Totally Not-Gay Catholic Priest Tells Ex-Gays: Homosexuality Is Like Trying To Eat A Bagel With Your Ear

[Keith&Co.]

...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Briefly, what are their arguments against it?

You need to make up your mind.
Do you want him to expand on his statement, or do you want him to educate you on what arguments the Faithful have?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seems like evidence against Intelligent Design, seeing that an intelligently designed creature wouldn't have come up with such a ridiculous analogy, seeing it isn't applicable to women at all.

 

[Malintent]

If he thinks MALE homosexuality is like that, he's not doing it right.

I didn't think it sounded right but then I don't have any experience with such things. Are you saying that female homosexuality is like that?

No that is more like trying to push two bagels together to get one through the other.

 

[Malintent]

So, what, the guy who doesn't understand the burden of proof or the definition of evidence is going to challenge the logic of that statement?

...


- - - Updated - - -

Could you expand on that please?

What part of it are you having trouble with?

Christian and Muslim arguments against homosexuality are bad arguments, and I do mean bad in every sense of the word.

Briefly, what are their arguments against it?

Briefly, the argument goes:
God doesn't like it and you will be punished for it
or,
It is not natural, so god hates it.

The reason it is wrong (logically) is because, A) "god" (whatever that means) is not a universally established authority figure. so this is as morally relativistic as flavors of religion. IOW, it is cultural, not objective. and B) It IS natural. Gay sex happens in nature all the time. There are evolutionary drivers relating to population control and social drivers relating to distribution of social power.

The reason it is wrong (morally), is because A) telling people false things about themselves is damaging, and doing damage to a person is immoral. B) imposing your own moral standards on other people that are not impacting you in any demonstrable way is immoral.

 

[Bomb#20]

The reason it is wrong (morally), is because ... B) imposing your own moral standards on other people that are not impacting you in any demonstrable way is immoral.

So, you'd consider banning people from flogging their horses or testing their experimental cosmetics by squirting them into their rabbits' eyes to be immoral?

 

[funinspace]

Listening to a purported celibate priest expound upon any form of sexual relationships, is like trying to get nutrients out of a bagel by ramming it up ones ass as far as one can...maybe he could get a nun to assist him.

 

[Malintent]

The reason it is wrong (morally), is because ... B) imposing your own moral standards on other people that are not impacting you in any demonstrable way is immoral.

So, you'd consider banning people from flogging their horses or testing their experimental cosmetics by squirting them into their rabbits' eyes to be immoral?

I don't think animal cruelty can be categorized as a personal moral standard. I think it can be easily agreed that these are culturally accepted 'social contracts'. If there is a culture that has adopted this practice as 'normal', then it would be immoral of another culture to impose their standards on this other culture.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think animal cruelty can be categorized as a personal moral standard. I think it can be easily agreed that these are culturally accepted 'social contracts'. If there is a culture that has adopted this practice as 'normal', then it would be immoral of another culture to impose their standards on this other culture.

So does that mean it's okay for western animal lovers to stop the Norwegians from harpooning whales but not the Japanese, because Norwegians are part of western culture, whereas whaling is a normal part of the Japanese social contract? Is there a way to tell what's a personal moral standard and what's a culturally accepted social contract other than to ask the person trying to impose the standard? I'm pretty sure Riccardo (and perhaps Cerberus) would deny that the standard he's trying to impose is merely a personal standard -- he certainly picked it up from the wider culture he was steeped in rather than inventing it himself. In cultures where bashing gays is culturally accepted and normal (such as our own as of a few decades ago), does that make it okay?

And one more question: when you say it's immoral of one culture to impose their standards on this other culture, which culture is that a moral rule of? I, for one, belong to a culture with a long-standing and generally culturally accepted practice of imposing our culture's moral standards on other cultures. If you belong to some culture that holds that its wrong for cultures to impose their rules on other cultures, where do you lot get off trying to impose your culture's no-imposition rule on my culture?

 

[Underseer]

I don't think animal cruelty can be categorized as a personal moral standard. I think it can be easily agreed that these are culturally accepted 'social contracts'. If there is a culture that has adopted this practice as 'normal', then it would be immoral of another culture to impose their standards on this other culture.

So does that mean it's okay for western animal lovers to stop the Norwegians from harpooning whales but not the Japanese, because Norwegians are part of western culture, whereas whaling is a normal part of the Japanese social contract? Is there a way to tell what's a personal moral standard and what's a culturally accepted social contract other than to ask the person trying to impose the standard? I'm pretty sure Riccardo (and perhaps Cerberus) would deny that the standard he's trying to impose is merely a personal standard -- he certainly picked it up from the wider culture he was steeped in rather than inventing it himself. In cultures where bashing gays is culturally accepted and normal (such as our own as of a few decades ago), does that make it okay?

And one more question: when you say it's immoral of one culture to impose their standards on this other culture, which culture is that a moral rule of? I, for one, belong to a culture with a long-standing and generally culturally accepted practice of imposing our culture's moral standards on other cultures. If you belong to some culture that holds that its wrong for cultures to impose their rules on other cultures, where do you lot get off trying to impose your culture's no-imposition rule on my culture?

No, it's because we can demonstrate that animal cruelty is immoral, whereas you cannot demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral.

The simple fact that you try is evidence that your religion is immoral.

 

[fast]

"expound", not "expand."

v. ex·pand·ed, ex·pand·ing, ex·pands

2. To express at length or in detail; enlarge on: expanded his remarks afterward.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/expand

http://www.beedictionary.com/common-errors/espouse_vs_expound_vs_expand

Don't roll your eyes at me.

 

[Bomb#20]

No, it's because we can demonstrate that animal cruelty is immoral, whereas you cannot demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral.

The simple fact that you try is evidence that your religion is immoral.

I'm not trying to demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral, and I haven't got a religion. I'm demonstrating that the ethical and meta-ethical principles Malintent appealed to to defend homosexuality won't stand up to ten seconds of critical thought. It's a bad idea for gay rights supporters to offer gay rights opponents bad reasons for our moral judgments -- it only serves to convince them that we don't have good reasons. I take it you're a Reading Incomprehensionist? Now that's an immoral religion.

 

[Malintent]

I think Bomb has a valid point that moral standards are not a matter of black and white judgement calls. MY point was that what is right within a culture is right within that culture, despite it being wrong in the view of another culture... and that as a reason alone, is insufficient to deem something immoral, cross-culturally.

 

[Bomb#20]

Christian arguments against homosexuality are bad logically and bad morally.
In short, they are the best possible argument for why good and decent people should stay away from Christianity.

We're off to a good start. We're presenting the truth to the yet-to-be-enlightened...

Could you expand on that please?

...which naturally leads to a perfectly sensible request from a skeptic of the positive claim who correctly identified who has the burden of proof.

And collectively, in response to that perfectly sensible request, we justify our claim with...

So, what, the guy who doesn't understand the burden of proof or the definition of evidence is going to challenge the logic of that statement?

...an ad hominem personal comment...

...

...an event that speaks for itself...

What part of it are you having trouble with?

Christian and Muslim arguments against homosexuality are bad arguments, and I do mean bad in every sense of the word.

...proof by repetition...

Briefly, what are their arguments against it?

Briefly, the argument goes:
God doesn't like it and you will be punished for it
or,
It is not natural, so god hates it. ...
The reason it is wrong (morally), is because A) telling people false things about themselves is damaging, and doing damage to a person is immoral. B) imposing your own moral standards on other people that are not impacting you in any demonstrable way is immoral.

...an ad hoc appeal to principles that we on the "homosexuality is okay" side obviously do not apply in general...

I don't think animal cruelty can be categorized as a personal moral standard.

...and a blatant special-pleading fallacy.

Impressive work, guys. If our goal were to convince Cerberus that atheistic morality is every bit as arbitrary and unthinking as Christian morality, we could hardly have done a better job of it.

Let's try this again...

Riccardo said junior high students have asked him why God hates gay people, and he responded that it is because gay sex is unnatural. “If i just rip open a bagel, I take it, and I cram it in my ear. What would you say?” he said he tells them. “That doesn’t go there. It’ll ruin your ear canal.”

Christian arguments against homosexuality are bad logically and bad morally.
In short, they are the best possible argument for why good and decent people should stay away from Christianity.

Could you expand on that please?

I expect you don't need my help to figure out why Riccardo's argument is illogical. His argument is immoral because he's teaching children to believe that it's moral to hate others for unnaturally damaging their bodies and for putting things where they don't go. How would you like it if people hated you because you got a tattoo? How would you like it if people hated you because you put "expand" where "expound" goes?