Midas Dekkers on Homosexuality

[leo-rcc]

Yes- I got what you're saying when I watched it, Leo

Thank FSM for that.

He's saying it doesn't matter what is "in nature" and what isn't (and a nice point with the dogs on the lamp posts), homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and is not wrong. I like the point that he makes about his friends being his friends because they feel no need to apologize, or blame others, for being gay.

Which was his point exactly. I have another one of his videos where he annihilates that creationist that built the scale Noah's ark that wants to spread the creationists pamphlet all over the Netherlands. Unfortunately it is not subtitled.

Creationist: The sun is hundreds of thousands of kilometres away...
Dekkers: The sun? That's that thing that revolves around the Earth right?
Creationist: No the Earth rotated around the Sun.
Dekkers: Ah so we've gotten that far at least.

Brilliant putdown.

[Tiberius]

I didn't mean to cause argument Leo, but you must understand that I knew nothing of this guy, so I had to question his credentials when they failed to come up. If you say he is an atheist, why does he refer to the bible as "THE book", and then proceed to quote from it to back up his argument, as well as saying that the bible is true? Could you please explain this behaviour to me?

I think the problem probably does from the subtitles, since they portray a very fundie take on homosexuality.

[leo-rcc]

I didn't mean to cause argument Leo, but you must understand that I knew nothing of this guy, so I had to question his credentials when they failed to come up.

I can imagine that, but be assured that when it comes to Biology he knows his stuff. He is not doing academic research actively any more, he is more into writing books and columns to educate laymen on the topic of biology.

If you say he is an atheist, why does he refer to the bible as "THE book", and then proceed to quote from it to back up his argument, as well as saying that the bible is true? Could you please explain this behaviour to me?

Part being ironic, I think you missed it in the subtitles but he said something along the lines of "also out this week is another book" referring to the bible.

I think where it went wrong for you was when he said "natuurlijk" which was translated as "of course!" with exclamation mark. The intention though (that got a bit lost I admit) is that in this case when the bible asserts homosexuality is unnatural in his view the bible has it right in that aspect. That does not mean he thinks the whole bible is correct. He refers to the bible in various columns as a collection of bronze age myths and refers to Dawkins, Hitchens and Stenger with regards to God as a failed hypothesis.

He also said that the Theory of Evolution is a brilliant theory, bot also very nihilistic and a theory of chagrin. There is nothing comforting, no special privileged position for humans, just a product of self replicating DNA and natural selection. But just because its not a happy theory, doesn't make it any less true.

And as referral as the bible as The book, keep in mind it is very common to describe the bible like that.

I think the problem probably does from the subtitles, since they portray a very fundie take on homosexuality.

I think it is a matter of interpretation, which is very difficult to convey trough subtitles. I think it also helps that if seen his programs and read his columns for close to 30 years so I know his style. He has a knack for setting you up for starting to think in one direction and then completely overthrow that idea with an alternate view in the end.

[Purple Rabbit]

I think the problem probably does from the subtitles, since they portray a very fundie take on homosexuality.

I think it is a matter of interpretation, which is very difficult to convey trough subtitles. I think it also helps that if seen his programs and read his columns for close to 30 years so I know his style. He has a knack for setting you up for starting to think in one direction and then completely overthrow that idea with an alternate view in the end.

It doesn't help that Midas Dekkers has a tongue in cheek way of telling as his primary mode of operation. His message, I think, is clear though. I think it was Dennett who once said "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear".

[Edwardo Piet]

It appears Richard Dawkins agrees with the stance Midas Dekkers makes:

As for your particular desire not to stigmatise homosexuality as unnatural, why bother? In one sense it is unnatural (it doesn't result in procreation which is obviously the ultimate Darwinian function of sexual behaviour). On the other hand it is natural (lots of people do it for preference and enjoy it). isn't that enough? Why drag in bonobos, as if the fact that it is common among them made it any more natural than the fact that it is common in humans? Let people do what they feel like doing (so long as it doesn't hurt others). You don't need to justify it by looking to other species.

Also see "the Bonobo's Tale" in Richard Dawkins' book, The Ancestor's Tale

Well if that's all he's saying I guess I completely misunderstood the video. Perhaps I wouldn't have done if it wasn't just subtitles. I dunno. But anyway I agree with Dawkins (I think. I haven't thought about this subject too much. But it seems the correct view on the matter at least to me. I don't know much about the subject) and if that's all Dekkers was saying in the video then I must have just misunderstood him (and I can only speak english btw. So that includes not being able to speak Dutch of course).

If that's the case apologies for my ignorant accidental misunderstanding. If not, not.
evf