LGBT issues and morality

[Top Cats Hat]

8 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

There is a belief that normalisation of something increases frequency.  We aren't talking about homosexuality, but homosexual intercourse. 

I am not in the slightest bit interested in beliefs. I’d rather deal in evidence. 

 

I would say that it is not normalisation that increases frequency so much as repression decreases frequency. In a society devoid of any judgement you would have a certain number of people who were homosexual and they would have a certain amount of homosexual sex.

 

Call that the base level.

 

As you introduce judgement and perjoritive attitudes, the number of people expressing their homosexuality physically will reduce. If you genuinely believe that homosexuality should be treated with the same esteem as any other sexuality (or none) you will not support any attempt to demonise or warn people of whatever age about the ‘dangers of being gay.

[*_ash_*]

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

Ahh I see what you mean. 

 

However you didn't partake in my little thought experiment.

 

Imagine you hook line and sinker believe in one of the Abrahamic faiths.  You know that male on male homosexual sex is a sin, would you want your children to be taught about homosexual relationships (that often include sex).

 

It is a tough one.  I understand why the parents are complaining.  They have been hoodwinked into believing in a god that will punish homosexual intercourse with a fate unimaginable in its viciousness and cruelty.

 

If this teaching normalises homosexuality for their child, and thus makes it even 0.05 % more likely they will have homosexual sex in their lives, would you be happy?

bold, they aren't taught this at all in school.

 

The kids are taught that families have different make ups, and this is life. I wrote this out earlier.

 

Why teach kids at all, if not how society is like?

 

This would be my starting point of education.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by *_ash_*

[Top Cats Hat]

10 minutes ago, *_ash_* said:

Blimey can you hear yourself? You saying I'm anti semitic ? I think you spending too much time on here.

People are so touchy on here!

 

I didn’t say you were antisemitic. I said that you were using an antisemitic trope to back up a weak argument.

 

That is not the same thing.

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

You're delusional. The left may oppose Christianity but certainly not Islam. The problem is when the minorities they champion contradict one another, who do they support? That's what eats them up inside.

It sounds like it's eating you up inside, and causing you some confusion.

I've no idea about the left or the right's view of religion(s), though I suspect it's a lot more nuanced and considered than your presentation of it; however I do know that the teaching of British values is absolutely the central to the education policies of the main political parties.

 

[JamesR123]

18 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I am not in the slightest bit interested in beliefs. I’d rather deal in evidence. 

 

I would say that it is not normalisation that increases frequency so much as repression decreases frequency. In a society devoid of any judgement you would have a certain number of people who were homosexual and they would have a certain amount of homosexual sex.

 

Call that the base level.

 

As you introduce judgement and perjoritive attitudes, the number of people expressing their homosexuality physically will reduce. If you genuinely believe that homosexuality should be treated with the same esteem as any other sexuality (or none) you will not support any attempt to demonise or warn people of whatever age about the ‘dangers of being gay.

Do you understand that some people are interested in beliefs.  Evidence is subjective.  To some people the bible/quran is evidence. 

 

I don't support it, but I understand it.

 

If you truly believed wholeheartedly, that something at your child's school was increasing their chance of going to hell, what would you do?

[Mister M]

42 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

You brought up Corbyn my fanatical friend.

 

If that's what you understood then you lack comprehension I feel.

 

There is a belief that normalisation of something increases frequency.  We aren't talking about homosexuality, but homosexual intercourse. 

 

It also doesnt really matter whether it will increase the likelihood of one engaging in such intercourse, as long as the parent believes it will impact their behaviour.

There's only that belief in people who have no idea what they're talking about, so why should we listen to them? Further, you might be talking about 'homosexual intercourse', but the debate about the teaching of homosexuality in primary schools, where the debate is currently at, is about the mere validation of the existence of gay relationships.

[Top Cats Hat]

1 minute ago, JamesR123 said:

Do you understand that some people are interested in beliefs.  Evidence is subjective.  To some people the bible/quran is evidence.

How on earth can evidence be subjective?

 

Fundamental Xtians believe that the earth is around 5,000 years old because they totted up each generation in the Old Testament back to Adam and Eve and and found it to be 3000 years and added that to the 2000 years since the time of Christ.

 

That is entirely subjective and relies on very sketchy estimates of lifespan millenia ago as well as assuming that the Old Testament is a chronological account with no gaps or duplication.

 

A study of physics and geology puts the age of the earth at somewhere around 4.5 billion years. Now this is not completely accurate but is accurate to +/- 50 million years. A lot more than 5,000 years. The oldest item to be carbon dated is 4,4 billion years old. This is evidence. It is not subjective, it is fact. The half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. Is is that now and it was that 4 billion years ago. It doesn’t change. And it is fact that it doesn’t change, not opinion...

 

Evidence is NOT subjective. We would not have got to the Moon if evidence was subjective. We would not be able to cut out brain tumours with incredible accuracy with a proton beam machine if evidence was subjective. We would not be able to build microprocessors that can carry out 10,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000 floating point operations if evidence was subjective.

 

These things are real. Bonkers, ancient superstitions are not real. People are perfectly entitled to believe what they like but please don’t claim that ‘believing it is evidence makes it evidence.

[JamesR123]

Whilst I agree with you regarding bonkers superstitions not being real, you are wrong when you say evidence isn't subjective.

 

It is.  

 

My Grandmother once prayed for a loved one to pull through a health scare.  The family member did and surprised the doctors.  To my grandmother, this is proof of the existence of God. To you and I, it is coincidence.

 

You also seem to be conflating evidence with fact.  Evidence is information used to support fact, or a position on something.

 

Your claims about what we could do if evidence was subjective are non-sequiturs. 

[Robin-H]

7 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

Do you understand that some people are interested in beliefs.  Evidence is subjective.  To some people the bible/quran is evidence. 

 

I don't support it, but I understand it.

 

If you truly believed wholeheartedly, that something at your child's school was increasing their chance of going to hell, what would you do?

 

I agree that some being claim that the Bible or Quran is evidence, however they a wrong.

 

Contradictory books with no scientific basis  and that make ludicrous provably untrue claims are not evidence. The only thing these texts are evidence for is an a window into historical societal and religious beliefs. 

 

I also understand that it is people’s religion that makes them homophobic, and so they don’t want same sex relationships being discussed in schools. Well tough. It’s about time a light was shone on these medieval beliefs and seen for what they are - you can only do that by education. 

 

For a long time the mormon religion didn’t like black people. Would it be OK for parents to protest and intimidate schools because the curriculum mentioned black people and interracial families? Of course not. Well this is exactly the same. 

[JamesR123]

7 hours ago, Mister M said:

There's only that belief in people who have no idea what they're talking about, so why should we listen to them? Further, you might be talking about 'homosexual intercourse', but the debate about the teaching of homosexuality in primary schools, where the debate is currently at, is about the mere validation of the existence of gay relationships.

I agree that in this case the people don't know what they are talking about (probably).

 

However I would say that normalisation as a child can lead to increased displays of an action/life styles.  Young child who grow up in a home where violence is normalised are more likely to be violent.

 

There is a link between homosexual relationships and homosexual intercourse.  Did you know that if you are a male and in a homosexual relationship, you are more likely to have, or have had, homosexual sex than other people?

Just now, Robin-H said:

 

I agree that some being claim that the Bible or Quran is evidence, however they a wrong.

 

Contradictory books with no scientific basis  and that make ludicrous provably untrue claims are not evidence. The only thing these texts are evidence for is an a window into historical societal and religious beliefs. 

 

I also understand that it is people’s religion that makes them homophobic, and so they don’t want same sex relationships being discussed in schools. Well tough. It’s about time a light was shone on these medieval beliefs and seen for what they are - you can only do that by education. 

 

For a long time the mormon religion didn’t like black people. Would it be OK for parents to protest and intimidate schools because the curriculum mentioned black people and interracial families? Of course not. Well this is exactly the same. 

I agree that I don't consider them evidence, but some people do.  The way around this is education.

 

However, answer this;

 

If you truly believed wholeheartedly, that something at your child's school was increasing their chance of going to hell, what would you do?