Homosexuality: A Survey

[KainTheVampire]

^ I'm very different from my parents even though we share some stuff together but mostly I have a different view on stuff and such

[nomemory]

^ I'm not like my parents at all

At all is to take it too far, because that would imply that you don't share anything with them, sense of humour, moral views, bla bla bla. I we both know it isn't that way.

[KainTheVampire]

There

[Abs.]

Hi all,

I believe the topic being debated, as per the poll, is "Are you okay with homosexuality?"

As such, some have stated that they are uncomfortable with homosexuality for reasons x, y, or z; or for no definable reason at all, just that they do not feel "okay" with it. That's fine, on the surface.

The problem comes in when the "reasons x, y, or z" do not hold up to scrutiny and/or are quite libelous.

Do not hold up to scrutiny. This is where the learning is supposed to happen. If one's reasons do not hold up to scrutiny or are proved false, one should perhaps research the matter and perhaps change one's opinion, come up with another reason, or simply state that they have no reason at all, or cannot explain why.

Libelous. Here's the test. Replace "homosexual" with "ugly" or any other minority group that has been/is still facing discrimination, and see if people would take offense to the statement, or find something unfair with the logic. I.e. "I believe that ugly people should not marry because their children would be ugly." "Studies have shown that children of ugly people grow up being teased, ridiculed, and exposed to violence."

Please remember that the debate, as per the OP's poll and original intent, is NOT "Should homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else?" We can still have that debate, I just believe that it belongs in a separate thread.

[Kleene Onigiri]

Hi all,

I believe the topic being debated, as per the poll, is "Are you okay with homosexuality?"

As such, some have stated that they are uncomfortable with homosexuality for reasons x, y, or z; or for no definable reason at all, just that they do not feel "okay" with it. That's fine, on the surface.

The problem comes in when the "reasons x, y, or z" do not hold up to scrutiny and/or are quite libelous.

Do not hold up to scrutiny. This is where the learning is supposed to happen. If one's reasons do not hold up to scrutiny or are proved false, one should perhaps research the matter and perhaps change one's opinion, come up with another reason, or simply state that they have no reason at all, or cannot explain why.

Libelous. Here's the test. Replace "homosexual" with "ugly" or any other minority group that has been/is still facing discrimination, and see if people would take offense to the statement, or find something unfair with the logic. I.e. "I believe that ugly people should not marry because their children would be ugly." "Studies have shown that children of ugly people grow up being teased, ridiculed, and exposed to violence."

Please remember that the debate, as per the OP's poll and original intent, is NOT "Should homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else?" We can still have that debate, I just believe that it belongs in a separate thread.

^agree too <3

[Dwalin]

I never said my opinion is an only and unquestionable truth. As I said, it’s just a personal opinion. And I see no point in me trying to prove heterosexual families are “betterâ€

[mangaluva]

As for the question of a flat personality, I never said it’s always like that, I just said it happens often. Also, for many children it's more difficult to live in a family with just one gender.

Can you substantiate with evidence, please? I understand that your friend might have had a tough time of it because he was raised by a single parent, as some kids do, but this is not down to a missing gender role in the household. It's because they love the parent they don't live with and miss them. It's because they hate the parent they do live with and don't want to live with them. It's because they hate the new boy/girlfriends of the parent they live with. It's because their single parent isn't earning enough. There are a myriad of reasons, but I've never myself met a child of a single parent who said "Actually, the reason that having a single parent sucks is because I don't have two traditional gender roles in the household". One of them did used to say that she really missed having a father, but what she meant was that she really missed her father, whom she loved and missed because he treated her much better than her mother does.

You know your friend's circumstances much better than we do, but please understand that you're generalizing without evidence.

[Jd-]

Please remember that the debate, as per the OP's poll and original intent, is NOT "Should homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else?" We can still have that debate, I just believe that it belongs in a separate thread.

The rest of the post I agree with, except for this. There is no reason to make a separate topic at this point as all we will then have is two topics on homosexuality, with this one dying off very, very quickly and an absurd amount of recap in the other. Beyond that, those responding to the survey with derogatory and discriminatory reasons for not being OK with homosexuality and mentioning gay marriage and/or equal rights in general can be taken to task on those views. As soon as they mention a reason, there is a debate to be had, and if they bring up an issue akin to gay marriage or adoption, there is plenty of room to take them up on that within the general framework of this topic. All that said, if we strictly followed the original purpose of the thread (post your age, location, etc, and how you feel about homosexuality), there would be very few "on-topic" posts here (including all of mine and virtually all of yours as well). Anyone that isn't posting their response to the survey can be considered straying from the topic, and inhibiting the discussion that is still on the topic of homosexuality is doing just and only that: inhibiting the discussion.

[Dwalin]

Can you substantiate with evidence, please? I understand that your friend might have had a tough time of it because he was raised by a single parent, as some kids do, but this is not down to a missing gender role in the household. It's because they love the parent they don't live with and miss them. It's because they hate the parent they do live with and don't want to live with them. It's because they hate the new boy/girlfriends of the parent they live with. It's because their single parent isn't earning enough. There are a myriad of reasons, but I've never myself met a child of a single parent who said "Actually, the reason that having a single parent sucks is because I don't have two traditional gender roles in the household". One of them did used to say that she really missed having a father, but what she meant was that she really missed her father, whom she loved and missed because he treated her much better than her mother does.

You know your friend's circumstances much better than we do, but please understand that you're generalizing without evidence.

In fact, my friend never knew his father before he was 16 years old. He just missed having a father and a mother like other people. It’s not like he missed a particular person. He couldn’t because for 16 years he never met this person.
If a person raised by a single parent never knew his/her other parent, he/she can’t possibly miss a particular person. He/she misses the father figure or mother figure which other children have.
I am not saying this is always the case though. I cannot substantiate with other evidence than the cases I have first-hand knowledge of.

[Wakarimashita]

*runs away very far*

[mangaluva]

*runs away very far*

I caught that too. And my face was ->O_o

[PhoenixTears]

As for the question of a flat personality, I never said it’s always like that, I just said it happens often.

Often is a pretty strong word to use there unless you can back it up. I get that your friend wanted a father figure around, but that's still only one example.

[Dwalin]

As for the question of a flat personality, I never said it’s always like that, I just said it happens often.

Often is a pretty strong word to use there unless you can back it up. I get that your friend wanted a father figure around, but that's still only one example.

I understand one example is not enough, but I am not that desperate to want to prove at all costs that my opinion should be accepted by others as an unquestionable truth. If my reasons are not considered enough or are not considered reasons at all by somebody, I respect that opinion because, as I said, I think the concept of “good reasoningâ€

[Jd-]

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."

Thank you. I thought that was the case.

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 have no major qualms with your clarified position and do agree that "personal attacks" can undermine the opportunity for one to discuss any issue, but there are some qualifications to that that will be expanded upon below.

Firstly, I do not doubt that "personal attacks" as you have defined them have recurred in some of the more recent pages, but I do not believe that has stopped people from expressing their view points in full and from discussing the issue at hand. There has been plenty of that amidst what you have defined as "personal attacks" and as a result, I do not agree with the assertion that there is currently less equal opportunity to discuss the issue even in the midst of those "personal attacks" because I feel that there is plenty of well-reasoned, well-intentioned posts being made that include what you consider to be "personal attacks". However, you can't ignore incendiary remarks from people like Dwalin who, once they have returned to what you consider the ideal form of conversation, adds a line like this to a post:

Anyway, I am grateful you are being polite in answering me, unlike some users before.

We know who he is referring to here and saying such a thing serves as self-fulfilling and enticing rhetoric. I do not think as many people (sad as it may be) are actually still reading the majority of his posts given that he isn't in the habit of responding to others at a level they feel is sufficient (I feel that is more than fair to say) or else that statement would have started everything all over again. I'm sure he'll take offense to this if he actually reads it, but I am only demonstrating it to you, c-square, and do not feel I have anything else to discuss with Dwalin on this particular matter.

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.

This is an overestimation on your part. If you noticed in my addendum, I only addressed the "gleefully" post later because you had expanded upon it as I was typing my post. I, of course, already disagreed that it was a personal attack but did not comment as I felt my position on what you considered to be a "personal attack" was quite clear from deconstructing the other examples (which we will get to in a moment). Once you expanded upon it and there was a clear frame of mind demonstrating why it was chosen, I took you up on the matter since you had made a second post to say as much and, given that I still disagreed, felt it was my place to showcase why I felt that was a wrong assertion on your part. As a result, saying "I also read that you rebutted some of my examples of personal attacks but not others" and then immediately asking the question, "Does that mean you agree you have made personal attacks in this thread?" is not in good form because it should have been quite clear from my addressing the "gleefully" post as an addendum that I was not asserting that at all. [More on this later in the post]

By your definition of what constitutes a personal attack, I am sure I can be considered someone that has launched a "personal attack" here. However, by what I consider a personal attack, I do not feel that is the case at all. All of those "personal attacks" that you cited I will continue to defend. I stand by not just those but everything I have said in this topic and do not make any apologies for any of it. Numerous posts have contained "personally attacks" on me in this topic by your own definition of what constitutes one, and I have not yet complained even once. I am not everyone and I understand that different people take different statements in different ways, but as I said before: There are people that feel it is a "personal attack" on them just because you disagree with them and assert, for example, "I feel there is no God." Unless your intent is to emotionally harm someone, I do not feel it is a targeted, calculated "personal attack" and as a result, I have not launched what I consider a personal attack on anyone in this thread and continue to maintain that.

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.

Foremost on this point, allow me to go back to what I originally said: "Allow me to also state it is not necessarily a personal attack if it is a prediction that turns out to be true." I was not saying it as you interpreted it, but that may have been my fault for wording it in such a way.  I was not saying that predictions are personal attacks or even are more likely to be personal attacks than not. I was instead saying that a prediction is not necessarily a personal attack in order to counter your assertion that all of my predictions were personal attacks. To anyone skimming this post, this point may be difficult to understand, but I think you (c-square) get what it is I am saying.

I do not feel that that prediction or any other I put forth constitutes a personal attack because not only did it turn out to be true, it was not meant to be one and still does not read as one. If you say you do not like white people and you make it very clear you will not vote for a white person in an election and I predict you will not vote for a white person and you don't, that is not a personal attack because you have very, very clearly demonstrated that you will not vote for a white person. Dwalin very clearly demonstrated that he would not follow with the logic I put forth and I do not feel it is an attack to demonstrate what he believes in a discussion about what he believes. I never had to assume in that example "what the person knows", "what the person believes", or "what the person would or would not be willing to do" because Dwalin had made all of that long clear in the course of the discussion. The fact that I turned out to be correct in my prediction is ample support of this. In other words: Making my prediction based on what Dwalin himself had said about himself is not a personal attack and no amount of twisting it is going to make it into one. No libel was performed here and I would be able to counter that charge very handily in a court of law (at least by American law--I am not familiar with libel precepts in any other country apart from Britain).

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.

That statement was referring to the facts of the post, in that there is no debating whether or not a fact is a fact when it is very clearly a fact. For reference, let's go back to what I originally said:

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. 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.

All of the facts listed there are beyond question of fact-or-not as far as I'm concerned. If something is a fact, there is no occasion to debate whether or not it is a fact in a discussion in which it is not even the focal point of the discussion (though I will demonstrate why they are facts below, for the sake of argument). The questions are there to facilitate those facts and give them context and, as a result, I do not see how any of them can be debated as being untruthful. You may say that the questions accompanying the facts are not facts and that is because they were never meant to be and are not presented as such, thus I feel if your argument was based on that point it is being done in poor form. In other words: What is up for debate in that example is whether or not something is true. Allow me to show you why the below are true, for example:

— 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). FACT: The God of the Bible in the Bible orders that many people need to die so that his will may be achieved (including homosexuals and nonbelievers). This is a fact as it is illustrated quite prominently in the book and is not up for debate as to whether it is there or not. If you believe it is, I will gladly showcase why your assumption that it is not fact is wrong.

— 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. FACT: This is not about whether he or anyone else reading this "believes in" the Old Testament. That is a fact--a simple one at that--and remains one. For more context, please see Dwalin's original argument that I was correcting with that statement. I was not debating at that point whatsoever: I was merely correcting his erroneous interpretation of something.

— 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. FACT: The word of God of the Bible in the Bible details quite clearly how to deal with those that stray from his word, and real life people have really carried out real life atrocities with those words to justify their actions. The amount is countless because we truly can never get a full figure on just how many people have died as a result of religious fundamentalism, other than to say it is so great that nailing down the full figure is not a practical task.

— 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. FACT: Dwalin originally said that it was man's "free will" that had man kill millions in God's name. This is not true. Men who killed other men in God's name as a result of what they believed God had said to them in the book where he is purported to have spoken to them did so because of a belief in God, not as a result of "free will". Dwalin's point was simply misguided, and my statement here is not up for debate because there is no debate that men who killed other men in God's name did so for God, not for "free will".

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.

Thank you. I can understand the misunderstanding. That said, I do not agree with the first half but that is a point we will not come to a consensus on.

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.

This is fair enough for the most part and there does appear to be some degree of miscommunication. However, all of my challenges on Dwalin were based on what he, himself, had demonstrated based on his own knowledge and views earlier. I would be repeating myself here by going any deeper into that aspect yet again, so please refer back to the section of this post beginning with "Foremost on this point" for more information. Of course, it is good to know that you do not feel the challenge is not appropriate, but that does not make it inappropriate in any sense other than you believing that to be the case, and that is fine. You are entitled to your own opinion and viewpoint as to the rules of which you like to see debates carried out.

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.

[The following is a reprint of an earlier post by me responding to this when I had less time. It is being reproduced here for completion and reference's sake]

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.

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.

Your opinion is clear and hopefully now mine is clear as well. Much of my forum time will be occupied with the ongoing forum maintenance, so do not fret if I do not reply to your post immediately. I will keep an eye on the topic and will participate further once I have more time.

[Dwalin]

We know who he is referring to here and saying such a thing serves as self-fulfilling and enticing rhetoric. I do not think as many people (sad as it may be) are actually still reading the majority of his posts given that he isn't in the habit of responding to others at a level they feel is sufficient (I feel that is more than fair to say) or else that statement would have started everything all over again. I'm sure he'll take offense to this if he actually reads it, but I am only demonstrating it to you, c-square, and do not feel I have anything else to discuss with Dwalin on this particular matter.

I don’t take offense, I am just saddened by all of this. I didn’t think you would take offense because of the line that stated “some users were not politeâ€