India legalises homosexuality (finally)

[San Lumen]

your claim is totally utterly absurd

And you can't disprove it by just stating that because it carries no more weight than what I have said. To disprove it, you'd need to cite empirical data; this is how you conduct a debate.

Well Im not about to post his social media on here which would probably be a rule violation

[Aellex]

Ok, I am not arguing against that. You say morality is God-given, ok. But a person who doesn't believe in your deity doesn't exactly care. Morality to them is probably given by another source or in another way.

And I absolutely agree, you don't have to adapt or stop disapproving of something just because the person next to you believes differently. I wouldn't ask you to change that. However, as much as you abhor relativism, morality is not monolithic. I think we can agree that in most things, most people believe equally. I don't subscribe to Christianity, but much like you, I abhor murder. I disapprove of it, unless it was strictly necessary, like say, self-defense. But I don't believe morality was given to us by a deity and I think it can exist without a divine origin.

I hope I explained myself.

I mean, it all comes down to definitions I suppose but I go with the ones I always knew and that were reaffirmed during philosophy classes; that's to say that ethic is a fabricated through reasoning code of conduct that is accepted because one agree with its principles personally while morality is one that is accepted on its own because it has been made by an higher thing than oneself.
The first is ever-changing between times, regions and individual while the second is monolithic and influenced only by literal divine intervention. The first can indeed in many ways look like the second but it can, however, never quite match it.
An Atheist can be ethical but indeed not moral, not because he's a lesser person than a believer but because he lacks a pre-requisite to it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

And you can't disprove it by just stating that because it carries no more weight than what I have said. To disprove it, you'd need to cite empirical data; this is how you conduct a debate.

Well Im not about to post his social media on here which would probably be a rule violation

Sigh
Allow me a minute to pull up the research data everyone?

[Oil exporting People]

And you can't disprove it by just stating that because it carries no more weight than what I have said. To disprove it, you'd need to cite empirical data; this is how you conduct a debate.

Well Im not about to post his social media on here which would probably be a rule violation

Social Media isn't empirical data.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Actually, that's what Ohio put in.

What?

You put in those - nvm, I meant to say CTM. Sorry.

[San Lumen]

Well Im not about to post his social media on here which would probably be a rule violation

Social Media isn't empirical data.

ok then what is?

[Internationalist Bastard]

https://web.archive.org/web/20090419195945/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf
It’s extremely well researched that Same sex couples raise children just as well different sex couples. I could probably spend literal days pulling data

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

What?

You put in those - nvm, I meant to say CTM. Sorry.

No worries, but actually he didn’t, his source did.

[Kubumba Tribe]

You put in those - nvm, I meant to say CTM. Sorry.

No worries, but actually he didn’t, his source did.

Oh ok. Thx.

[San Lumen]

https://web.archive.org/web/20090419195945/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf
It’s extremely well researched that Same sex couples raise children just as well different sex couples. I could probably spend literal days pulling data

But a religious group says with a biased study says its harmful. What do those at the APA know?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, I am not arguing against that. You say morality is God-given, ok. But a person who doesn't believe in your deity doesn't exactly care. Morality to them is probably given by another source or in another way.

And I absolutely agree, you don't have to adapt or stop disapproving of something just because the person next to you believes differently. I wouldn't ask you to change that. However, as much as you abhor relativism, morality is not monolithic. I think we can agree that in most things, most people believe equally. I don't subscribe to Christianity, but much like you, I abhor murder. I disapprove of it, unless it was strictly necessary, like say, self-defense. But I don't believe morality was given to us by a deity and I think it can exist without a divine origin.

I hope I explained myself.

I mean, it all comes down to definitions I suppose but I go with the ones I always knew and that were reaffirmed during philosophy classes; that's to say that ethic is a fabricated through reasoning code of conduct that is accepted because one agree with its principles personally while morality is one that is accepted on its own because it has been made by an higher thing than oneself.
The first is ever-changing between times, regions and individual while the second is monolithic and influenced only by literal divine intervention. The first can indeed in many ways look like the second but it can, however, never quite match it.
An Atheist can be ethical but indeed not moral, not because he's a lesser person than a believer but because he lacks a pre-requisite to it.

Aellex, the behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neuro-physiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religious people included. An atheist can be both ethical and moral because they can find morals in the world around them, lacking gods a priori. That's why an atheist recognizes, much like a Christian, that murder is wrong and that they should honor mother and father.

[Reikoku]

This is great news. Good for India.

[Internationalist Bastard]

https://web.archive.org/web/20090419195945/http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ObergefellHodges/AmicusBriefs/14-556_American_Psychological_Association.pdf
It’s extremely well researched that Same sex couples raise children just as well different sex couples. I could probably spend literal days pulling data

But a religious group says with a biased study says its harmful. What do those at the APA know?

I also can easily pull multiple sources disproving those
It’s such a well researched topic that I find it hilarious people continue to refute it

[San Lumen]

But a religious group says with a biased study says its harmful. What do those at the APA know?

I also can easily pull multiple sources disproving those
It’s such a well researched topic that I find it hilarious people continue to refute it

I agree. I was being sarcastic

[The New California Republic]

morality is one that is accepted on its own because it has been made by an higher thing than oneself.

Nope:

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

It doesn't need to be made by a higher thing at all, it can be put forward on a societal basis, on the same level as the individual as part of a collective group.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I also can easily pull multiple sources disproving those
It’s such a well researched topic that I find it hilarious people continue to refute it

I agree. I was being sarcastic

I know
My point is being made to those who ill assume are reading the data and trying to find holes that sociologists couldnt

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

morality is one that is accepted on its own because it has been made by an higher thing than oneself.

Nope:

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

It doesn't need to be made by a higher thing at all, it can be put forward on a societal basis, on the same level as the individual as part of a collective group.

He even went so far as to say that we cannot depend on the moral fiat of a deity, in his dialogue Euthyphro.

[Internationalist Bastard]

morality is one that is accepted on its own because it has been made by an higher thing than oneself.

Nope:

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

It doesn't need to be made by a higher thing at all, it can be put forward on a societal basis, on the same level as the individual as part of a collective group.

Pure human empathy kept me in line not the fear Tengri Khan is gonna start smiting

[Aellex]

Aellex, the behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neuro-physiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religious people included. An atheist can be both ethical and moral because we they can find morals in the world around us them, lacking gods a priori. That's why an atheist recognizes, much like a Christian, that murder is wrong and that they should honor mother and father.

I think we're talking past each other, here, so let me put things down more clearly.
I believe in God, and thus accept that He has granted us a Moral that's to say a set of conduct and valor, that is unique and universal.
That belief in God isn't affected by other people's belief in Him or lack of, in other words, I do not think an Islamic or Hindu God(s) exist and neither do I believe that God doesn't exist just because people hold those thoughts. Them holding those beliefs doesn't mean that the Moral that is God-given changes because they do, nor that their idea of Moral has any weight to it because it has not been granted by God and thus is just human fabrication.

Since Moral is unique and universal and since it has been granted to us by God, one can not follow it without recognising and acknowledging the one that bestowed them upon us because it's only the fact that He did that gives them any weight to begin with.
Again, I'm not denying that Atheists or people of other faiths can't have ethic because most people can recognise that honoring family and not killing people is good, however, those are concepts they reasoned themselves into acknowledging thus making it different from Morality; the only thing that makes it bad to them is that they through a logical process concluded that they were bad.


I hope I made myself clearer.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Aellex, the behavior of atheists is subject to the same rules of sociology, psychology, and neuro-physiology that govern the behavior of all members of our species, religious people included. An atheist can be both ethical and moral because we they can find morals in the world around us them, lacking gods a priori. That's why an atheist recognizes, much like a Christian, that murder is wrong and that they should honor mother and father.

I think we're talking past each other, here, so let me put things down more clearly.
I believe in God, and thus accept that He has granted us a Moral that's to say a set of conduct and valor, that is unique and universal.
That belief in God isn't affected by other people's belief in Him or lack of, in other words, I do not think an Islamic or Hindu God(s) exist and neither do I believe that God doesn't exist just because people hold those thoughts. Them holding those beliefs doesn't mean that the Moral that is God-given changes because they do, nor that their idea of Moral has any weight to it because it has not been granted by God and thus is just human fabrication.

Since Moral is unique and universal and since it has been granted to us by God, one can not follow it without recognising and acknowledging the one that bestowed them upon us because it's only the fact that He did that gives them any weight to begin with.
Again, I'm not denying that Atheists or people of other faiths can't have ethic because most people can recognise that honoring family and not killing people is good, however, those are concepts they reasoned themselves into acknowledging thus making it different from Morality; the only thing that makes it bad to them is that they through a logical process concluded that they were bad.


I hope I made myself clearer.

We're not talking past each other.

No one is questioning your belief in a god. And you ca believe morals were given to you by him all you want. The truth is that that belief need not apply to people who do not believe in your god or in a god, and that doesn't make them less moral or incapable of morality in any way. Atheists can be moral, as well as Buddhists, and neither believes in God. That's because morality is not subject to a religion or to a deity. We, as humans, are capable of creating it absent of a god. You can see that in several societies.

[Ifreann]

My head doesn't charge rent.

Gotta use up all that open space somehow.

Ample parking.

[Olthar]

This is a good thing. Every country needs more lesbians.

Let the monsoon of lesbians begin!

India does have a large population, after all, so that description certainly seems appropriate. *nod*

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

There are several issues with the claims of some in this thread. I've already typed this up a while back, so I'm posting it here. I think it'll be of use in the discussion of whether homosexuality is harmful to children.

---

A great number of Child Sexual Abuse cases go unreported, which makes it difficult to make blanket claims about the demographics of CSA; nevertheless, there is no statistical evidence, among cases of CSA that are reported, that the percentage of cases where the victim and abuser are the same gender is greater than the percentage of homosexuals in the population at large. Most experts (psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers) agree that those who commit CSA have no adult sexual orientation and that pedophilia (or hebephilia if the victim is a teenager) differs from heterosexuality or homosexuality. Many perpetrators (like Jerry Sandusky) lead a seemingly normal life with adult partners, regardless of the sex of their victims. Even if we assume that pedophiles can be gay or heterosexual and the statistics are complete, we would still see between 60% and 90% of CSA committed by heterosexual men.

While homosexual men would still be over-represented, homosexual women would be under-represented, even though they exist in roughly the same number as their male counterparts, which means that the recruitment story for men is possible, but not supported by any evidence for women. Furthermore, vile organizations such as NAMBLA are not accepted by the established LGBT community and have not existed for decades as functioning organizations. Thus, there are no indications that organized recruitment is taking place. Finally, there is no known association between the victimization of CSA and being LGBT; most LGBT people were not victims of CSA and most victims of CSA are heterosexual.

SOURCES:
> Watkins, B.; Bentovim, A. (1992). "The sexual abuse of male children and adolescents: a review of current research". Journal of Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry 33 (10): 197–248. Error: Bad DOI specified. PMID 1737828. http://www.sasian.org/papers/boysngirls.htm.
> http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html ... ation.html
> Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.
> https://victimsofcrime.org/media/report ... statistics
> https://victimsofcrime.org/media/report ... ors-of-csa

[The South Falls]

Well, this is good. Finally, another country moving off the path of hate.

[Aellex]

We're not talking past each other.

No one is questioning your belief in a god. And you ca believe morals were given to you by him all you want.

The truth is that that belief need not apply to people who do not believe in your god or in a god, and that doesn't make them less moral or incapable of morality in any way.
Atheists can be moral, as well as Buddhists, and neither believes in God. That's because morality is not subject to a religion or to a deity. We, as humans, are capable of creating it absent of a god. You can see that in several societies.

The problem is that I disagree on that for the reason I stated earlier. Because I believe in God, I believe in an unique Morality he granted. People who do not believe in him can therefore not believe in his Morality and thus can not have Morality at all because it is unique. They can have ethic, they can fashion it to look like Morality but it can not be Morality. It's a simple case of "Salus extra ecclesiam non est".

You're free to believe Morality can exist without God but that concept is one that I neither believe in, agree with nor can even acknowledge.