Was Jesus gay?

[Shaker]

Yet it is an opinion that has no evidence to support it.

No evidence? Really? What about the lives as they are actually lived of gay people, both by their own accounts and by their families, friends, work colleagues (etc.) who see them? For decades they've been able to see the happiness that openly being in relationships brings and living lives and finding their own happiness according to their own lights; now they can see the happiness that getting married and/or having children can bring should they choose to do so.

In other words, its precisely what you don't want to allow it to be - an argumentum ad populum.

Wrong. We all know how hopeless you are in understanding fallacious reasoning and why it's fallacious - hence your slavish devotion to the negative proof fallacy to this very day - but a fallacy of this kind always has to have a 'because' in it somewhere to be fallacious. The 'because' is the giveaway. Thus it would be a fallacy to say "Homosexuality is fine because most people think that it is." Most people do indeed think that it's fine - that fact is supported by a wealth of evidence -, but that's not my argument here and not what I'm saying.

So no, not an AaP at all. Which is exactly what I said

I'd suggest that there are many people who have been on the receiving end of the damage that both can produce.

What is the damage according to you that homosexuality produces? That of infidelity I've already identified (in #353) - what about homosexuality? Remember that the difference here is that: "...  most people have sufficient wit to be able to see the harm/damage caused by infidelity (because of the broken promises and the betrayal of trust that it involves) and may well have been on the receiving end of it themselves at some point, and not only the harm that isn't caused by homosexuality, which would be merely a negative, privative thing, but the positive and active happiness it brings to so many people."

Is this going to end up in the same bracket as the evidence of those "good reasons" why "homosexuality was viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" that the dog ate before you were able to post it?

[Gordon]

Comparing a phenomenon that is perhaps 30 years old with one that is centuries old (and has been researched for perhaps a couple of those centuries) is poor science.

If mixed-gender marriage is so wonderful then, and prior to SSM, why did divorce occur at all?

[Nearly Sane]

If mixed-gender marriage is so wonderful then, and prior to SSM, why did divorce occur at all?

Don't see the logic here. Hope's position is that SSM is bad not that straight marriage is perfect.

[Shaker]

Hope's position is that SSM is bad not that straight marriage is perfect.

He has zero evidence for that opinion, however. It's based only on his vulgar homophobia and nothing more.

[Hope]

If mixed-gender marriage is so wonderful then, and prior to SSM, why did divorce occur at all?

Well, historically, they occurred because people fell out of love with each other; or one or other was unfaithful to the other and the innocent party was given the chance to get out of the agreement; or marriage is not treated as a relationship between two individuals but as a political tool of domination - of a nation or individual over another, or  to cement a political pact.  In other words, divorce occurs within heterosexual contexts for very similar reasons that it can occur amongst homosexual contexts.  Interstingly the firt example of a divorce law was that developed by the Jewish deity to protect the woman from simply being tossed out of the home with no means of support.

[Hope]

He has zero evidence for that opinion, however.

I agree, in a sense, Shakes; there hasn't been time yet for a reliable body of evidence - either way - to be developed as regards legitimate homosexual relationships.  In the past, they were always illicit and illicit events don't make the best of evidentiary material.

[Shaker]

I agree, in a sense, Shakes; there hasn't been time yet for a reliable body of evidence - either way - to be developed as regards legitimate homosexual relationships.

You possess, I assume, some at least rudimentary form of a theory of mind and thus are able to understand that the benefits of heterosexual relationships apply also to homosexual ones, I take it?

In the past, they were always illicit and illicit events don't make the best of evidentiary material.

"Illegitimate" and "illicit" are not synonyms. A synonym of "illicit" is "illegal."

If historians were to dismiss evidentairy material on the basis of that metrial being related to illicit events then an awful lot of history would be eradicated at a stroke.

As it happens it seems that France was the first country to decriminalize homosexual acts between men in 1791, when it adopted a new penal code. I think that that's quite long enough for us to be able to tell the difference between a society where homosexuality is at least tolerated, and a society where it's criminalised and punished. You, of course, give every impression that no amount of time would ever be sufficient.

[Nearly Sane]

He has zero evidence for that opinion, however. It's based only on his vulgar homophobia and nothing more.

Which I don't disagree with but he doesn't need to say all het marriages/relationships are perfect to make a case.

[Shaker]

Which I don't disagree with but he doesn't need to say all het marriages/relationships are perfect to make a case.

No, he just has to provide some evidence of what he thinks the harm is that homosexuality produces/causes.

You'll notice that we're still waiting?

[Hope]

No evidence? Really? What about the lives as they are actually lived of gay people, both by their own accounts and by their families, friends, work colleagues (etc.) who see them?

Sorry, as you and many others here have made it very clear, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

Wrong. We all know how hopeless you are in understanding fallacious reasoning and why it's fallacious - hence your slavish devotion to the negative proof fallacy to this very day - but a fallacy of this kind always has to have a 'because' in it somewhere to be fallacious. The 'because' is the giveaway.

And the giveaway for your argument is that the last 20-30 years has seen a swing in public opinion, and we have no idea whether in another generation or two there will be swing the other way.  All you can do is use the argumentum ad populum as it stands at the moment.

What is the damage according to you that homosexuality produces? That of infidelity I've already identified (in #353) - what about homosexuality?

As usual, you introduce the 'homosexuality' strawman when what we are discussing is homosexual relationships. 

Remember that the difference here is that: "...  most people have sufficient wit to be abl e to see the harm/damage caused by infidelity (because of the broken promises and the betrayal of trust that it involves) and may well have been on the receiving end of it themselves at some point, and not only the harm that isn't caused by homosexuality, which would be merely a negative, privative thing, but the positive and active happiness it brings to so many people."

Do you have any non-anedotal evidence to support your argument?

Since the thread that I started in order to present said material was chopped off at its knees long before I'd had a chance to put most of the material up, I get the impression that the dog got very exciting shaking at the material.

[Rhiannon]

I agree, in a sense, Shakes; there hasn't been time yet for a reliable body of evidence - either way - to be developed as regards legitimate homosexual relationships.  In the past, they were always illicit and illicit events don't make the best of evidentiary material.

Stop distorting the meaning of words in order to suit your own purposes. It just makes you look dishonest.

And requiring a 'body of evidence' about gay relationships makes you look either stupid or prejudiced.

[Shaker]

Sorry, as you and many others here have made it very clear, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

I was also of course referring to the hard statistical evidence of the lives of gay people around the world and how their lives have changed and attitudes towards them have changed over time in more opinon polls than I can even provide links to.

And the giveaway for your argument is that the last 20-30 years has seen a swing in public opinion, and we have no idea whether in another generation or two there will be swing the other way.

Very telling that you're reduced to the level of sheer invention out of nothing (and in the teeth of all past evidence in practically every single nation) for what might happen in future, maybe, could be, might be. That's it?

As usual, you introduce the 'homosexuality' strawman when what we are discussing is homosexual relationships. 

Homosexual relationships tend to involve homosexuality, the last I heard.

Do you have any non-anedotal evidence to support your argument?

Already referred to.

Since the thread that I started in order to present said material was chopped off at its knees long before I'd had a chance to put most of the material up, I get the impression that the dog got very exciting shaking at the material.

Suuuuuuure it did.

[Shaker]

And requiring a 'body of evidence' about gay relationships makes you look either stupid or prejudiced.

You say that as though it can't be both.

[Hope]

No, he just has to provide some evidence of what he thinks the harm is that homosexuality produces/causes.

OK Shakes, you have made an assertion that you regard homosexual relationships as perfectly acceptable.  I have yet to see any evidence other than anecdotal in support of this assertion.

You'll notice that we're still waiting?

OK, I'll repeat what I have said on a number of occasions, both on this thread and others.  There is no reliable body of evidence one way or the other - other than anecdotal, which you have long 'outlawed'.  I choose not to support major social changes such as this issue when there is no solid evidence to support it.

[Rhiannon]

This distinction made between homosexuality and homosexual activity here is such a cruel and despicable thing. Forget love the sinner, hate the sin; it's actually a case of straight Christians seeking to impose on others a denial of the most precious gift they are free to enjoy - a loving sexual relationship within Christian marriage.

[Hope]

Stop distorting the meaning of words in order to suit your own purposes. It just makes you look dishonest.

And requiring a 'body of evidence' about gay relationships makes you look either stupid or prejudiced.

Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society.  If that is distorting them, so be it.  As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.

[Shaker]

Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society.  If that is distorting them, so be it.  As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.

If this board was about the provision of evidence to support a position you would have take your negative proof fallacy, packed up and pissed off a long, long time ago.

[Rhiannon]

Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society.  If that is distorting them, so be it.  As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.

No, you're using words wrongly and not in a way I'm familiar with. Still, Shaker's put you right. You'll know for the future.

As for your 'body of evidence' bollockery, let me help you out. We don't need one for 'heterosexual relationships' or 'homosexual relationships', just 'relationships', the benefits of which are self-evident. There is no distinction that needs to be made.

[Shaker]

No, you're using words wrongly and not in a way I'm familiar with. Still, Shaker's put you right. You'll know for the future.

No he won't.

[Hope]

This distinction made between homosexuality and homosexual activity here is such a cruel and despicable thing.

Yet it exists across the board.  It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case.  There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.

Forget love the sinner, hate the sin; it's actually a case of straight Christians seeking to impose on others a denial of the most precious gift they are free to enjoy - a loving sexual relationship within Christian marriage.

The problem is, Rhi, that this 'seeking to impoise' is not only confined to Christianity, it has over the centuries been seen in atheism, Islam, Hinduism - and just about every other '-ism' in the world.  That suggests to me that it is external to religion and internal to humanity as a whole.

[Rhiannon]

No he won't.

He will. Most likely he knows anyway; he's just choosing to pretend he doesn't in order to distort meaning to suit his own small-minded purpose.

Still, no excuses from now on.

[Shaker]

Yet it exists across the board.  It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case.  There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.

What does this meaningless waffle have to do with either homosexuality or homosexual acts, as you apparently want to differentiate them?

[Shaker]

He will. Most likely he knows anyway; he's just choosing to pretend he doesn't in order to distort meaning to suit his own small-minded purpose.

Still, no excuses from now on.

He has no excuse for not understanding what the negative proof fallacy is by now, but he can barely lay his hands on a computer keyboard without committing it.

[Nearly Sane]

Yet it exists across the board.  It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case.  There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.
The problem is, Rhi, that this 'seeking to impoise' is not only confined to Christianity, it has over the centuries been seen in atheism, Islam, Hinduism - and just about every other '-ism' in the world.  That suggests to me that it is external to religion and internal to humanity as a whole.

And so is murder and slavery but then that's not the issue here. You think that my married homosexual friends are sinning. And that is what you are being pulled up on. Your trying to point to 'bad stuff happens' would beat best a tu quoque but here falls over into to you lying (again).

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society.  If that is distorting them, so be it.  As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.

Except you denied the evidence in the basis of hand waving, why do lie so much?