Homosexuality from a Non-Religious perspective

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

jskains wrote:
Religious myths are unreliable and generally irrelevant to rational consideration of policy – law.


But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?

JMS


Some questions:

1. Please reference your 78% source. Specifically in relation to myth.

2. To what are you referring when you say "moral law"?

3. What makes you think the religious groups are not involved in the process of creating law? That laws are created only by secularists?
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Moral, Morality, and Perceptions

Post by _JAK »

jskains wrote:
Religious myths are unreliable and generally irrelevant to rational consideration of policy – law.


But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?

JMS


jskains states:
But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?


You’re inaccurate here, jskains. We have freedom of speech in the
US. Who is telling anyone to “keep quiet”? Certainly, no one IS keeping quiet. Every politician campaigning presently is using religion in some way in his/her campaign. You are not in touch if you believe what you state here.

Now, “moral law” is a phrase you make here. While many regard law as moral, we know that the law is filled with loop-holes and devices which benefit certain people over others. Do you recall the OJ Simpson trial?

Let me suggest something which may not have occurred to you.

Law and laws are essentially made by the wealthy for the wealthy. Wealth is transferred up.

Do I need to provide example?

If a person is buying a car, what person pays MOST for that car? It’s the poorest person. Why? Well, he pays the price AND he pays INTEREST on the amount which he does not have.

Who pays the least? It’s the person who can and does write a check for the full amount. He pays NO interest.

When someone pays interest (to use a personal example), he pays me. As a member of the board in a bank, I along with other board members receive compensation for loaning the poor man who cannot afford the car which he wants to buy. Wealth is transferred up.

As a stockholder in various companies, I profit from those who purchase products made by companies in which I am a stockholder. Again, wealth is transferred up.

Let’s pose the question as to whether this is just. Well, it’s NOT just. But it is the law. Is it “moral”? That’s open to debate.

As a stock holder in oil, I am delighted to see the price of gasoline rise. While I pay for gasoline, I also make profit on the gasoline that other buy who have no stock in oil companies.

You have posed a good question. But I doubt you appreciate the ramifications of a notion “moral law.” OJ Simpson had the best law that money could buy at the time of his trial for the murder of two people.

I think our law would be more moral if it benefited most those who can least afford to buy essentials. But that is NOT how the law is written nor how it is enforced.

Are you with me? Please ask questions if you have them. If I see them, I’ll try to respond.
Since this is on “Mormon Discussions,” let me relate your notion of “moral” to the LDS.

A major objective of the Mormon organization is to transfer wealth to the Mormon church.

By heavy use of fear and guilt, the Mormon organization is very successful in transferring wealth up from its members to the larger and far more wealthy organization.

Is that “moral”? I don’t think so. But it works. Thanks to tax free status of religious organizations, many churches are currently quite wealthy. At the top of their organizations, they know how to shift wealth from individuals to their organization. What is worse (from a moral perspective), there is virtually no accountability.

Is that “moral”? I doubt it.

Let me give you an oil profit.

Consider Halliburton shown here. If you look at this chart, you can see the profit.

Take a look at Apple Computer. Had you bought that (perhaps you did) at around $12 a share in 2004 and sold it today at $184, consider your profit. Let’s suppose you bought $10,000 worth of Apple at $12 a share. That would have been around 883 shares. Selling at $184 a share your 883 shares would return to you you $153,333.

The only “work” you would have done was key in on the Internet and purchase your original amount. That’s a very good return on an investment. But who really made you all than money? It was the people who bought Apple Computers. Apple could have sold those computers for a fraction of what they charged.

If you had done this (this let’s pretend investment), you would have succeeded in transferring wealth from the less wealthy to yourself (the more wealthy).

You see in law religion is irrelevant. I understand you wish to make it relevant, but it really is not.

Politicians today are using religion because religion sells. The mega churches are taking in hundreds of millions of dollars through television and actual auditoriums which seat tens of thousands of people. And of course there is always an offering to God which is taken. People are NOT giving their money to the wealthy business of the religious group – No sir! They are giving their money to God.

They may be told they are insuring a place in heaven for themselves. Incidentally, no evidence has established God. But the mega churches do not want people to be THAT informed. If they were, they would not fork over the big bucks. Wealth transfers up.

“Moral” is quite relative, you see. What’s moral for you is not necessarily moral for someone else.

JAK
_Livingstone22
_Emeritus
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 3:05 am

Re: jskains' Question

Post by _Livingstone22 »

jskains wrote:But if homosexuality is a biological flaw, is it dangerous to put a child in a homosexual home? What about a pair of known alchololics (some claim another genetic fault)? Are we saying we can't even ask the question for fear of being labelled a bigot?

What about a child placed in the home of a former pedophile? If he has repented and a psychologist feels he is now ok, do we now have to accept his application BECAUSE we want him to feel validated that he moved on?

Questions folks. I think we should be ALLOWED to ask questions without fear of BEING labelled bigots.

JMS


How about removing children from homes/not allowing them to be adopted therein on a case by case basis? To say that "homosexuals" do not make good parents and saying that "child abusers" don't make good parents are different statements, as definitionally the latter proves abusive to the child in all cases. Although I'm a little creeped out by homosexuals raising children, I would have to come up with a better argument before I could force that into law--and I don't have a better argument.

I once saw that wife swap show (although I really don't like reality TV, nor do I think it's very realistic--just this one episode was interesting). Anyway, a lesbian mother switched places with a small-town, conservative mother. The lesbian household was full of hugs and the sharing of feelings, and it made me think that it would probably be better to have a child in a loving, homosexual home than a dysfunctional heterosexual home. Do you doubt that there are homosexual relationships that are stable and loving? I have heard it argued that homosexual relationships/families are more likely to be unstable (I don't have any statistics at hand--this is just what I've heard) than heterosexual families. If this was true that on average homosexuals were more likely to be abusive, could you institute laws to prohibit child-raising to ALL homosexuals based on that? After all, statistics also show that Hispanics are much more likely to commit serious crimes than whites, but it would be bigoted to judge every Hispanic person as if they were likely to be criminals and institute laws that prohibit their abilities in society, as there are many wonderful Hispanic people that need to be judged on the content of their character rather than the demographic group to which they belong.
_JAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:04 pm

Post by _JAK »

harmony wrote:
jskains wrote:
Religious myths are unreliable and generally irrelevant to rational consideration of policy – law.


But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?

JMS


Some questions:

1. Please reference your 78% source. Specifically in relation to myth.

2. To what are you referring when you say "moral law"?

3. What makes you think the religious groups are not involved in the process of creating law? That laws are created only by secularists?


harmony states:
Some questions:

1. Please reference your 78% source. Specifically in relation to myth.

2. To what are you referring when you say "moral law"?

3. What makes you think the religious groups are not involved in the process of creating law? That laws are created only by secularists?


Good questions. However, see my post to jskains titled “Moral, Morality, and Perceptions.”

While there is no question that religious groups far beyond the limitation of LDS are “involved” in addressing matters of law, the fact is that religion is generally irrelevant in matters of law. Other factors are much more significant.


JAK
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

josh,

I saw a couple or more statements of yours that I'd like to reply to. I'll start with this:

Some think children in a homosexual home would be a total disaster. What makes them wrong?


I have a question before moving forward. Why might children in a homosexual home be a total disaster? Can you think of some reasons that might be so?

Jersey Girl/LSD
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

A major objective of the Mormon organization is to transfer wealth to the Mormon church.


Wait a dang second. IT's A NOT-FOR-PROFIT organization!!! There are no stockholders reaping benefits!!! And your telling me no money goes back down??? New Churches, free weddings, charity work.

Please.. Don't create evil where there is none.

JMS
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

jskains wrote:
A major objective of the Mormon organization is to transfer wealth to the Mormon church.


Wait a dang second. IT's A NOT-FOR-PROFIT organization!!! There are no stockholders reaping benefits!!! And your telling me no money goes back down??? New Churches, free weddings, charity work.

Please.. Don't create evil where there is none.

JMS


Could this tangent be a new thread? Just saying...
_jskains
_Emeritus
Posts: 1748
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Post by _jskains »

Please reference your 78% source. Specifically in relation to myth.


Are you kidding? That is the most widely quoted figure in every news media dealing with religion in America.... And for anti-religious they can enjoy that figure. It is down from 89% in the 70's.

A basic search of "religion statistics america" in google sites many sources for that figure.

JMS
Last edited by Guest on Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

td
Josh, did ever occur to you that maybe depression is like hunger... a very natural reaction to a situation, to stimulate change? Or to promote creativity? Or to alert us of a need to expand our abilities, move into a new environment, or otherwise provide us with a reason to grow?


Or a defense mechanism to keep us alive? Kind of like a sleep mode?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

jskains wrote:
Please reference your 78% source. Specifically in relation to myth.


Are you kidding? That is the most widely quoted figure in every news media dealing with religion in America.... And for anti-religious they can enjoy that figure. It is down from 89% in the 70's.

A basic search of "religion statistics america" in google sites many sources for that figure.

JMS


When someone asks you to back up your statement, especially here in Celestial, the accepted course of action is to provide a link or a quote that supports your statement.

I'll ask you again: please provide the reference for your 78% statement, specifically as it applies to myth. Thanks in advance.
Post Reply