Homosexuality: A Survey

[nomemory]

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

I can not answer for everyone, but the reason why I am so "touchy" is because I find this important. I am just as "touchy" when debating against racism. But would you question my "touchiness" then?

For me this is about personal freedom and peoples right to whoever they are without having to defend that at every turn. I want a future where that is a given, and nothing will happen if I just sit here saying that but doing nothing towards that goal. And as many of my friends are homo or bi, even my sister is bi, do you expect me to just accept people saying bad things about them? Or people saying "well they are okay, it is not their fault, but they should never act on those feelings" or "well, as long as they don't marry and adopt I am fine with them". To me that is offensive, I am sorry, but that is how it is even if it isn't meant that way. And remember that I do not count myself as either homo or bi and I still feel offended and sad, how do they feel then?

[kkslider5552000]

I'm saddened so many intelligent people are wasting their time on this thread (I'd include myself but I said intelligent, not arguably witty).

i was smart, gave my opinion, the end, waited for stupid debates, it happened. Any questions?

[c-square]

You are completely correct.  I did change the wording of my stance from my original post to my assertion above.  The reason why I chose to begin anew with a new assertion is because I realized my previous one was ambiguous.  I understand your original rebuttal was directed towards my original assertion.  I didn't include it in the post with the new assertion because I knew that it was in response to my earlier ambiguous post, and I wanted to find out if you disagreed with my clarified position.  For the record, my clarified position is and remains "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."

From what I can tell, it sounds like you might agree with my clarified position, though it's not made completely clear.  You pointed out that the term 'personal attack' is subjective, which I can agree with to a point, and you also stated that "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", implying that beyond the subjectivity, you believe there are in fact personal attacks in this thread.  What's not clear is whether you agree that such attacks have become a regular part of the discourse and whether they are undermining the discussion.  What is your stance on those points?

I also read that you rebutted some of my examples of personal attacks but not others.  Does that mean that you agree you have made personal attacks in this thread?  By your personal adoption of PT's comment "I don't feel like I have anything to apologize for in this thread", it would seem that either you don't believe you have made any personal attacks in this thread, or that personal attacks are not something one should apologize for.  I'd like to know where you stand on this.

Finally, for the 'personal attacks' that you did rebut,

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:

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?

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.  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.

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.

(I reinstated your original quote to give context)

I agree, making a prediction how someone will act in a given situation is not necessarily an attack.  For example, if you touched a hot stove, I predict you would remove your hand quickly.  That's certainly not an attack, it's just a neutral prediction.  However, because you said that a prediction is not necessarily an attack, it implies that you believe that in some cases predictions can be attacks.  I agree with you, and I believe the above is an instance of one.  What makes it a personal attack is the fact that it is addressing not only the actions of a person, but the character of a person.  By saying what the person knows, by saying what the person believes (what goes against his faith), and by saying what the person would or would not be willing to do, you attack the person's character.  The libel laws are specifically there to protect from such predictions, and simply because one is able to refute said predictions does not make it any less prosecutable.  

Another argument on your part that skews the issue:

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.

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 first would like to say that I was surprised at your statement that "There's no debating any of that".  In a debate, as in the scientific method, the whole point is to permit debate and questioning of everything.  No point should be beyond scrutiny, so it shocked me to hear you declare that there was something that had to be simply taken as truth.

I understand that you did not intend to create a 'win-win'/'lose-lose' situation.  Although I believe one may have been created unintentionally, I withdraw my assertion that one was created with intent.

As for assuming that Darwin would not be able to come up with a sufficient retort, I think there's some miscommunication.  I was not arguing for, but against the presumption that Darwin would not be able to come up with a sufficient retort, i.e. "you'll try anyway and naturally dig yourself deeper into a hole you're not going to escape".  Stating that Darwin would not be able to come up with a sufficient retort is an attack on his capabilities, and has nothing to do with homosexuality, religion, or law.  I agree that it was a challenge, but unfortunately it was not the type of challenge that I think belongs in a rational, respectful discussion.  Challenges such as, 'there is a flaw in your reasoning', 'I disagree with you on these points', 'you missed something' are all respectful challenges.  An attack on someone's capabilities that challenges them to defend them does not belong.

@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.

I've searched Thesaurus.com, Merriam-Webster's thesaurus and the Oxford English Thesaurus and none of them have 'Gleefully' as a synonym to 'Readily'.  I understand now you didn't mean to imply that joy was taken in the act, however I do believe it was a poor choice of wording.  In this case, I believe interpreting 'Gleefully' as meaning acting full of glee was a valid assumption.

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.

I hope I have made my opinion more clear.  I believe 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.  I look forward to your input on the situation.

[bluekaitou1412]

I'm saddened so many intelligent people are wasting their time on this thread

Not exactly, because they do provide good reading-- well, at least for me, since I seldom see discussions like these in other forums

[c-square]

@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.

Let me give an example that might explain what I'm thinking.  Say it is my wife's job to wash the dishes (actually it's mine, but let's pretend it's hers  ;)).  Now, say that when I go to get dishes from the cupboard, I notice many of them are still dirty.  I could say, "Honey, why are you shelving dirty dishes?".  It's an honest question, and gives her the opportunity to say 'Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize they were still dirty'.  Now, let's say instead I asked her "Honey, why are you gleefully shelving dirty dishes"?  That question is accusing her of doing it purposefully, with intent and that she takes pleasure out of it.  The accusation is what makes it an attack.

I hear you that it seemed like I picked out every line that addressed someone directly.  Actually, there were many lines where people were directly addressed that I didn't pick out because they were not attacks.  Simply addressing someone is not an attack.  You said x, you did x, you misunderstood x, all are not attacks, and are simply statements of fact of opinion.  You are x, you feel x, you know x, you believe x, you are incapable of x, those on the other hand are not in the realm of anyone else to define but the person themselves.  Whenever anyone else tries to tell you what you are, what you feel, what you believe, what you know or what you're capable of, those are attacks, because no one has the right to define those for you.

[Dwalin]

It is pretty evident that you are the product of religious upbringing

I am not the result of a religious upbringing: in fact, my parents and grandparents tried to convince me for years there is no God. It was my choice, not someone else’s.

[nomemory]

So you only take insults to heart if they are true? That makes no sense at all. If I was called high and mighty I would be upset, so now I am high and mighty? If I was called a bad person that would make me upset, does that mean I am a bad person?

[Dwalin]

So you only take insults to heart if they are true? That makes no sense at all. If I was called high and mighty I would be upset, so now I am high and mighty? If I was called a bad person that would make me upset, does that mean I am a bad person?

I reconsidered and deleted the question after reading an old post of PhoenixTears, so please consider it as if it were never asked. And I wasn't talking about "upset", I was talking about "reacting with extreme anger" (at least the answers looked like that). I haven't called PhoenixTears high and mighty for no reason. I was deeply offended too.

[nomemory]

With extreme anger? I strongly doubt that, I actually believe she hasn't been very angry at all throughout this whole thread, if not completely not-angry.

[Dwalin]

At this point, I don't know what to answer because if I try to explain the reasons of my disagreement (not my views on homosexuality, but my views on defending one's opinion in a non-calm and non-polite way), Jd- says “stop victimizing yourselfâ€

[nomemory]

I have noticed and in a way I agree, but I do not think that they were the ones that started it, nor do I think they would ever intentionally hurt an other person, I may be wearing my "PT and Jd- are awesome <3"-goggles but I had a good reason to put those on in the first place. It should also be noted that I have some even stronger goggles than that, my "everything is fine lalalalala"-goggles

But I really wish that this debate could go back to discussing the matter at hand.

[Kleene Onigiri]

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.)

omg, OMG! Leokiko, Jd- quoted you! IT'S A PERSONAL ATTACK! DEFEND YOURSELF AGIANST THIS TROLL!
*flees*

...If it was such a sin, why not just "make it" impossible to murder?

Because God implemented hard mode



Also, all I see in this thread are accusations to the other party, that they personally insulted them.
I don't see a "Sorry" or "Sorry in case I insulted you" or "I thought I was attacked and reacted according to that, I didn't mean to cause trouble" anywhere tho

[kyuuketsuki]

It is pretty evident that you are the product of religious upbringing

I am not the result of a religious upbringing: in fact, my parents and grandparents tried to convince me for years there is no God. It was my choice, not someone else’s.

That is... unique... It is usually the other way around.

That doesn't explain your apparent tunnel vision though >_>. I still think you need to reflect on your views a bit outside of the religious perspective on why you feel the way you do though. Not only would it help with your argument, but it is an overall good idea.

I should explain to you how to construct a good argument though, which is the foundation of a good debate, because debating is quite simple really... I want you to learn this method and use it. If you are still in school, this is how you should write every paper you are ever going to write (no seriously, no teacher will ever fault you for this set up, granted it doesn't exactly work for journal style articles all the time...). A good argument is basically comprised of 3 parts... 1) An initial statement (this is the point you are trying to prove) 2) At least 2 supporting pieces of evidence (or reasoning if it is a matter of opinion) 3) Concluding statement that links your evidence or reasoning to the initial statement that you are trying to prove. It is really as simple as that. Debates use evidence and reasoning, to make points. Statements without evidence or reasoning behind them have no impact and are usually destroyed quickly. You can literally say ANYTHING you want and not have it taken seriously because of this.

Also... (to leokiko) All debates should be taken seriously no matter the subject matter. I took a writing class about two years ago where we had a debate to strengthen how to build an argument. The debate was on the best character of the Wizard of Oz that was not of the main cast. I somehow convinced my group to take the flying monkeys with fez hats (part of the reason was that I came up with an awesome opening statement, I wish I had written it down). So yeah, I was debating with 3 other groups that those monkeys with fez hats were the best characters in the Wizard of Oz. As ridiculous as the subject matter was everyone took it seriously, and we almost won. Granted, part of the reason was that my professor was apparently a Doctor Who fan and liked that one of my arguments was that the Doctor thinks fez hats are cool and therefore the monkeys are cool as well for having them (sad part is only 4 people, including myself and the professor understood what I meant ). And btw, not one group managed to destroy that particular argument <3. But again, Doctor Who fan for a professor... Hard to fight a fandom . Though some debates are more pertinent than others. Homosexuality is a big issue still.

[ranger]

WHAT THE last time I checked this thread it was on page 27!!

And that was after boy wonder Tawi left!!  By the Nines, this is going nowhere

I'm not going to say anymore to this debate really; I left my stance on the topic with  simple "yes" to the survey, read some of Tawi's post and had an areyouserious.jpg face/response, and now I've skimmed some of Dwalin's posts and how his initial opinion has "blossomed" into something more heated and malicious.

All I have to say is: Thorin would be dissapointed in you, Dwalin.

[Jd-]

I do not have time to post a full reply at this very moment but will certainly do so later today. However, I will address this ahead of time since it has no real bearing on the argument at hand:

I've searched Thesaurus.com, Merriam-Webster's thesaurus and the Oxford English Thesaurus and none of them have 'Gleefully' as a synonym to 'Readily'.  I understand now you didn't mean to imply that joy was taken in the act, however I do believe it was a poor choice of wording.  In this case, I believe interpreting 'Gleefully' as meaning acting full of glee was a valid assumption.

As someone that has taken as many English courses as anyone could fathom, I am going to tell you that the word was used appropriately to convey the intended meaning. You may believe it to be a poor choice of wording, but I believe that to be the result of poor research on your part and will explain why in the coming paragraphs.

Firstly, they cannot possibly be expected to list all synonyms--whether they be more common ones or rare ones does not change the fact that they are still synonyms. Not every synonym is going to be listed, and you also have to consider auxiliary synonyms before proclaiming that a word was used incorrectly. However, most importantly: Just because a word is rarer than another and is often looked over for more common alternatives when searching for synonyms does not mean it is not a synonym to other, more common words. This will explained quite clearly below, but I wanted to make that very clear ahead of time.

Now that that is out of the way, let's look a little more in depth at your argument here.

For example, using Thesaurus.com as a reference since you seemed keen to, "cheerfully" is used as the third synonym to the word "gaily" because that is what a search for "gleefully" returns given that they do not even have a proper entry for the word "gleefully". This fact alone already demonstrates that "gleefully" is not going to turn up in many if any similar results simply because they opt to use easier, more popular words like "cheerfully" in the results, but I'll continue for your sake. So, under "gaily", the third synonym listed is "cheerfully". Can we agree that "gleefully" and "cheerfully" are proper synonyms? If so, consider that under "cheerfully", the word "readily" is very clearly listed as a synonym. By that same token,  "cheerfully" is nauturally clearly displayed as a synonym to "readily" in the search result for "readily". Also, when you search for "gleefully", its own auxiliary synonyms are in the search result, and on that same page is the word "cheerfully" and its own synonyms, which does include "readily". Taking all of this into account, I do not think it is unfair in any way to say that "readily" is a synonym of "gleefully" and I will continue to stand by that. "Gleefully" is a much rarer word than "cheerfully", so it is of absolutely no surprise that "gleefully" is opted out of the result for "readily" as, you must know, they attempt to give as wide a range of proper synonyms as possible when listing them instead of trying to make a definitive list of all of them (given that that task is practically impossible).

Merriam-Webster's online thesaurus is not a very useful source to begin with from my experience, but never mind that they don't even have an entry for the word "gleefully". Their closest match is "gleeful", which is not a synonym for "readily", so of course you will have incredible difficulty getting "gleefully" to come up in a result.

As such, I contend that the word "gleefully" can very, very easily be used to mean "readily" and have absolutely no qualms defending its use further.