[ringoism]

Originally Posted by devilicious

The so called developed countries you mentioned are the ones with highest rates of crime against women specially rape. Ref:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Bringing girlfriends home and drinking openly are a problem of society aka culture and not intolerance.

More correctly, the developed countries are the ones with the highest rates of REPORTED crimes against women. In more truly repressive environments, stigmas, threats, shame, and family pride/status, etc, take clear precedence over "justice", especially in a place where police are not really very clear-minded on the nature of the criminality of such acts ("She shouldn't have gone out dressed like that, we will not file an FIR" etc...). I've seen it here a number of times: "Oh, these kinds of things happen in families, you can't let it disturb you too much"; "Oh, if it is reported shame will come on our community, it will create an unnecessary mess". There are places in the world where it's hardly even considered wrong... and even where it is, there are ways of dealing with it apart from the police / courts. A very well-researched book I read concerning a certain other country in the region spoke of this specifically, how rape even in the context of equally high status families, a "solution" would typically be monetary compensation paid to the victim's family, etc.

Please let's not use such statistics to make any such points about the general state of things in whichever land.

Originally Posted by Lobogris

You claim that drinking and bringing a girlfriend home are "cultural problems". There, that is how intolerance starts, where you want to impose your culture on others... I have lived in the US for twenty years. However, no one will beat you or kill you for having a white or black spouse or partner. Try getting an Indian parent to accept a black husband for their daughter. Here in India, just last year there were widespread attacks on African students by mobs, not in some remote village but in Delhi NCR itself....

Thank you, good points.

On "tolerance" most self-proclaimed "tolerant" persons can tolerate anyone but a person possessing a definite, exclusive viewpoint. One repeat contributor here has stood out as an exception to this, and I thank him. Another has tried via PM to obtain my personal contact info, pretending (clearly contrary to his posts here) to be on my side of the argument. I am not decided yet on whether to ignore or report him.

There are many who criticize/label anyone who sees things "in black and white", insisting that the grey areas are where true beauty lies.... But they are assuming the existence of a color (and realm) represented by "grey" are they not?

Nobody is neutral.

Re: India/U.S. comparisons, you and I have significant portions of our lives spent in both, though you were probably leaving India just about the time I was arriving! Re: discrimination, I do think it's a question of degree mainly. Communally acceptable "honor killings" there, no, not in the present age anyway; But having lived in the U.S. a few decades myself, I can say there were certainly incidents of beatings / ongoing harassment in opposition to mixed-race couples in certain urban neighborhoods I was familiar with (in the Northeastern region). A friend in Texas more recently (within the past decade) met a like-minded black girl over the internet whom he really thought a lot of, but he was fearful of marrying someone who would generate such rejection from the racists of his region (i.e., the average person). Some places most would be indifferent, others there could probably still be some trouble.

In the socially conservative Southeastern states, I've heard of grandchildren being disowned when it was discovered that somewhere in the family line there was some bit of African-American blood (though the kids looked purely Caucasian - as if skin-tone should matter anyway)... we do have our share of bigots over there, and it does work both ways - I remember a cousin on Lookout Mountain (Tennessee) telling me - shockingly - that if a black man were caught up on the mountain after dark, he would definitely be shot, no questions asked. I remember riding in a car with a friend's girlfriend, who upon seeing a black man walking across the parking lot, exclaimed, "run that nigger over!" (thankfully it was only a joke). I remember walking down a center-city street with a truly black (and beautiful) Angolan friend, when a tall African-American man coming the other way saw this white guy with one of "his own" and said loudly, "Here comes the Devil!"

So it's just kind of human nature at some level... though in truth, some cultures do excel in drawing dividing lines.

When it comes to the question of homosexuality, there used to be some debate in the community itself about whether it was a chosen orientation or not. Some insisted upon their right to be free to orient themselves sexually for whatever reason they chose, others were adamant in insisting they were "born that way" (I might mention a gay cousin of mine who didn't even remember having been molested in his childhood till he was perhaps 40 years of age, and it suddenly all came back one day).

The point for me is that Race is certainly not a chosen thing, which is why racism is so clearly unacceptable. Whereas it has not been entirely clear as to whether homosexuality was chosen, learned, "nurtured" or not, even within that community. To get into it deeper would probably not be profitable at this point, but as I said earlier, even the much-sought-after "gay gene" could finally be found, it would not really change the question for me, because there are a great many other biological deviations which we study and determine to be generally unhelpful / unhealthy, etc, and try to correct rather than promote.

Originally Posted by am1m

... I've been and still am attracted to several women. Imagine if for my whole life I was told that was wrong (which to some extent does happen anyway in a closed society like ours). That I needed to suppress my impulses, that these were unnatural, that I needed to be 'fixed'".

The IPC is man-made (just like every religion!), subject to scrutiny, open to being changed and challenged, just like how this particular law was changed. It's a whole lot different from a dogma or doctrine that's handed down from generation to generation and followed blindly. But that's a whole different argument.

First, yes, I understood that "suppressing impulses" meant refraining from physical/sexual activity, you meant something else apparently. You are free, of course, to do / not do whatever you wish.

Personally, I can and do consider other women beautiful, but it is not a cold religious prohibition that keeps me from being drawn in further (either psychologically or physically). I look beyond any such "religious" command and ask what it was really all about. And I find an answer, something along the lines that it is an ideal, a kind of perfection that I pursue for my own good; It is not blind obedience because that answer matches what I experience in the exclusivity of a truly wonderful relationship with my wife - which I have found gets deeper and better the more completely I give myself to her, and vice-versa. Assuming the permanence of the relationship and acting accordingly, there is trust there... a deep trust - without which there is insecurity... and with insecurity everything else - including sex - gets spoiled, and we end up barring ourselves from the very thing - a very good thing - that we hoped for / sought after in the first place.

Since the Sexual Revolution in the 1960's in the U.S., there have been various groups who came up and argued for / practiced free sexuality - there is no law against it there of course, and they did (still do) what they wanted... but overwhelmingly, it seems to have never really worked out at anything but a very theoretical, temporal, superficial level. In the end, almost everyone deep down seems to want to find "that special someone"... popular film/literature/psychology etc. all testifies to this reality, no matter how many times people may fail at it. That's what I was talking about... transcendent ideals and sincere science / observation ultimately being bound to converge.

Re: Faith (in the IPC or God or whatever), in my personal experience, the faith I hold is far from blind, very much subject to intense questioning (and I've done that, sometimes excruciatingly). The scriptures I mainly am familiar with contain many, many corresponding examples of exactly that, such challenges/questions/complaints/ravings etc are not discouraged perhaps because it is assumed that ultimately the questioner will one way or another come around to the Truth as it actually is - everything actually points to "it" (I could say "Him"). Furthermore, the development and change in a number of aspects over the millenia is well-documented. I'm sorry that your own impression/experience of religion has been otherwise. I still say you have your belief system, I have mine. Neither of us is truly neutral, and if you wouldn't have written anything here at all if that weren't true.

I used the term "religion" in an atypical but somehow appropriate sense - We all have things we hold dearly to, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, and very often we hold to them because they suit us / gives us advantage personally / cause us the least stress and turmoil - NOT necessarily because it is actually true. I touched on this in one of my early posts here. Again the Matrix: The red pill or green pill. You want to know the truth, it's going to be Hell for you... but you will know what's real. Otherwise, dream extremely pleasant, pre-programmed dreams perpetually... while your body hangs unconsciously in space, its energy being sucked out to fuel a planet ruled by insatiable machines... Reality is not always an easy thing to digest, and most simply avoid it.

So it kind of comes down to a question of whether we value truth more than pleasure. Admittedly, most humans strongly prefer the latter.

I have to say that the truth has not always been convenient for me personally, and I have often raged against it for a time - but on the other side of whatever trouble it brings, things have always worked out for the best for me - and that is my ongoing hope and expectation as I look to the future.

-Eric

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ringoism

More correctly, the developed countries are the ones with the highest rates of REPORTED crimes against women.

Please let's not use such statistics to make any such points about the general state of things in whichever land.

+1 to that!

Originally Posted by ringoism

There are many who criticize/label anyone who sees things "in black and white", insisting that the grey areas are where true beauty lies.... But they are assuming the existence of a color (and realm) represented by "grey" are they not?

Ok, black and white then. A friend comes out to me. What do I do? Hound him and tell him he's been abused in the past so that's why he's gay? Be condescending and say, "oh you're flawed, but I love you anyway, let's get you some help"? Or just be a friend and treat him the same as I did before I found out? I know my choice.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Personally, I can and do consider other women beautiful

That's precisely my point, it's a natural impulse. Imagine if for your whole life you were told that it was wrong to do so? That's my understanding of what homosexuals go through and which is why I don't want to participate in a view that judges their natural impulses (and what's legal) negatively simply because they don't match mine or because some people high up in some religious order deemed it so.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by am1m

Ok, black and white then. A friend comes out to me. What do I do? Hound him and tell him he's been abused in the past so that's why he's gay? Be condescending and say, "oh you're flawed, but I love you anyway, let's get you some help"? Or just be a friend and treat him the same as I did before I found out? I know my choice.


That's precisely my point, it's a natural impulse... I don't want to participate in a view that judges their natural impulses (and what's legal) negatively simply because they don't match mine or because some people high up in some religious order deemed it so.

In my original post I mentioned a list of those I've been close to who identified as LGBT. My knowing that changed nothing of my relationship with them, and I never said such things to them, in fact it was they who in at least half those cases shared with me their stories of earlier abuse.

And the "simply because" argument doesn't hold because it can be and has been argued from a lot of valid scientific / medical / sociological angles wholly apart from religious dogma.. I feel you're deliberately ignoring that reality. "Natural" impulses sometimes (not always) have tragic / pathological or other "unnatural" causes, and by blindly affirming the reactions we may also perpetuate the brokenness that has often caused them.

My concern, as earlier stated, is that post-politicization, nobody is even being allowed to ask the questions. And THAT, in every scenario over thousands of years of world history (we can leave Godwin aside for the moment) has always proven the most dangerous kind of situation for a society to find itself in.


-Eric

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by ringoism

And the "simply because" argument doesn't hold because it can be and has been argued from a lot of valid scientific / medical / sociological angles wholly apart from religious dogma.. I feel you're deliberately ignoring that reality. "Natural" impulses sometimes (not always) have tragic / pathological or other "unnatural" causes, and by blindly affirming the reactions we may also perpetuate the brokenness that has often caused them.


-Eric

Whether natural, forced, or through choice - how does it matter to us "normal/straight" people? As I said earlier, INDIFFERENCE is the need. Neither it should be propagated/celebrated as something liberal/open minded/progressive, nor to be opposed as un-natural/against nature/god/culture/alpha/beta/theta.

In the long term, what we create as an environment defines how the genes evolve - through natural selection. If being gay (or any other variation thereof) is to become the new norm, over generations, entire populations tend to drift towards that trait, even if it is not a genetic factor at all.

From what is available in the annals of history, spread over geographies, religions, faiths and reigns, homosexuality had been present, documented and left at that. Neither promoted, nor dejected - only accepted and respected.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Whether natural, forced, or through choice - how does it matter to us "normal/straight" people? As I said earlier, INDIFFERENCE is the need...

In the long term, what we create as an environment defines how the genes evolve - through natural selection. If being gay (or any other variation thereof) is to become the new norm, over generations, entire populations tend to drift towards that trait, even if it is not a genetic factor at all.

From what is available in the annals of history, spread over geographies, religions, faiths and reigns, homosexuality had been present, documented and left at that. Neither promoted, nor dejected - only accepted and respected.

I appreciate what you wrote and almost agreed with most of it, before a little re-think:

1. Overall while certainly present and sometimes documented, it would be highly revisionist history to assert it was accepted / respected by most societies as a whole.

2. You are saying we shouldn't care about causes, even if "by force"; and thereby you are undermining all known systems of civil justice. As I said earlier, if the dramatic psychological effects of something like rape (in ANY context) can't be considered undesirable, then what basis would there be for saying the act of rape is wrong at all? The rapist would merely be introducing an (unwilling) participant to a new realm of alternative experience. "Indifference" in such cases means a kind of anarchy - "if it doesn't affect me personally, why should I care?" Granted some societies have existed a long while like this, but it would be hard to regard them as healthy or happy ones overall.

3. On the evolutionary side: We really are forced into "moral" questions at some point or the other, it can't be as simple as yielding to raw evolutionary forces, there are inevitable questions of what sorts of environments are sustainable, happy, healthy, worth creating and preserving. Unless you are ready to approve of sex with involuntary children, animals, whatever, we need laws that prohibit "bad" things even when the definition of bad is something other than "hurting someone" - an animal or child may not be able to express such things clearly, in the case of children psychology shows that very often the "harm" is not recognized till much later.

So what's it gonna be, "anything goes"? For that matter, close down the courts entirely if evolution holds the keys... the strongest, smartest, most devious will continue to seek out their own to mate with, will come inevitably to the top anyway, why try and stop them? Why, for that matter, be bothered about gay-bashing or the violent elimination of anyone else we don't like?? Obviously non-gays are in a majority and will continue to procreate, through Natural Selection.

I certainly would not advocate THAT position!

-Eric

[Nav-i-gator]

Originally Posted by ringoism

I appreciate what you wrote and almost agreed with most of it, before a little re-think:

1. Overall while certainly present and sometimes documented, it would be highly revisionist history to assert it was accepted / respected by most societies as a whole.

2. You are saying we shouldn't care about causes, even if "by force"; and thereby you are undermining all known systems of civil justice. As I said earlier, if the dramatic psychological effects of something like rape can't be considered undesirable, then what basis would there be for saying the act of rape is wrong at all? The rapist would merely be introducing an (unwilling) participant to a new realm of alternative experience. "Indifference" in such cases means a kind of anarchy - "if it doesn't affect me personally, why should I care?" Granted some societies have existed a long while like this, but it would be hard to regard them as healthy or happy ones overall.

3. On the evolutionary side: We really are forced into "moral" questions at some point or the other, it can't be as simple as yielding to raw evolutionary forces, there are inevitable questions of what sorts of environments are sustainable, happy, healthy, worth creating and preserving. Unless you are ready to approve of sex with involuntary children, animals, whatever, we need laws that prohibit "bad" things even when the definition of bad is something other than "hurting someone" - an animal or child may not be able to express such things clearly, in the case of children psychology shows that very often the "harm" is not recognized till much later.

-Eric

Man, you are good at dramatizing even the simple things, aren't you! There is a difference between "forced" and "by force". By "forced" I meant something that is presented as the "logical, evolutionary idea that is more in-with-the-times. like a fad/fashion.

You definitely have a strong judgement about sexuality - anything other than the obvious is sin, immoral, bad, unhealthy and unsustainable - which is fine with me (i have my own set of beliefs, beyond which everything seem immoral to me too). But clubbing a consensual conjugal relation between two adults to crimes/rape against children and animals is taking this too far.

Anyways, Whatever I am (and I guess everyone) is commenting in this thread is strictly in reference to the topic only - things that come in the purview of section 377. The day it encompass sex with children or animals too, we will raise our opinion about that too.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ringoism

My concern, as earlier stated, is that post-politicization, nobody is even being allowed to ask the questions.

Perhaps in the US, but here I doubt that's ever going to be the case. Stopping the victimization of homosexuals is going to be hard enough, repealing Section 377 is just one long overdue step.

Now whether that leads to:

Originally Posted by ringoism

So what's it gonna be, "anything goes"?

I doubt it. Seems a bit alarmist to me.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

The day it encompass sex with children or animals too, we will raise our opinion about that too.

Originally Posted by am1m

Seems a bit alarmist to me.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Remarkably how some people only like “their normal” and "their normal family values”. Let’s just keep it that your definition of normal and family values differs wildly from mine

Not dramatization / alarmist, I am referring to the common course of things... it is not exactly the first time this has happened in world history, and there are present-day scenarios.

And I'm sincerely asking what basis you could possibly have for drawing those lines you say you would in the theoretical future. In evolutionary terms there would be no more basis for banning sex with children/animals than there is for banning it same-sex, is there? All were practiced at various points / places in ancient times, and there really are groups out there in the present who have been advocating for their "right" to engage in these kinds of things (I don't even want to mention the organizations' names here, I wouldn't recommend you search online, but they most definitely exist, and not just in one country).

I'm saying that once you take any question outside the realm of some kind of more objective Truth / honest science (from which any reasonable "morality" flows) and everything becomes subjectively a matter of "what works for me...and who the hell are you to challenge that?" or "my conception of 'family values' vs. yours" then any number of competing groups can (and undoubtedly already do) argue for their definition of how far is going "too far".

You might well (and rightly) raise your voice at some point down the road - but you will end up stuck in a worse position than what I experience arguing with you right now. What basis will YOU be able to find beyond, "It seems wrong to me". You won't be able to appeal to the sciences (you are not allowing me to do so now); You won't be able to appeal to anything like transcendent "Truth" (because for you the divine doesn't exist); it can only be an "us vs. them" thing... you would have far less ground to stand on than I have at present, and if "they" are more powerful (totalitarian) or in the majority (democratic), "they" would be able to do what they want - maybe to your own sons/daughters even. Alarmist? Hardly:

1. A cousin of mine stumbled across a group of "Neo-Pagans" living naked in the forest in California whom he personally observed to be behaving very overtly sexually with children. Fringe group? Obviously. But getting away with it / thinking it appropriate and "right".

2. I met a man in the south of [a certain Asian country] whose neighbor kept coming over and demanding he give his 12 or 13-year-old daughter to him for sex; Earlier he had given her, now he had stopped doing so (won't get into his own bases for a change of heart, but they were solid). It sounds horrible enough to "modern" ears, but it was current practice there; and of course at one time girls - even in the U.S. - sometimes (willingly) married as early as 13... certainly in American inner-cities and small towns, they are engaging willingly in sex even earlier. But if none of this (despite its illegality) is disturbing to us, then what if the girl were ten, or nine? What if she "liked" the man from all appearances and didn't seem to "mind" his undressing her, etc, etc? What if her parents consented, for whatever reason (I mean, this really does happen in many places in the world, and the people both giving and taking her don't seem to think it's "wrong"?). Where's the dramatization here? I am speaking of real-life, present-day situations.

So how could WE be sure it would be "wrong" for the father to send the girl, or for her to go willingly even? What is it that makes us "enlightened"? On what basis would we reject it? Who set the standard at "consensual conjugal relation between two adults"? Why do you consider that superior to any number of other extant standards?

I know my answers - argued from biology, physiology, sociology, and more transcendent ideals; Essentially the same bases I've used to argue against the alleged "natural-ness" of homosexual sex!

But you do not have these categories available to you, you have rejected them... and may have to sit there speechless when confronted with those asserting their "rights".

If you stammer and claim that these things should be "self-evident" - well, that will be just completely laughable... you will be rejected / lumped with all the shrill finger-pointing moralizers like myself, and won't even be able to honestly object or provide any other supports!!!

Please think on this sincerely, I'm not trying to win an argument for its own sake.

-Eric

[am1m]

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Man, you are good at dramatizing even the simple things, aren't you! But clubbing a consensual conjugal relation between two adults to crimes/rape against children and animals is taking this too far.

Echo this. This debate is going in too many other hysterical (and I don't mean hysterically funny) directions now.

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by am1m

Echo this. This debate is going in too many other hysterical (and I don't mean hysterically funny) directions now.

+1

There is your truth, my truth, and THE truth, which doesn't care what the former two are.

Similarly, about topics under section 377 ; nature has produced all kinds of human beings with sexual urges ranging from complete celibacy to the worst kind of bestiality (genetic or environmental - both are part of nature). Similarly, nature has produced humans with a wide range of thought processes, resulting in all kinds of mindsets and worldviews. Nature doesn't care what our individual views are, whether ostracizing people on the basis of sexual orientation is right or wrong, whether a 'law' is going to protect the said subjects from being victims or not. The law, and its discussion here, is again, part of human evolution. We are part of the jigsaw, and yet we talk as if we can see the jigsaw from outside. We simply don't know, where we are heading, as a species.
Hence we must remember that all we are doing here, is sharing opinion.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by venkyhere

+1

There is your truth, my truth, and THE truth, which doesn't care what the former two are.

Similarly, about topics under section 377 ; nature has produced all kinds of human beings with sexual urges ranging from complete celibacy to the worst kind of bestiality (genetic or environmental - both are part of nature). Similarly, nature has produced humans with a wide range of thought processes, resulting in all kinds of mindsets and worldviews. Nature doesn't care what our individual views are, whether ostracizing people on the basis of sexual orientation is right or wrong, whether a 'law' is going to protect the said subjects from being victims or not. The law, and its discussion here, is again, part of human evolution. We are part of the jigsaw, and yet we talk as if we can see the jigsaw from outside. We simply don't know, where we are heading, as a species.
Hence we must remember that all we are doing here, is sharing opinion.

Fully agree with your first line... but what is that Truth? Is it truly unknowable? Why would we assume so? You are stating that "nature has produced" with no factual, scientific basis for that. Apart from that, if your faith is in blind evolutionary process, then according to that your assertions are eminently reasonable. Only snags would be if some science actually CAN arrive at answers we would accept, AND if there actually were some Being higher than us, who beyond being able, indeed, to see things from the outside, may also be able to speak something into our reality in underatandable ways. Parents do it with their kids, as one example. If you don't accept that possibility that's your decision, but it would be hard to argue that it would be an "open-minded" point of view.

Originally Posted by am1m

Echo this. This debate is going in too many other hysterical (and I don't mean hysterically funny) directions now.

A convenient exit, it would seem. But how is it "hysterical" to speak of things that are actually observable in various places around us, and consider our bases for accepting/rejecting them?? I don't get it, and would tend to think a refusal to examine such, to strive for consistency in the way we think through issues, would lead to the more serious errors.

Even the assertion that all we can convey is "opinions" is itself only one opinion. With no possibility of arriving at something more objective, there is no merit in actually saying anything at all - it all becomes utterly meaningless, a timepass of the most useless nature. In my case, I DO hope that some, including myself, will come nearer to Truth as we discuss sincerely, and with a measure of consistency and true openness. Which is why I continue to contribute, and read.


-Eric

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by am1m

Echo this. This debate is going in too many other hysterical (and I don't mean hysterically funny) directions now.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

Man, you are good at dramatizing even the simple things, aren't you!

Originally Posted by venkyhere

+1

Correction! A few pages back it was a debate; but then now you guys are just responding to hilariously ridiculous arguments, being over-dramatized for the sake of arguing

Back in college, we used to have a term called GAS. GAS was the ultimate weapon for the students against professors and peers; standing on the strengths of Google Baba, the unlimited supply of useless and useful information from the internet, and the potential advantage of referencing past experiences (personal and of imaginary cousin(s) and various (LGBT) friends), it fueled students to write pages and pages of 'insightful' arguments to prove their point.

It's been a long time, but I see that happening again out here

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ringoism

But how is it "hysterical" to speak of things that are actually observable in various places around us, and consider our bases for accepting/rejecting them??

Because extreme examples are being used that bear no relation to the topic being discussed. The two examples you cite a couple of posts prior are obviously extremely tragic and extreme. I don't think anyone will disagree. But how those relate to decriminalizing homosexuality is what I don't get. Seems like a switch to me. It seems pointless to shift the topic of discussion to those topics.

Originally Posted by ringoism

A convenient exit, it would seem.

Where this debate is going, where everything from first principles to everything else is now being called into question and any response is being used as an opportunity to sermonize, I'll take it, convenient or otherwise! Plus, I really have nothing new to add to whatever I've posted so far.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Which is why I continue to contribute, and read.

Very true, I do hope other people reading through these pages know that there are enough people who can accept people for what they are and not everyone sees the world through judgemental eyes.

[venkyhere]

Originally Posted by ringoism

Fully agree with your first line... but what is that Truth? Is it truly unknowable? Why would we assume so?

completely outside the scope of discussion regarding the thread topic. Humans have been researching/meditating/debating/killing in search of this for thousands/millions of years.

Originally Posted by ringoism

You are stating that "nature has produced" with no factual, scientific basis for that.

why is any "factual/scientific" basis needed to support the fact that we are all products of nature ?? what are you really asking ? Our behaviour, the behaviour of who we come in contact with, our environment, even our thoughts, are fully encompassed within nature. Existence is nature.

Originally Posted by ringoism

Apart from that, if your faith is in blind evolutionary process, then according to that your assertions are eminently reasonable. Only snags would be if some science actually CAN arrive at answers we would accept, AND if there actually were some Being higher than us, who beyond being able, indeed, to see things from the outside, may also be able to speak something into our reality in underatandable ways. Parents do it with their kids, as one example. If you don't accept that possibility that's your decision, but it would be hard to argue that it would be an "open-minded" point of view.

again, science is a 'version' of truth; not THE truth. How do I know ? On a journey from the forest to the sea, if I get lost somewhere, and it still looks like a forest, while I realize I may be far away from where I started, I still 'know' I have not arrived at the sea, even if I have never seen the sea ever before, because I surely know it will not look like the forest. That is where science is. So pulling in the word 'science' is just another argument in the pool of debate, like other arguments.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

...now you guys are just responding to hilariously ridiculous arguments, being over-dramatized for the sake of arguing ...standing on the strengths of Google Baba, the unlimited supply of useless and useful information from the internet, and the potential advantage of referencing past experiences (personal and of imaginary cousin(s) and various (LGBT) friends)...

Originally Posted by am1m

...extreme examples are being used that bear no relation to the topic being discussed ...obviously extremely tragic and extreme. I don't think anyone will disagree. But how those relate to decriminalizing homosexuality is what I don't get.

Originally Posted by venkyhere

completely outside the scope of discussion regarding the thread topic. Humans have been researching/meditating/debating/killing in search of this for thousands/millions of years. why is any "factual/scientific" basis needed to support the fact that we are all products of nature ?? what are you really asking ? Our behaviour, the behaviour of who we come in contact with, our environment, even our thoughts, are fully encompassed within nature. Existence is nature.

Okay guys, as per moderator request will refrain from further commenting here, I suppose I've said all I can, I am truly sorry for whatever of it was offensive and/or hasn't been said very well. If anyone is interested in continuing the conversation, we may do so by PM.

Would want to close here on a (publicly) conciliatory note, so first will confess to having gone a bit OT; early on I'd said that I wasn't probably opposed to the actual decriminalisation, it was the widespread celebration I was questioning (which others, even on the other side, have since rejected as well, in favor of indifference). For me that led inevitably into some larger questions (i.e., basis for celebrating or not), as it had for a few others even prior to my first post.

Also confess I missed the broader definition of "nature" on my first read through, and thus responded hastily / inappropriately / unhelpfully. In the context of Western psychology the "nature / nurture" dichotomy was typically assumed. I get what you're saying now, it is an interesting way of thinking of it, and I'll be ruminating more on that.

I felt the ridiculous/extreme comparative issues were important specifically because they're things we would all actually agree on!! I hoped you'd all see that even things this "wrong" could only be argued for/against on the same bases as the question before us here. Not every truth can be arrived at by Rationality, but where it's possible, it's only because we've been consistent re: our presuppositions / thought processes; that was the only point I was trying to make, I believe it may have been lost in the superficial offensiveness of the comparisons themselves. I might have chosen better examples (need to think on cars/bikes here I suppose!).

Just want you all to know that I have been sincere in this; the personal experiences/relationships I cited are real and verifiable, and inevitably DO (with other things) influence my opinions. They may or may not be representative of everyone else's experiences. I would have no right to form subjective opinions on these alone, I've tried to avoid that, but if in error would hope to be enlightened in the future.

I haven't apparently gained any friends in the course of this conversation (the opposite it seems); I do not believe that holding to false ideals just for the sake of winning arguments would be in my personal best interests at all. However genuine, I have apparently failed utterly to convince on any point, which is how it may end for now; If so inclined we can all sit back and think on all that others (and ourselves) have conveyed, that's what I'll be doing. I do believe that some awareness re: why we believe / how we know what we do (epistemology) is extremely valuable, and of course in cases like this where I encounter mainly contrary views, it serves to challenge and refine me, perhaps to correct me as well.

Therefore, an honest Thanks to all (mod. included),

-Eric