Your choice of lifestyle is an abomination!

I'm pleased that you have chanced upon this thread...perhaps you'll move it to the F&R forum where, perhaps it properly belongs...or perhaps, @ghrit or another moderator / administrator might perform that service if you feel inclined not to do so.

Edit: I'd be happy to have the thread moved to The Inferno, as a semi neutral forum for heated discussion.

More to follow.

 

Fair question: And I do not take your question as disrespectful, but a genuine question piqued by curiosity.

Both left handed people and homosexuals have been persecuted to a greater or lesser extent over the millennia, for various reasons, and by various classes of people / societal institutions. Many theists claim that homosexuality is, inter alia, a "lifestyle", "a (sinful)choice" "rebelliousness against God's will", "un-natural" etc. There was a time that many people, both theists and non-theists, viewed 'southpaws' with considerable suspicion, mistrust, and even fear, to the extent that southpaws were discriminated against, persecuted, and ill treated.

There are scriptural justifications (mainly from the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, but not exclusively) over many centuries that have been used to validate the discrimination against, and the persecution of, both 'left handers' and homosexuals. I'm not suggesting that the mistreatment meted out to Left Handers as opposed to Homosexuals can be equated in severity, it is, none the less useful to compare and contrast these two groups of historically victimised people.

The cartoon, wryly mocks the 'lifestyle' and 'homosexuality is a choice', arguments put forth by some theists (usually the conservative end of the theistic spectrum) to support their discrimination against LGBT folk.

No...not a case of thread creep, at least not until NVBeav in post#17 questioned the issue of equating left handed people with homosexuality. I have a feeling that tulian had some idea of what I was alluding to, but maybe I am making too many assumptions about former intel analysts.

1.

Am I equating the two? It is quite clear that they are not exactly equivalent classes of people, but it is undeniable that both groups have been discriminated against and mistreated by people of faith on the basis of scriptural hermeneutics ( Hermeneutics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ): In that sense, both southpaws and LGBT folk have quite a bit more in common than some may be comfortable in admitting. It is therefore useful to compare and contrast the treatment meted out to both groups of people by people of self righteous religiosity. Doing so, may be a little eye opening, at least maybe for some.

Your opening sentence suffers from the logical fallacy of 'Ad Hominem'. Bad mouthing an argument, is not a helpful contribution in reasonably countering a proposition. A better option is to make a sound counter argument, supported by evidence.

2.

The title is taken from the first sentence of the first panel in the cartoon, and it is the title of the article of the weblog where I found it. What can I say? My crime is a singular lack of imagination. The second sentence of post #22, may be dropped into the logical fallacy basket labelled "red herrings". Titles have many purposes...and this forum of all forums it's often a case of what you see (In the title) is often not what you may get. In this case, the title is intended to attract attention and in that sense it has been successful, and, judging by most of the posts, folk have seen the humour in it and have found a number of different issues to discuss from it.

3.

Sentence #3 started so promisingly, and the first clause, I am largely in agreement with (if we can come to some common understanding of what a lifestyle means), but unfortunately, the second clause lapses into logical fallacy territory yet again (Argument by dismissal).

4.

This sentence has a number of logical fallacies embedded within it...it is a straw-man argument, combined with an appeal to emotive language, and an appeal to pity: none of which answers anything substantive about the comparative treatment of Southpaws and LGBT folk.

If I mock anything, it is the scriptural hermeneutical and apologetical gymnastics taken by some to justify their abominable treatment of fellow human beings. I might add, that although the cartoon shows what may purport to be a medieval cleric of some kind(though even this is implied, rather than explicit), the issue of discriminatory persecution of LGBT folk is not solely an issue of some Christians behaving badly against their fellow man. Both the Judaic and Islamic faiths have scriptural hermeneutical traditions that followers of those interpretations use to treat abominably those they believe to be an abomination. I am not an artist, and even if I were, the cartoon would have become somewhat cluttered if I had tried to be ecumenical with my satirising of religiously motivated persecution of southpaws and LGBT folk.

The accusation that I am mocking Christian beliefs is rather simplistic and self serving. There are Christians, Jews and Muslims, who are tolerant of, and in many cases, supportive of the human rights of LGBT folk: even to be married. Have I mocked their beliefs in any way? Although, I don't deny that you may speak for yourself and for your own particular confessional tradition, you don't get to speak for all Christians and for all of Christianity.

There are many scriptural prohibitions that Christians no longer observe at all (that required a mandatory death sentence back in the day), and there are some prohibitions that are observed arbitrarily, depending on the 'vibe' they get from their personal relationship with their deity, or the cherry picked selective interpretation of their preferred sacred scripture. I would suggest that the scripturally inspired discrimination against LGBT folk, is an arbitrary bronze aged tradition (of some) that is no longer justifiable in the 21st century; just as discriminatory behaviour against left handed people is not justifiable in the 21st century.

5.

Another Ad Hominem and an Argument by Dismissal fallacy to round out the logical fallacy-fest that is post #22. A lot of thunder and lightening, and damned little rain, except of course the recognition that being left handed is neither a choice nor a lifestyle.

My poor old laptop is slowing down, and overheating....will be back in a while to respond to post #23

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

 

I was trying to be good and stay out of this, but since I'm now in the discussion.... Humor, in my opinion, is a very appropriate place to discuss issues considered by some too sensitive for discussion. Humor, in the form of theater by the Greeks, as well as in the form of jesters in European monarchies, has been historically used within the western culture to make comment on certain subjects without getting the axe from the powers that be.

I'm missing the "malicious intent" on the part of anyone. It seems to me that lampooning bigotry can only be offensive to bigots. When we exclude the possibility of critical inquiry from a belief system, we condemn those beliefs to a slow death of social irrelevancy. Societies either evolve or they die. A micro-society, within a greater society, may be able to survive such stagnation, and become merely an object of novelty to the greater society, such as the Amish; but in a greater sense, they become irrelevant to all but themselves. A society's belief systems need to similarly evolve if they are to remain relevant. And hey, even a stuffed shirt like me can occasionally laugh at myself.

 

CHelly, chelly, I believe you will meet God one day.... And poke him in the eye. Just to provoke one of three responses. Either he will (A) being all knowing and compassionate) Allow it as free will, (B) go old Testament, and poke you back (giving new meaning to reach out and touch someone) or (C) burst like a soap bubble.
Either way, you'll have your answer.
Here @tulianr (tosses) my spare Jester's cap, wear it well.

 

As a hypothetical....Poking God in the eye would seem to be a very foolish option in my view, and doing so would achieve very little. Besides, how does one poke an omnipotent and omniscient deity in the eye, even if said deity had an eye? (I may not be the first eye poker god may have encountered, and who knows, fingers far more dextrous than mine may have gotten lucky! )

Conversation, if such was to happen, is likely to be either extremely short and punitively painful, (setting straight the claim that god is Omni beneficent); or rather extended and hopefully convivial. There are many questions that I'd love to ask him / her / it / them: not the least of which, is how he / she / it / they managed to screw up their creation so royally. I'd also like to know why a man's urethra runs through his prostate? (Almost all human males seem to have this rather silly design feature!), and why it was found necessary to make woman out of a man's spare rib, when it could just as easily have been accomplished, and with much less pain and suffering to the man, by making woman out of the same dust as man was made of (Gen 2:10)?

I consider that the Gods as envisioned by the various Abrahamic "monotheistic" religions are contradictory with each other, and internally contradictory and incoherent within each faith tradition: which leads me to believe that the probability of any one of them actually existing is so improbably remote as to be not worth the effort of believing. The existence of a deistic creator god / gods, also seems rather remote, and if he/she/it /they existed or continue to exist, would they crave my personal adulation and worship? If I were to worship the deistic god(s) would it mean anything to he him /she her/it/them? I think it better to try and make my own sense of what my life means to me, and how to navigate my way through it to my eventual oblivion; hopefully contributing to the greater good of the world where I can, and with least harm to my fellow humans. An existential philosophy of life is not such an easy road for one to travel, but for me it is a far more authentic way of living ,than believing in, and conforming to, the dictates of comforting fables.

 

Understanding "God" to be the creative force of the universe, regardless of the name or persona that man decides to drape over it, I think that every time we pollute our environment, we poke "God" in the eye. Every time we drive a species to extinction through thoughtless exploitation, we poke "God" in the eye. Every time a child dies of starvation, abuse, or neglect, we have poked "God" in the eye.

Some off-shoots of the Abrahamic tradition believe that, as each human being contains a divine spark of "God," each time we treat our fellow man in a hateful manner, we poke "God" in the eye. They may be on to something.

 

I can happily support those sentiments.