hypergreenfrog wrote:

Ivy wrote:

That reminds me, the thing with Catholic priests and celibacy isn't written somewhere either, if I'm informed right. 

As with many religious rules, the real reason behind celibacy for priests was quite different from what is said today (at least for the last Millenium or so).
The Catholic church was always quite rich, not least because of all the land it owned. If priests of high standing, such as bishops and cardinals had children (or sons, more rather), it was feared that they would inherit their fathers' land. The church had a lot to lose from such a system, therefore they tought it best to keep the "arrangement" that all priests must be celibate.

If I remember correctly, celibacy even came close to being abolished in the 15th century, but after the Borgia family (pope Alexander VI's offspring) had nearly managed to take over the world, the strict rules were hastily reinstalled.
Sorry if that was too off topic.

By the way, my favourite quote to that topic is by Dorothy Parker

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common."

A very interesting picture I must say.
I was roaring with laughter at reading "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".

As for me it doesn't make any difference whether one is homo- or heterosexual. Everybody has a choice and no one is to judge. I like the fact that most of Europe is tolerant to such people now, and not even tolerant but treats them as ordinary people because they really are. In Russia most of people treat homosexuals as ill-minded or abnormal, especially in small towns or province. People living in cities are more tolerant.

Last edited by 221B Baker Street (October 25, 2012 1:57 am)

A common problem!

Actually that made me laugh. It pretty much sums up cats. I assume they mean ownership of humans by cats, of course. People think they own cats but Mwahahah, little do they know! 

I had hoped this thread would die, repulsive to sound logical reasoning as it is. Alas, it seems to maintain life still. There are so many problems with the "do whatever you wish/follow your heart/gut/emotions/feelings" argument, that one would expect more from thinking people. None of us, not a single one of us that could be categorized as sane and rational, really lives this way. We all set boundaries, restrictions and stipulations on society as a whole as to what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Of course, we don't all agree, but we all have them, and each of us forms our own unique criteria for judging from the influences around us. Ultimately, each of us has a particular way of looking at the world around us and interpreting various philosophical, metaphysical, religious, and so forth questions that present themselves to us.

One example: How many of you would say walking around completely sans clothing would be acceptable? No, I'm not talking about specially designated beaches, your own private property, etc. And I'm not speaking as to the current legality of such actions. For those of you with children, would it bother you to have them see two au natural individuals standing in line at Starbucks, engaged in the apparent attempt to pro-create while waiting for their grossly-overpriced cup of over-brewed java? Who are you to judge them? They aren't physically hurting anyone, or preventing anyone from exercising their so-called "rights". Yeah, they would be breaking the law, but who put these stupid, restrictive, old-fashioned laws in place in the first place?

Can we really say that some actions are just plain wrong, or is it all a free-for-all, Nike kind of world? I say we can, and indeed do, make those sorts of judgments all the time, and that we can't live without them. The question is: how do we decide? And can we justify the decisions we make in a way that isn't logically contradictive to the way we all live our lives?

I hope that those of you who read this will be willing to engage in rational thought on an issue that I believe is one of the most important ones of the day, and won't show smallness in resorting to name-calling or lumping people into categories of ridicule and scorn based on what you think they believe, and what you think their motives are.

Susi,

The chart at the beginning of the thread begins horribly by assuming that those that think homosexuality is sinful are not part of civilized society. That assumption is not only derogatory and snide, it isn't reflective of the overwhelming opinion of the bulk of civilized cultures in the past. Now please understand, I'm not seeking to validate my views based on the opinions of man, so I'll just say that looking to history, whether yesterday's history or the history of several thousand years ago, doesn't help us understand why particular behaviours are viewed as right or wrong.

The chart continues down the path of dubious conclusions by falling into all sorts of logical fallacies, including offering yes/no choices to more complex questions, and by asserting premises that aren't even true (eg., even novice Biblical scholars understand the dicotomy between the moral law, which is unchangable and is reflective of the very nature of God, and the ceremonial law imposed by God for a limited time on a limited group of people).

So, I would maintain my assertion that the "argument" presented here isn't really an argument at all, but a direct attempt to smear and discount a view held by many people who have examined the case carefully and who can give sound reasons for holding to those views.

The focus of Buddhism on kindness and tolerance (depending on how we define those words) is certainly to be commended, and can contribute much good to society as a whole. No doubt many have been positively affected through the practices of Buddhists. But the Buddhist insistence on the autonomy of man's reason is cause for great alarm, I believe. Who is to judge the reason of a man, knowing that my reason and your reason are not the same? All sorts of funny things go on inside our brains ("What must it be like inside your funny little brains?"), so relying on a person's reason to arrive at conclusions involving absolute truth is very dangerous indeed.

You say you rely on reason and common sense to discern right and wrong in this particular situation. Of course, common sense isn't all that common (present company excluded, of course!), and my idea of common sense and yours are likely to be quite different. Does common sense tell us that people shouldn't pro-create in public? Why? There must be something more that helps us arrive at sensible conclusions, and which also speaks to the widely varying views of people that would all claim to be using reason and common sense.