: The issue is still at the heart of the topic and is by far its driving force, and I never once state in the post rebutting you that the topic is free from personal attacks.

[sup]3[/sup] This statement is true: I do not believe that it is a personal attack to engage a fellow user on their beliefs if they have demonstrated those beliefs and have continued to support them. In Dwalin's case, he came to the topic, stated several discriminatory remarks that I know certain members of the forum found hurtful, and (as Akonyl soundly pointed out) said he did not wish to be debated and then continued to raise points that require debate.

[sup]4[/sup] I can see only this line as being ambiguous of them all (though that should not be the case if the next line is taken into account). What this is meant to say is that I invite anyone to attempt a "personal attack" on me, and some have, but they have been entirely ineffective. See note 5.

5 This challenge is still open.

Now, those semantic points aside (which are incredibly important given that I only responded to your post in the way I did because I did not expect you to re-interpret your post later), allow me to reiterate: I never once said in my post to you that this topic was free from personal attacks--in fact, I very clearly state the opposite and even encourage others to offer their own "personal attacks" against me if they feel so inclined (see note 5).

All that said: The idea of the "personal attack" is a very subjective one. Some believe having their views challenged at all, even indirectly, is a personal attack. Allow me to also state it is not necessarily a personal attack if it is a prediction that turns out to be true. For example:

Unfortunately, instead of allowing the recipient to respond, the poster responds for him/her.  It may be fair to say, "From my experience, most religious people wouldn't", or "From your previous comments, [citing comments], I would guess that you wouldn't".  However, to dictate what someone else would do in a given situation is to deny their right to personal choice and individuality.

This is not actually responding for him. This is a prediction and speculation on my part. Just because that prediction turned out to be entirely true does not mean I responded for him without allowing him room to respond--that is the mistake you have made with that assumption. His "personal choice" was not denied because Dwalin was able to very clearly refute that should he have simply stated, "No, you're wrong, I would say that, [and here's why.]" But, he didn't. Your view of this topic has been skewed in support of what you believe appears to be a result of promoting an "anti-attack" agenda and has made your argument weaker as a result. Nowhere in the post or any other was Dwalin not allowed or even not encouraged to respond, thus his personal choice and individuality remain intact and this point on your part is completely null. Do keep in mind if you have read this topic: It was and remains Dwalin himself who elects not to defend himself. Simply because I make a prediction that turns out to be entirely true does not mean that he could not prove it wrong.

Another argument on your part that skews the issue:

Here is where the personal attack occurs.  It begins with a declaration that the ideas of the poster are an absolute truth, and that any attempt at debate will fail.  It then becomes personal by presupposing an action by the recipient and divining the result of that presupposed action.  This is an attack because it sets up a win-win situation for the poster and a lose-lose situation for the recipient.  If the recipient doesn't respond, the poster can claim victory because the recipient didn't reply.  If the recipient does respond, the poster can then gain the high ground by saying 'I told you so'.  This sentence adds nothing to the discussion and only serves to try and gain an advantage in the discussion through the attack.

Here you assumed that my response to Dwalin was one in which he could not possibly form a sufficient retort. I never intended to say, "I told you so" or anything of the kind. Simply saying as much does not make it true (especially when it simply is not). I already knew Dwalin wouldn't properly respond but not because the argument was strong or because I had crafted one that had no suitable response, but instead because Dwalin had yet to properly respond to anything. My intent was not to propose some "win-win" vs. a "lose-lose" scenario and I do not see, even to this point, a sufficient interpretation that would suggest that was even the means to the end, unintentional or not. That sentence does add something to the discussion because it prescribes a challenge to Dwalin. I predicted that he would try to respond and would not be able to escape--those are predictions are my part. At no point is Dwalin actually shackled to the bottom of the pit. I could take this quote of yours, let it be known, as a personal attack as well, for implying something about my character that is clearly not true and is meant to discredit me. I do say that in jest, but only to demonstrate the subjectivity of the "personal attack".

Finally:

Personal attacks have become a regular part of this thread, as I have evidenced above.

As I have evidenced throughout this response, the emphasized part above was not clearly expressed in your original post and was not responded to by me in the response I made that you are now using as the basis for this debate. Let us one last time contrast the above statement with the one below:

This has stopped being a discussion and has started to become personal attacks.

The first is your more recent incarnation. You state that personal attacks have become a regular part of the topic, which only means they are recurring within the discussion itself. However, your original stance was that the discussion portion of the topic had ended and had started to be replaced by personal attacks. I disagree with that point and that is why I responded by saying I completely disagree, because I did and do completely disagree with that statement. With that said, your post implies, by using me as an example, especially, that I had stated this topic was free from personal attacks when, in fact, I did not do anything of the kind in my response to you.

As such, if you would like to correct or clarify the original argument you intended to make at the time, you are more than welcome to do so, as that was the one I made an argument against and was the one I expected to be debated when you offered a debate--not the revised (again, unintentionally or otherwise) version you have presented here. After that is done and the basis for the debate is more clear and you have solicited a clear opinion on where I stand instead of creating a debate for me to stand against (forcing me to participate by offering only to "accept" or "rebut"), then we can gladly debate.

---

As an addendum:

@c-square:
Explain the personal attack in the one with "gleefully" underlined, please? I'm missing it.

Sure!  

- You continue to answer the question as you want it to be while skirting the issue and opting to interpret it how you want instead of how it is

The above is a statement of opinion.  It is personalized, but is not an attack, simply stating what the writer is witnessing.

- You continue to answer the question as you want it to be while skirting the issue and gleefully opting to interpret it how you want instead of how it is

By adding the word gleefully, the writer now is presupposing the initial commenter's emotional state at the time of writing.  What someone is doing is up to interpretation and discussion.  But unless the initial commenter posted some  ;D  :D  ;), or or to express glee at the time of posting, then the only one who has any right to define what was being felt at the initial writing is the initial commenter him/herself.  Imposing an emotional state on someone undermines their right to define their own feelings, and as such I believe it is a personal attack.

This is simply a very insignificant point on your part that I feel only weakens the original premise of the debate you would like to hold. Why?

The word "gleefully" there is used as "readily".

It is not in any way meant to imply an emotional state and speculating so far as to say that I could have potentially been attempting to define what he was feeling at the time of his response with the word "gleefully" is just, quite frankly, misguided. It would likely do some good to consider now that you know the intent behind that line that you may have also been wrong at perceiving posts of mine and others (on both sides) as personal attacks. Until the user being "targeted" comes out and says they viewed something as a personal attack and the one offering said personal attack confirms their intent, it is quite dangerous to make so many assumptions.

[PhoenixTears]

@c-square:
I still don't see how that particular line is a personal attack. And it felt like to me you just picked out every line where a particular person was directly referenced and made it sound like a person attack, was my point. In the same vein, though, calling us aggressive or angry is a personal attack, by that logic, but I didn't really see those as personal attacks, either. The personal attacks, in my opinion, were the ones where we were called high and mighty, where I was called impossible to debate with, and other things along those same lines.

For the record: I don't feel like I have anything to apologize for in this thread. I stand by my viewpoints - which, granted, may not always be as sugar-coated as people would like, but that's just me - and I will continue to do so.

[Jd-]

For the record: I don't feel like I have anything to apologize for in this thread. I stand by my viewpoints - which, granted, may not always be as sugar-coated as people would like, but that's just me - and I will continue to do so.

I feel precisely the same way.

[leokiko]

Wow, you guys really take this too seriously.

[Jd-]

Wow, you guys really take this too seriously.

HOW DARE YOU!!!11!11

I take this as a personal attack. En garde!



(I'll check this topic again later in the day, as I must now head off. Cheerio.)

[leokiko]

Wow, calm down xD. You guys made brilliant points in this thread, and this was an very interesting read. But I'm not used to this type of debate and seriousness.

I pretty much knew my answer by the time i saw this thread, answer which i posted a while ago: ''I don't care, people can be with whoever they want".

DONE. So easy.

[Kamite]

I will never understand why people get's so touchy in this thread.

[PhoenixTears]

@leokiko
This is a completely serious debate. Any non-seriousness will not be tolerated.