Lara said:
Can you just answer one question for me?
Is your 'disagreement' with homosexuality based on your chosen faith?
In other words, is it
only due to my religious beliefs? No, not at all. I prefer to think about things for myself. Do my religious beliefs have
any bearing on my overall assessment of the issue? Sure, I'd be lying if I said that they didn't. It's a matter of degree, however. In other words, it might be quite tempting to sit there and say to yourself "he's just parroting what the Bible tells him", but that would be dangerous (and false)-- not all instances of coinciding beliefs mean that one was perfectly (i.e., fully and to the exclusion of everything else) informed by the other (that is, my beliefs being informed by the prevailing religious views on the issue).
I have posted tens of thousands of words on my non-religious reasons for "disagreeing" with homosexuality (admittedly, that's not the right word, but this isn't a philosophy course).
However, I will be entirely candid and tell you that it is one of the
scant few instances where my own rational examination of the issues did not
necessarily lead to the conclusions espoused by my "religion". In other words, sure, I can give non-religious, rational bases for my beliefs in this sphere (and I've given many in the past), but I am also cognizant of the fact that they are not "airtight" (if we're honest with ourselves, we must admit when this is the case). The issue is one of the most ambiguous and difficult to come to grips with for those of faith (not speaking here of civil rights for gays, which is a clear-cut issue, but rather the moral character of the issue).
I will be honest and state all this because I really have nothing to be ashamed of. I can and have provided rational arguments against homosexuality. Are those arguments unassailable? No, they aren't, despite my fondness for intellectual rigor. And this is one of the few cases where the arguments I can advance are not as "airtight" or logical as I'd like them to be. But there are definitely rational bases for my disagreement with it. I'd say that it's 70-75% rational and 25-30% based on my religious beliefs, which is a much different "ratio" than I like to have for my beliefs, usually. Typically, I like to be rationally justified in my views as far as possible (that is, 100% or as close to it as we can come), and have spoken at length regarding the rational foundations for most of my beliefs.
Like I said, it's definitely much more ambiguous (for me) than I'd like it to be. Though this will undoubtedly come off wrong, and I'll be besieged for it, I'll pretty much tell you how I see such cases (i.e., cases where rational argumentation only goes so far, or where the rational conclusions we are hoping to reach-- whatever they are-- are muddled at best):
I look at my faith (i.e., God) like I'd look at a trusted friend. In much the same way that someone would trust the judgment of their lifelong best friend
in instances of ambiguity (i.e., where one could not ascertain what is "true" or "correct" by more direct means), so I trust in God. Now,
this does not mean that I've never considered the issue of homosexuality rationally and just threw up my hands and said "well, what does the Bible say?", because that's generally not how I do things, as others can attest to. But what it
does mean is that rationality and logical arguments take you only so far in some cases, this being one of them. This is also the reason why you'll never hear me state dogmatically that homosexuality is "wrong" (that is, beating people over the head with it and being a vocal critic of it), because I very well realize the limitations of my arguments on the issue, and I realize that other people may not accept or believe the same things I do, religiously. So, the same faith that "gets me over the rational chasm" in this instance doesn't necessarily hold for others, and I cannot begrudge them that-- indeed, I could very well be mistaken myself. And so there's no vehemence on my part in expressing my disagreement with homosexuality, because I realize that no matter what rational arguments I proffer, they are ultimately assailable (note: not untenable, "assailable"). Personally, I do not like to leave any room for "doubt" with my thoughts and beliefs-- that's just my general nature. Believe me, when I know that my purely intellectual views on an issue are as airtight as I can make them, I am not bashful about letting others know about it, as people will tell you.
But they're not airtight in this instance, and I realize that and can admit that, because nobody is purely rational in all their analyses. If anybody has seen me post at length on other things, I'm sure they realize that I try to intellectually justify everything I say or believe in (or at least that I'm verbose
); the "standard of thought" for my own beliefs is quite high, relatively speaking. What I am being frank about here is
not that I have never considered the issue from a non-religious/intellectual perspective, because I have (many such perspectives, in fact)-- what I
am saying is that my beliefs on this issue do not meet
my own standards for intellectual (read: non-religious) rigor. I can admit that because I can safely say that I've given most issues, including this one, more thought than most people have, and that certainly no charge can be leveled against me about "swallowing the religious view whole". It's all I can ask of myself, really.
Like I was saying, this very fact is also one reason why I'm not as insistent or vocal in my beliefs about homosexuality as I am about everything else-- because how can one put their good name and their character behind something that can possibly end up being wrong? How can one use their beliefs on this matter to attack or denigrate others (which I wouldn't do anyway, I'm just making a point) when their own thought process regarding the issue hasn't been "up to snuff", so to speak? You can't, and that's one of the reasons that I don't, though far from the only reason-- I'm not big on belittling others in general, nor do I believe it is proper. Keep in mind as well that my adoption of my religious beliefs was also subject to a more than adequate amount of reason and intellectual examination, so it's not just that I was "raised that way" (I was raised a Catholic, but didn't come to God until I was about 18-20). So I have my reasons for "trusting" God in most instances, though as noted, in
most instances I don't have to, as I can reason out my beliefs in a logical, cogent manner.
Here's the crux of the matter: saying that my beliefs regarding a certain issue are partially informed by my religious convictions
does not mean that I have no rational/intellectual basis for those same beliefs outside of religious justifications. It just means that I can recognize and appreciate the limitations inherent in the purely intellectual/philosophical analysis I've made, and so defer to God, just as others would a trusted friend in cases of moral ambiguity. If your best friend (whom you've known to be of pristine character for as long as you've known him) and a guy on the street are arguing, and the guy is accusing him of stealing from him, you'd tend to side with your friend when he says that he did no such thing (since you weren't there and can't offer definitive proof of the matter). Note: this is not meant to be an analogy to the homosexual issue, so don't take it as such (in other words, don't attack the analogy, as it's not meant to be formal). I'm just trying to get a certain idea and sentiment across.
As for why, in light of the above concession regarding the limits of the intellectual/rational analysis, one cannot merely say that they are "agnostic" regarding the whole homosexual issue (rather than coming down against it), that's a good question, and one which would take me quite a while to answer (if in fact I could-- I very well might not be able to, though I can see the contention's merit). It has something to do with the 70-30% split I mentioned, I would imagine; I would think that if it was something like 20-80% (which for myself would be inexcusable-- though I can admit of the existence of legitimate theological conundrums, I personally feel that we should at least be
reasonably intellectually justified/satisfied in everything, including our faith; I don't think "20% justified by reason" would cut it for me, personally), I'd be more inclined to fall on the side of abstention rather than opposition, however mild that opposition may be, as is the case here.
More than anything, however, I believe that people know who I am based on how I treat them, which is always
as people, not as "homosexuals", or whatever other category you can mention. I do not view anyone as "less human", or "less worthy as a person", not even subconsciously as far as I can tell (obviously subconscious beliefs and motivations cannot be precisely measured, but I think one gets a good read on them by way of various inferences, including our snap reactions to things). This is why I have no problem admitting what I have above, as well as being confident that nobody is going to view me as some homophobe/bigot just because I disagree with homosexuality. I feel that reasonable people can see what type of person I am through my words (and deeds, but you guys don't know me in real life-- AND THANK GOD FOR THAT!
).
With regard to my religious beliefs and my justifications for them (or at least my manner of approaching the issue intellectually), you can do a search of my recent posts if you like, because I posted a lot to a topic less than a week ago concerning such things. I don't expect (or even want
) you to do this, obviously, I'm just throwing it out there in case you or anyone else felt it incumbent upon themselves to attack my reasons for my faith.
N.B. I'm not sure that I agree with your definition of rationality, but that's another issue
I don't necessarily agree with it either.
Like I said, though, this isn't a philosophy course or formal debate. If I cared to precisely define all the terms I use, we'd be here for a while.
There are obviously implications for the notion of rationality, but these aren't addressed by Loki's definition.
Again, I didn't offer any "definition"; you're assuming too much.
I can appreciate your rigor, but having been that way for years on this forum, I grow weary of it. Sometimes I just prefer to talk-- you know, like people do.
Anyway, this is about all I'll say on the matter, so no use in "rebutting" anything I've said, because there's really no point. I've already conceded the inherent weakness in my purely intellectual analysis of the issue-- again, this is not to say that I had/have no intellectual reasons for disagreeing with homosexuality, because I certainly do; anybody who's been here long enough and has a good enough memory can tell you that.
I just wanted to explain myself, because the question you posed was a fair one.
Oh yeah, Socreges, my refusal to define my "terms" (they weren't really "terms", I was just talking offhand-- didn't know everything was a "term", particularly when it was, on the surface, tangential to the issue at hand and just used as an adjective, not as a precisely defined term, e.g., "rationality"; though as noted in Lara's above post, depending on the definition, "rationality" can encompass more than is usually supposed, and might thus be relevant in some way)-- anyway, my refusal to define said terms extends to the word "disagree" as well, so suck it. Nyah!
Disclaimer: everything in this post, as well as everything I've said in this thread, is meant to be taken informally. Or at least not as an academic exercise.
