DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: SystematicThought on February 17, 2012, 09:21:36 PM
-
In our 12th Grade Scripture class every Friday, we get the desks in a circle and write down questions and pass them in and they get randomly distributed among the students and they pose the question they received to another classmate.
The issue of homosexuality and the fact that I'm Christian but don't take issue with it has been on my mind recently so I asked "Is it wrong if a Christian doesn't take issue with homosexuality?"
A student asked my question to another student and her response was:
Yes, it is wrong. Homosexuality is a result of sin, so if a Christian doesn't take issue with it, then they are on the side of sin, so they are in the wrong.
It just really irked me. Is it really so wrong that I am a Christian who doesn't take issue with it and doesn't try to tell a homosexual that they are wrong and that God doesn't approve. It just never really mattered to me how a person chooses to live their life and who they choose to love.
For the Christians out there, is it really that wrong of me that I don't take issue with homosexuality and think that there are more pressing matters to deal with than this? Does this mean that I'm not a good Christian? I don't think it does, but man, they painted me to be some weirdo
-
They're probably OK with people charging interest on loans, so I'd say you're even.
-
They're probably OK with people charging interest on loans, so I'd say you're even.
Okay, first of all, that's standard business practice. You want some return if you're going to risk giving people this money and you want to take the change in the value of money (i.e. time value of money) into account. Don't mix up smart business sense with some kind of religious silliness.
Second of all (and this has nothing to do with GP's post I just said "first of all" and feel the need to say "second") I feel like really good Christians shouldn't be trying to tell people stuff like in victimless crimes like consensual homosexual acts. In fact, it probably makes their message more likely to be ignored.
I was constantly preached to that God loved everybody and that he absolved us of our sins and whatnot, so to find that gay marriage was such a big religious deal surprised me in high school. If God loves everyone why wouldn't he also love gay people?
Also, I went to a presentation a week ago about how the Bible addresses homosexuality (three religious professors were speaking. Two were gay, one wasn't) and the straight man brought his bible and pointed out all the possible translation issues that arose from interpreting one of the letters (from Paul, I believe?) to speak about homosexuality, basically saying that it more than likely wouldn't have been explicitly mentioned, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people back then.
In conclusion, since I've been rambling a biiiiiiiit too much no I don't think its wrong of you to not take an issue with homosexuality. Although I haven't really been a practicing Catholic since high school I think traditional sins like murder and theft are far more pressing issues that actually do cause harm to others.
-
Plenty of things that are technically sins are accepted in our society, and generations from now homosexuality will be just another one of them. The thing about sin is that everyone does it anyway, so the argument about how you're supposedly "on the side of sin" for being chill about two dudes screwing is misleading; technically true, but everyone is one way or another. It's regularly pointed out that not all "rules" in the bible are meant to be followed by everyone; some were meant for certain groups, and in some cases even specific people had to follow their own special rules. The gist is that if something is keeping you away from God then stop doing it.
Going by that, I'd say that in my own humble opinion something a lot of Christians mess up is that, in trying to follow the letter of His word, they miss the spirit of it. How a guy having sex with another guy affects his relationship with God is between him and God to work out. I think what's more relevant to the Christians judging them is how their own relationships with God are affected by seeking to prevent fellow humans from being able to cherish the same loving relationship with another human that the rest of us (hopefully) enjoy.
You're fine, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Centuries from now people will probably just say that we were reading the Bible wrong like everyone else who's ever used the Bible to justify doing things that we later decided were morally wrong.
-
I was constantly preached to that God loved everybody and that he absolved us of our sins and whatnot, so to find that gay marriage was such a big religious deal surprised me in high school. If God loves everyone why wouldn't he also love gay people?
This is exactly what I've been saying. I've said this before and I've been told: He loves them, but he doesn't approve of their orientation. Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve
Also, good points ehra.
-
I don't see why there need be any conflict. I think a Christian could, in good conscience, come to the conclusion that it's not a sin. It's merely a matter of believing it to be a trait rather than a choice.
Next, I believe it's the actual gay-screwing that's frowned upon, not necessarily the interest. A homo's a homo even if he's not actually acting on it. Is one sworn to celibacy still committing sin?
Lastly, isn't judgement of others reserved for that God person? I kind of thought that the point of the whole thing was for people to be able to find redemption, despite the fact that they're horrible, nasty sinners, each and every one. Their only obligation is between themselves and the Big Guy. Unless they seek help from you, let them deal with it according to their own abilities and wants.
-
so many good points made already...
as stated already, God absolutely loves every homosexual as much as any heterosexual, simply because he is the creator of both. the arrogant and haughty and judgmental Christian heterosexual disappoints God as much as the practiciing homosexual. but not sure if I would say that it is necessarily arrogant and judgmental to agree that something is condemned by God (whether pride, sexual practices, etc).
-
They're probably OK with people charging interest on loans, so I'd say you're even.
Okay, first of all, that's standard business practice. You want some return if you're going to risk giving people this money and you want to take the change in the value of money (i.e. time value of money) into account. Don't mix up smart business sense with some kind of religious silliness.
Yes, but charging interest on loans is spoken against in the Bible. I think that is GP's point. Basically, for every matter spoken against in the Bible that fundamentalists/literalists want to stress (homosexuality), there are other things spoken against in the Bible that they are OK with (loan interest, divorce, numerous others).
-
as stated already, God absolutely loves every homosexual as much as any heterosexual, simply because he is the creator of both. the arrogant and haughty and judgmental Christian heterosexual disappoints God as much as the practiciing homosexual. but not sure if I would say that it is necessarily arrogant and judgmental to agree that something is condemned by God (whether pride, sexual practices, etc).
God loves everyone, but our "acts" can bring us into corruption and sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin, a message the WBC needs someone to bash into them with a 2x4. But the idea that heterosexuals disappoint God as much as a homosexual and therefore homosexuality is fine is not valid. Taking the same argument above, atheists disappoint God as much as a murderer but that mean then that murder is a-ok? However both are still loved by God. That is very true.
My point was without the "therefore homosexuality is fine." When a person takes the time to consider the log in their own eye first, it helps them to deal with the speck in someone elses with humility.
For example, I initially accidentally modified your post instead of quoting and ended up having to delete your post. I humbly apologize for that log in my eye :biggrin:
-
I know gay Christians. Shit like that bugs me. It's a sin, and all sins are equal in God's eyes. It's just as sinful as rape, adultery, lying, etc.
-
I know gay Christians. Shit like that bugs me. It's a sin, and all sins are equal in God's eyes. It's just as sinful as rape, adultery, lying, etc.
I just don't understand.
-
If we can't accept homosexuality because all sins are equal then we also can't accept anyone who follows a different religion or worships a different god.
-
There's alot of dancing around here, but I wanted to take issue with a couple of things. This is a subject that has always struck a chord with me, because you have two sides at two extremes, and everyone seems to promote their own agenda on either side without really looking as scripture as being the authority on the matter.
How about a parallel?
First of all, someone mentioned that "God created homosexuals..." God did not *directly* create any one of us here today. God created Adam and Eve, and gave them the ability to *procreate*... True, in a round about way, that *does*, in fact, mean that we all owe our very existence to God, but since Adam and Eve didn't procreate until after they had sinned, the entire process became flawed. We are born into sin and imperfection because we were born to imperfect (not perfect) parents. God realizes that this was NOT of our own doing...so he took steps to save us. But that's another discussion.
Since we are ALL OF US born with flaws, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to think more of himself than any other person with a flaw (Rom 12:3).
Having said that, because we are born with freewill, we are accountable to God for the choices we make.
God did not create an alcoholic...that is a flaw that a man is born with. But "drunkards" will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:10) Period. There is no judgement on my part. If an alcoholic were to ever need my help to recover, I am under obligation to help him. To teach him the word of God for himself, and to help him apply it in any way that I can. (the old "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day...teach him how to fish and he'll eat forever" syndrome) But he has to understand that if he gives in to his born inclination, he will lose out on life. I love my brother...I would NEVER want to see that. I would do anything to help him. But at some point, he has to make a choice for himself as to what is more important...the drink, or life and a relationship with God.
Some of us are born with greater tendencies to lie than others. Some (like myself) have a daily struggle to remain monogamous. I'm no better than anyone else...and I have a spotted history. But if I were to just say, "Oh well, I was born this way..." and just go with my natural feelings, I would effectively END my relationship with God. God understands that I have a struggle...he forgives me for the mistakes I've made. But he will not forgive me if I were to go out and continue practicing it.
So it's true that homosexuals to not have any *extra layer* of sin. They don't get "death...plus one"... We are ALL in the same boat.
It essentially comes down to...will a person do what *THEY* want to do? Or what *GOD* wants them to do. Because we are born imperfect and fleshly, the two are diametrically opposed. So we must lead a life of self-sacrifice. Sacrificing what WE would like to do, and recognizing that only God (and no human) has the right to tell us what is right and what is wrong. Not we ourselves.
-
Babies lie all the time. Does God give them a free pass?
EDIT: And any argument that begins with talking about Adam and Eve is just begging the question.
-
"... every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood..." (Gen 8:21)
Obviously...we all need to make an *educated* decision. The scriptures make it clear that we must *learn* how to do what is right, because it's not in our nature to do so. A child has not yet learned.
-
I should add that...at the end of the day...it's not for me to judge anything. At what age/maturity level does a child become responsible for his own decisions? I think we would all agree that it most likely varies from child to child. But God can read any person deeper than any of us can...so he is the final judge. We simply must put his instruction into practice for ourselves, and help others see what those requirements are. NOT by any personal interpretation...we cannot and should not put any personal spin on God's Word. It speaks for itself.
Drinking is not condemned (Ps 104:15)
Drunkeness is: (1Cor 6:10)
So what is drunk? It's not for me to say. I have my own opinions on the matter...but it is not my place to speak of where the line is drawn. I could conjecture to say that since the scriptures also say that we must obey the law of the land (Rom 13:3, 4) that it would seem that we should never cross over into what local laws have labeled as "drunk"...but that's speculation. Every man must make his own decision...but also be mindful that it means his life. When the decision is that serious...how close to the edge do you really want to get?
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
If they are Catholic, they go to Limbo or a waiting room or something.
The rest of them are just screwed, I guess.
-
I cannot personally say. I don't speak personally for God. But God's Word does give us some guidance.
"...there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust." (Acts 24:15 ESV) Other translations say "righteous and the wicked"...others say "righteous and unrighteous"...
Based on the principles provided in the rest of scripture, it would seem that everyone will have an opportunity to make an educated decision after they are resurrected and educated. Jesus hints at this at John 5:28, 29. Those who *practiced* righteousness will be given life...those practiced wickedness out of ignorance or lack of opportunity, will be judged after they have been given the opportunity to learn what is right and wrong from God and make their own decisions.
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
If they are Catholic, they go to Limbo or a waiting room or something.
The rest of them are just screwed, I guess.
This is an old theological myth. It's become somewhat of a tradition...but it's not taught in scripture.
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
If they are Catholic, they go to Limbo or a waiting room or something.
The rest of them are just screwed, I guess.
This is an old theological myth. It's become somewhat of a tradition...but it's not taught in scripture.
Which one are you talking about?
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
If they are Catholic, they go to Limbo or a waiting room or something.
The rest of them are just screwed, I guess.
This is an old theological myth. It's become somewhat of a tradition...but it's not taught in scripture.
Which one are you talking about?
Limbo
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
or people who do not have access to Christianity? it all seems a bit odd.
-
So what happens to a child who dies before they could learn what is right/wrong?
or people who do not have access to Christianity? it all seems a bit odd.
I believe I addressed this 3-4 posts up. The same would apply.
-
They're probably OK with people charging interest on loans, so I'd say you're even.
Okay, first of all, that's standard business practice. You want some return if you're going to risk giving people this money and you want to take the change in the value of money (i.e. time value of money) into account. Don't mix up smart business sense with some kind of religious silliness.
Yes, but charging interest on loans is spoken against in the Bible. I think that is GP's point. Basically, for every matter spoken against in the Bible that fundamentalists/literalists want to stress (homosexuality), there are other things spoken against in the Bible that they are OK with (loan interest, divorce, numerous others).
Really?
They left that stuff out of Sunday school :lol
EDIT: Also, GP, looking at that post, I feel like it came out a bit harsh than intended. I think I interpreted your post to talk about charging interest on loans is some horrible thing and missed your point simply because I had no idea it existed in the way you intended. My bad dude. :)
-
I prefer to keep things really simple: Live and let live. The end
If Bob and Joe, or Susan and Judy want to hook up and be with each other, then that is between them and their own conscience (god). Everything else is judgmental BS.
The end.
This is why I hate religion. It divides people.
-
I'm pretty sure if Judy and Susan are hot there has to be some clause that allows it in the Bible.
-
I prefer to keep things really simple: Live and let live. The end
If Bob and Joe, or Susan and Judy want to hook up and be with each other, then that is between them and their own conscience (god). Everything else is judgmental BS.
The end.
This is why I hate religion. It divides people.
I could go on for pages about this...but I don't want to hijack the thread off topic. I don't believe that everyone should do as they please...I believe exactly the opposite. That we all need to know and understand that *only God* has the right to say what is "right" and "wrong" for his creation. No human. I do not have to right to say what is "right" and "wrong" or "good" or "evil" for anyone...not even myself. Only God has the authority to tell me what is right and wrong.
But I do believe that "religion" (which is a creation of man...not God) does divide people. I believe that from the beginning, God has stated laws and principles in regard to how he should be *WORSHIPED*. It was only when men started getting *THEIR OWN* ideas (i.e. "well, I think it should be done this way!" or "well *I* think it should be done THAT way" with all sides implicitly ignoring and twisting God's instructions) that "religion" was born....in order to be able to distinguish one form of worship from another.
God invented "worship"...man invented "religion"...
Religion divides...true worship will (one day) unite all of creation.
"...and the last enemy he destroys will be death. When the Scriptures say that he will put everything under his power, they don't include God. It was God who put everything under the power of Christ. After everything is under the power of God's Son, he will put himself under the power of God, who put everything under his Son's power. Then God will mean everything to everyone." (1 Cor 15:26-28) Contemporary English Version
-
Homosexuality is only an issue for people looking for issues in their lives. I can honestly say it barely registers in my daily life, despite the fact that a good friend of mine is gay.
rumborak
-
We have identified the gay gene in many species. Its is a biological mutation in the genome, just like cancer or being a dwarf. It can not be chosen and is not the fault of the person affected. I consider anyone who has a problem with that to be an ignorant fool.
-
We have identified the gay gene in many species. Its is a biological mutation in the genome, just like cancer or being a dwarf. It can not be chosen and is not the fault of the person affected. I consider anyone who has a problem with that to be an ignorant fool.
I agree.
They've discovered that the same is true of alcoholics.
EDIT: As I've stated before we are *ALL* born with genetic "defects". No one is immune. We are *all* flawed. I myself feel that I was born a cheat...I've had to *learn* to be something else.
-
Then let's cure them all.
-
We have identified the gay gene in many species. Its is a biological mutation in the genome, just like cancer or being a dwarf. It can not be chosen and is not the fault of the person affected.
They've discovered that the same is true of alcoholics.
Not that I disagree with the point you guys are trying to make, but these are very bad comparisons.
Homosexuality is only an issue for people looking for issues in their lives. I can honestly say it barely registers in my daily life, despite the fact that a good friend of mine is gay.
rumborak
This is pretty much my take on it as well. I can think of few major issues that directly affect me less.
-J
-
Then let's cure them all.
not sure if srs
Partly because one cannot "cure" someone of their genetics, and also because I haven't found you to be a particularly offensive poster.
-
That's why I posted it like that. I wasn't serious.
I don't know, I think that as my (our) generation gets older, the gay issue is going to become a lesser issue.
-
I'm homosexual and I know it's considered a sin by religions. I'm a deist, don't believe in any religion but only God. But I know Quran and Bible says "homosexuality" is a sin, against the nature.
From the view of religion, then why God created me like this? You know, I'm genetic student and it is known that homosexuality isn't a illness, both physically and psychologically. Plus, homosexuality isn't choice (which is known by many like that, even by homosexuals), it's a inclination like heterosexuality. You just can't say one day "hey I wanna be homo or I feel I have to choose to be homo..." It's already inside of you but you may not realize. Social environment or something may effect and dispose your real sexuality.
I also believe homosexuality is considered "abnormal" from the view of many people even they are unbeliever because we are born at a world where heterosexuality is only thing we see. (To me, this is effects of religions) That's why many of us try to hide our true personality not to be labelled "abnormal" even we know we are exactly homo.
Let's agree on one thing! It doesn't matter to love a girl or a boy, it does matter to love a human being. That's all.
-
Let's agree on one thing! It doesn't matter to love a girl or a boy, it does matter to love a human being. That's all.
End thread
-
To echo previous comments in this thread, I wonder which of gods laws they conveniently ignore whilst supporting his most homophobic ones. Dave Mustaine weighed in on gay marriage recently, and his comments were an enlightened "I believe it's a sin because I'm a christian and that's what a christian believes". And you know, maybe that is the case that some people feel the need to conform to what the bible strictly teaches, even against their own morality, which is sad, but what I think is most likely is this circular reasoning just acts as a handy rhetoric for avoiding answering the real question of "why do you dislike gays so much?". Maybe he thinks Kirk Hammett is gay. I'll admit I did for a while.
-
In our 12th Grade Scripture class every Friday, we get the desks in a circle and write down questions and pass them in and they get randomly distributed among the students and they pose the question they received to another classmate.
The issue of homosexuality and the fact that I'm Christian but don't take issue with it has been on my mind recently so I asked "Is it wrong if a Christian doesn't take issue with homosexuality?"
A student asked my question to another student and her response was:
Yes, it is wrong. Homosexuality is a result of sin, so if a Christian doesn't take issue with it, then they are on the side of sin, so they are in the wrong.
It just really irked me. Is it really so wrong that I am a Christian who doesn't take issue with it and doesn't try to tell a homosexual that they are wrong and that God doesn't approve. It just never really mattered to me how a person chooses to live their life and who they choose to love.
For the Christians out there, is it really that wrong of me that I don't take issue with homosexuality and think that there are more pressing matters to deal with than this? Does this mean that I'm not a good Christian? I don't think it does, but man, they painted me to be some weirdo
Nah, man. The only thing that matters is that you believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. That's really all you need to believe. It's commendable that you don't have an issue with homosexuality.
-
From the view of religion, then why God created me like this? You know, I'm genetic student and it is known that homosexuality isn't a illness, both physically and psychologically. Plus, homosexuality isn't choice (which is known by many like that, even by homosexuals), it's a inclination like heterosexuality. You just can't say one day "hey I wanna be homo or I feel I have to choose to be homo..." It's already inside of you but you may not realize. Social environment or something may effect and dispose your real sexuality.
How do you know this though. There are articles that actually claim that homosexuals have known to be "cured". Also if homosexuality isn't a choice then it's like being transgender or having blond hair. My question here is how do we "know" homosexuality isn't a choice? Science has yet to determine it connected to any gene. There are some scientists who also claim that homosexuality can develop the same as any neurosis, that is without our knowing, something that we have accepted as being normal. Also, if God is defined according to you, as a being that must follow your rules, you ideals and agenda, then how can you justify this being as God? Isn't the whole idea of God a divine being with divine wisdom? If every text about God and homosexuality comes up as homosexuality being a sin, then in what way can you justify your idea that God made you that way? God is before religion. Divine Wisdom is before religion. Religion is only the praxis that brings us to God. If divine wisdom is before religion and divine wisdom holds that homosexuality is a sin then how can you justify your position about homosexuality and God at the same time? I'm not trying to make you not believe in God, but your beliefs are paradoxical to God.
I also believe homosexuality is considered "abnormal" from the view of many people even they are unbeliever because we are born at a world where heterosexuality is only thing we see. (To me, this is effects of religions) That's why many of us try to hide our true personality not to be labelled "abnormal" even we know we are exactly homo.
Are you saying that religions effect what we see? That is religion will condition us to accept some humans and not others? This is not how religion works, I'm sorry (well it's not how it is supposed to work, but we do see certain religions that teach hatred and intolerance). Religion is a praxis. It is a human method of following the will of the God. We cannot have this praxis without first knowing God, and knowing his self revelation. Homosexuality is considered abnormal in many religions because it doesn't fulfill our contingency as human beings to perfection. As you say, all that matters is love, but reflect on the contingency of homosexualty and of heterosexuality when it comes to love? What is the final aim of heterosexuality? Does it match the final aim of homosexuality? What defines a homosexual? Can I love human beings without being homosexual? What exactly does it mean to be homosexual over being a heterosexual? What are the necessary contingencies for homosexuality? For heterosexuality?
My point is, human knowledge wants to reason for homosexuality. If we stick only to human knowledge then it's impossible to argue homosexuality unless we turn to philosophy to discuss it. What does philosophy say about human sexuality? If you want to inject God into the picture then you have to accept divine wisdom over human knowledge. You cannot place human knowledge above divine wisdom. We are not smarter than God.
Nah, man. The only thing that matters is that you believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. That's really all you need to believe.
But what's next? I believe in Jesus Christ, sure, but now what? If I believe in Christ, then I must believe in the revelation of God that speaks of Christ and his teachings. I cannot just believe without accepting divine revelation. I also cannot just believe without right reason. Sure faith must come first, but I must use more than my will to believe, I must use right reason. To believe without right reason makes you an extremist willing to crash a plane into a building or parade around town saying how God hates fags. Believing in Christ is one thing, but we must also believe in God's revelation that tells us about Christ. And if we believe in this revelation then we must learn the whole deposit of revelation and try to understand how God is leading us back to himself. My point being, believe in Christ is one thing, but only believing doesn't get you very far.
-
My point is, human knowledge wants to reason for homosexuality. If we stick only to human knowledge then it's impossible to argue homosexuality
??? why?
-
@Vivace:
Is it possible that the traditional Western Christian point of view on sin being volitional is wrong? If all sinful acts are merely choices, then how come those who desire to put an end to their sin cannot by their own will power?
-
I suppose that my main problem with homosexuality is that we can intuitively recognize that it is unnatural and not sanctioned by nature. "But wait," people say: "wild animals are known to engage in homosexual acts, therefore it is natural and is an act that we as humans shouldnīt be constrained from imitating." "Natural" has been taken to mean "anything or any action that is observable in the animal kingdom."
Yet animals engage in all sorts of activities that would, by this definition, be considered "natural" for us to imitate or sanction. Cannibalism, for example. Examples of rape, incest, necrophilia, polygamy, genocide, etc can all be presumably observed in among wild animals. You might say that all these examples are contrary to the survival of a species. Yet is homosexuality any exception to that claim? Why only sanction homosexuality and condemn all other actions that can be observed in the animal kingdom?
I also find legalizing same-sex marriage problematic (though I would be in favor allowing same-sex couples to enter into a social contract that would allow them to share all the financial benefits of an opposite-sex couple yet not define it as marriage; a civil union, of sorts) mainly because if marriage can be redefined to suit a disenfranchised minority, then why shouldnīt we allow incestuous couples to marry, or polygamous couples, or infantile couples, or animal-person "couples". Wouldnīt we be discriminating against those groups if we only allow monogamous same-sex and opposite-sex marriages?
-
Nah, man. The only thing that matters is that you believe that Jesus Christ was the savior. That's really all you need to believe.
But what's next? I believe in Jesus Christ, sure, but now what? If I believe in Christ, then I must believe in the revelation of God that speaks of Christ and his teachings. I cannot just believe without accepting divine revelation. I also cannot just believe without right reason. Sure faith must come first, but I must use more than my will to believe, I must use right reason. To believe without right reason makes you an extremist willing to crash a plane into a building or parade around town saying how God hates fags. Believing in Christ is one thing, but we must also believe in God's revelation that tells us about Christ. And if we believe in this revelation then we must learn the whole deposit of revelation and try to understand how God is leading us back to himself. My point being, believe in Christ is one thing, but only believing doesn't get you very far.
[/quote]
Everybody's interpretation of Biblical teachings vary. But, all Christians share one thing in common: they believe Jesus is the savior. That is the basis of Christianity. You don't have to believe every story about him.
-
edit: @omega.
You still don't say why it's damaging, all the other examples you give of stuff that goes on in the animal kingdom are harmful (rape incest), homosexuality isn't.. so that argument doesn't really work there.
And for the slippery slope argument... I think most people would be fine with other kinds of marriages..as long as they are not harmful to others (which is not the case for animal-person (at least you can't prove it isn't), incestuous or infantile marriage).
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
If humans are doing this, then it is natural. It is a natural part of life. People tend to forget that humans are natural creatures.
Also, it doesn't matter if other animals do it or not, Humans do it and humans are not like other animals. To compare humans to other animals out there in terms of sexuality is pretty stupid.
Also, someone said something about gay people being "cured" I'm pretty sure that is a bunch of bullshit religious propoganda. Gay people don't need to be cured of anything.
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
Hypothetically, letīs imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
Hypothetically, letīs imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?
Regardless of Sigz answer... What the fuck does that have to do with homosexuality? How is that even in the same ballpark of thinking?
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
If humans are doing this, then it is natural. It is a natural part of life. People tend to forget that humans are natural creatures.
So if a tribe in a remote tropical island practices ceremonial cannibalism and necrophilia, are these actions, then, "natural" because humans are performing them?
Also, it doesn't matter if other animals do it or not, Humans do it and humans are not like other animals. To compare humans to other animals out there in terms of sexuality is pretty stupid.
What do you mean "humans are not like other animals"? In an atheistic worldview, you can bet your life that we are nothing more than relatively advanced primates - animals - who have simply developed an illusory standard of what is right and wrong, obligatory and prohibited, natural and unnatural.
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
Hypothetically, letīs imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?
Yeah, I don't see why not, as weird as it is.
But like 7string said, what the hell does cannablism and necrophilia have to do with homosexuality?
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
Hypothetically, letīs imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?
Regardless of Sigz answer... What the fuck does that have to do with homosexuality? How is that even in the same ballpark of thinking?
Need I really draw the painfully obvious logical parallel here, or are you just yanking my chain? Iīll allow Sigz to respond and then Iīll address this comment...
-
I don't even see why whether it's "natural" is relevant. The simple fact is it's consenting adults making a decision that only affects them. I don't see why you'd try to restrict that just because you think it's wrong.
Hypothetically, letīs imagine that there are two consenting adults that have agreed to allow each other to perform necrophilic and cannibalistic acts upon one another at the time of either of their natural deaths in privacy. They consent to these actions and their actions are not affecting anyone else or infringing upon their liberty. Should they be allowed to carry on with the agreement?
Yeah, I don't see why not, as weird as it is.
But like 7string said, what the hell does cannablism and necrophilia have to do with homosexuality?
Isnīt the argument for legalizing same-sex marriage that it is a consenting, private action that infringes upon no one elseīs liberty?
-
Let's go ahead and get this out on the table.
Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.
But, I am interested in the current discussion on human nature. If something is in human nature, does it mean that ______ natural act is an acceptable act, all of the time?
-
Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?
-
Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?
By using the argument for allowing same-sex marriage, any action that is consented to by individuals, performed in private, and does not infringe upon anyone elseīs liberty would be permissible. This would imaginably include cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.
-
Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.
I donīt think this even amounts to an argument.
-
Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?
By using the argument for allowing same-sex marriage, any action that is consented to by individuals, performed in private, and does not infringe upon anyone elseīs liberty would be permissible. This would imaginably include cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.
Same sex marriage should be allowed not JUST because its 2 private individuals consenting not affecting people's liberties. To use this as its own argument is RIDICULOUS. It should be allowed because its 2 people who love each other and want to be treated the same as anyone else in society. They just want equality and why shouldn't they get it? Why in the hell would we stop people who love each other from being able to be married?
You can talk all about the sanctity of marriage, but don't forget how often "christians" and other religious people get divorced/cheat/ whatever.
-
Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.
I donīt think this even amounts to an argument.
I'll flesh out what I mean. It seems to me that the two subjects we're discussing are very much different entirely. I don't understand how cannibalism/necrophilia=homosexuality.
And your argument isn't making it any more clear to me either.
-
Alright, and if someone wants to let someone else eat a chunk of their calf, that's their prerogative. Ignoring the fact that cannabalism is by it's nature a harmful action and thus immediately distinct from homosexuality, what's your point?
By using the argument for allowing same-sex marriage, any action that is consented to by individuals, performed in private, and does not infringe upon anyone elseīs liberty would be permissible. This would imaginably include cannibalism, necrophilia, etc.
I'm not seeing the problem here.
1) Who cares if two people get off eating each other?
2) That's hardly the argument for same-sex marriage. The larger reason is simply that there's no reason not to allow it. Arguing that it should be illegal because it's unnatural is a fallacy, and any religious argument is irrelevant because policy should not be based on religion. There's no evidence to suggest that homosexual couples are worse parents even in the most ideal situations, and there's no reason to believe that gay marriage has any larger affect on society.
-
Necrophilia/Cannibalism are far less common than homosexuality. Let's be reasonable here.
I donīt think this even amounts to an argument.
Comparing marrying someone of the same sex to fucking and eating a corpse doesn't amount to an argument either, but here we are.
You'd come close to having a point if there were a law that allowed one group of people to screw corpses but prevented others. But I'm pretty sure there isn't, which makes your attempted comparison retarded.
-
Did someone really just compare homosexuality to necrophilia ? (https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/no.gif)
-
Anyone who thinks I have made the argument homosexuality = necrophilia is confused.
-
Anyone who thinks I have made the argument homosexuality = necrophilia is confused.
Just forget about that whole argument. You said that based off of a misnomer regarding people who are for same sex marriage. The argument you think that people are using as their sole argument, is not really the sole or even the front running argument. You sir are extremely confused.
-
2) That's hardly the argument for same-sex marriage. The larger reason is simply that there's no reason not to allow it. Arguing that it should be illegal because it's unnatural is a fallacy, and any religious argument is irrelevant because policy should not be based on religion.
Replace same-sex marriage in this statement with consensual necrophilia or consensual cannibalism. Why should we deny any activity that is consented to and does not infringe upon anyoneīs liberty?
-
You're attempting to argue that allowing homosexuality means there's also no reason we shouldn't allow necrophilia or cannibalism, as if they're similar enough concepts that allowing the former while not allowing the later would be contradictory. There's no confusion.
-
You're attempting to argue that allowing homosexuality means there's also no reason we shouldn't allow necrophilia or cannibalism, as if they're similar enough concepts that allowing the former while not allowing the later would be contradictory. There's no confusion.
Why should we deny any activity that is consented to and does not infringe upon anyoneīs liberty?
-
I'm glad you agree that same sex marriages should be allowed.
-
Anyone who thinks I have made the argument homosexuality = necrophilia is confused.
2) That's hardly the argument for same-sex marriage. The larger reason is simply that there's no reason not to allow it. Arguing that it should be illegal because it's unnatural is a fallacy, and any religious argument is irrelevant because policy should not be based on religion.
Replace same-sex marriage in this statement with consensual necrophilia or consensual cannibalism. Why should we deny any activity that is consented to and does not infringe upon anyoneīs liberty?
You may not be making the argument that homosexuality = necrophilia, but you and I both know what you're doing here. Maybe stop now before you dig in deeper with this kind of silly comparison, eh?
-
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
-
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
But, AIDS.
::)
-
I'm glad you agree that same sex marriages should be allowed.
Oh, but if I were to agree with the query I asked you to respond to, same-sex marriage wouldnīt be the only thing that should be allowed, no. If you were to agree with the query (which you readily seem to), then any conceivable consensual and non-infringing action would be permissible. I canīt bear to imagine what the consequences of affirming the query would be.
-
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
All sorts of negative results can come from forcing your certain male genitals into the excremental orifice of another organism. One reason why I disgust anal romps of any kind.
-
Maybe stop now before you dig in deeper with this kind of silly comparison, eh?
Why, of course, master
*leaves*
-
Why is homosexuality the thing that would suddenly open the flood gates for all of these other things? Why doesn't allowing ANY form of "consensual and non-infringing action" mean that any other "consensual and non-infringing action" must be allowed? You're attempting to argue that it'd be inconsistent to allow one form of "consensual and non-infringing action" while not allowing others, yet that's exactly what we already do.
-
any conceivable consensual and non-infringing action would be permissible. I canīt bear to imagine the consequences of affirming the query would be.
There are no laws specifically against cannabism, that hasn't affected anything in this country.
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
All sorts of negative results can come from forcing your certain male genitals into the excremental orifice of another organism. One reason why I disgust anal romps of any kind.
Sodomy != homosexuality
And either way, legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with preventing/allowing gay sex.
-
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
All sorts of negative results can come from forcing your certain male genitals into the excremental orifice of another organism. One reason why I disgust anal romps of any kind.
I'm not surprised you would say something like this. You have just revealed why you dislike same sex marriage. Here's something for you. Gay people don't have to have anal sex. Also, anal can be performed quite safely, you just gotta know what you are doing.
So you are against same sex marriage now because of anal sex? In that case we better make sure any hetero couples that have anal have their marriages dissolved ASAP.
You are not working off logic. You are working off masked hate.
-
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
All sorts of negative results can come from forcing your certain male genitals into the excremental orifice of another organism. One reason why I disgust anal romps of any kind.
I'm not surprised you would say something like this. You have just revealed why you dislike same sex marriage. Here's something for you. Gay people don't have to have anal sex. Also, anal can be performed quite safely, you just gotta know what you are doing.
So you are against same sex marriage now because of anal sex? In that case we better make sure any hetero couples that have anal have their marriages dissolved ASAP.
You are not working off logic. You are working off masked hate.
I swear that when I read your comments I am simply dumbfounded by what you allow yourself to post on a public forum. I donīt even know where to begin when I do address your posts.
-
You could maybe start by addressing how the safety of anal sex is at all relevant in a discussion of whether gay marriage should be legal.
-
You could maybe start by addressing how the safety of anal sex is at all relevant in a discussion of whether gay marriage should be legal.
It is not.
-
Then why'd you bring it up?
-
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
All sorts of negative results can come from forcing your certain male genitals into the excremental orifice of another organism. One reason why I disgust anal romps of any kind.
I'm not surprised you would say something like this. You have just revealed why you dislike same sex marriage. Here's something for you. Gay people don't have to have anal sex. Also, anal can be performed quite safely, you just gotta know what you are doing.
So you are against same sex marriage now because of anal sex? In that case we better make sure any hetero couples that have anal have their marriages dissolved ASAP.
You are not working off logic. You are working off masked hate.
I swear that when I read your comments I am simply dumbfounded by what you allow yourself to post on a public forum. I donīt even know where to begin when I do address your posts.
Right, because I'm the one being ridiculous here.
-
You're attempting to argue that it'd be inconsistent to allow one form of "consensual and non-infringing action" while not allowing others, yet that's exactly what we already do.
Bingo.
And why donīt we allow certain consensual and non-infringing actions and allow others? (Notice Iīm not claiming I have the correct answer.)
-
FML
-
Then why'd you bring it up?
It bears no concern to its legality, but keep in mind I was addressing this post
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
So in answer to your question: what does it have to do with the legality of same sex marriage? Likely nothing. Does it have to do anything with the potential harm of an, um, anal lifestyle? Yes, somewhat, I would argue.
-
Oh wow, a thread about homosexuality turned into a comparison to necrophilia/cannibalism/rape. That is very surprising.
-
Didn't you know that Hitler believed in same sex marriage?
-
Oh.............so this is the south. Not my cup of tea.
-
Then why'd you bring it up?
It bears no concern to its legality, but keep in mind I was addressing this post
No one has to die or be hurt in the case of homosexuality and same sex marriage.
So in answer to your question: what does it have to do with the legality of same sex marriage? Likely nothing. Does it have to do anything with the potential harm of an, um, anal lifestyle? Yes, somewhat, I would argue.
I already explained to you (which I shouldn't have to because its common sense) gay marriage doesn't outright mean anal sex. Gay people can choose not to partake. Also, anal sex does not mean harm to someone else outright. No more than vaginal sex means harm to someone outright.
What two consenting adults do in their bedroom has nothing to do with you anyway. You are not a moral authority. You are against it simply because you just don't like the idea of gay people. All your posts have revealed that to everyone here.
-
You're attempting to argue that it'd be inconsistent to allow one form of "consensual and non-infringing action" while not allowing others, yet that's exactly what we already do.
Bingo.
And why donīt we allow certain consensual and non-infringing actions and allow others? (Notice Iīm not claiming I have the correct answer.)
Because that's what societies do. We've gone over this already. I know where you're trying to take this, and there's no point in having this argument with someone who thinks there's no reason to ever do something beyond the immediate benefit of ones' own self without God or the bible handing out punishments and rewards for acting a certain way.
-
You know, forget it. Itīs becoming more and more clear as the minutes painfully drain by that mostly everyone participating in this conversation isnīt seeking to have a serious dialogue on the matter of same-sex marriage (or any, for that matter). Rather you seek to merely reinforce your worldview by congregating and having others regurgitate phrases you fancy yourself to agree with all the while pummeling anyone with a differing worldview to the ground unmercifully and proceed to pervert dissenting phrases into convenient straw men or throw around the implications of "homophobic troll" like a hot potato to any user suspected of disagreement with the mob rule.
-
You know, forget it. Itīs becoming more and more clear as the minutes painfully drain by that mostly everyone participating in this conversation isnīt seeking to have a serious dialogue on the matter of same-sex marriage (or any, for that matter). Rather you seek to merely reinforce your worldview by congregating and having others regurgitate phrases you fancy yourself to agree with all the while pummeling anyone with a differing worldview to the ground unmercifully and proceed to pervert dissenting phrases into convenient straw men or throw around the implications of "homophobic troll" like a hot potato to any user suspected of disagreement with the mob rule.
Or that your arguments have been immature and completely not applicable to the debate in the first place.
-
You know, forget it. Itīs becoming more and more clear as the minutes painfully drain by that mostly everyone participating in this conversation isnīt seeking to have a serious dialogue on the matter of same-sex marriage (or any, for that matter). Rather you seek to merely reinforce your worldview by congregating and having others regurgitate phrases you fancy yourself to agree with all the while pummeling anyone with a differing worldview to the ground unmercifully and proceed to pervert dissenting phrases into convenient straw men or throw around the implications of "homophobic troll" like a hot potato to any user suspected of disagreement with the mob rule.
Or that your arguments have been immature and completely not applicable to the debate in the first place.
Well, I mean, if you say so
-
You know, forget it. Itīs becoming more and more clear as the minutes painfully drain by that mostly everyone participating in this conversation isnīt seeking to have a serious dialogue on the matter of same-sex marriage (or any, for that matter).
That happened the moment you tried to compare gay marriage to ravaging dead corpses.
-
You know, forget it. Itīs becoming more and more clear as the minutes painfully drain by that mostly everyone participating in this conversation isnīt seeking to have a serious dialogue on the matter of same-sex marriage (or any, for that matter).
That happened the moment you tried to compare gay marriage to ravaging dead corpses.
But Zbomber, how can you allow one and not the other?!! I mean, the hell?!
-
You know, forget it. Itīs becoming more and more clear as the minutes painfully drain by that mostly everyone participating in this conversation isnīt seeking to have a serious dialogue on the matter of same-sex marriage (or any, for that matter). Rather you seek to merely reinforce your worldview by congregating and having others regurgitate phrases you fancy yourself to agree with all the while pummeling anyone with a differing worldview to the ground unmercifully and proceed to pervert dissenting phrases into convenient straw men or throw around the implications of "homophobic troll" like a hot potato to any user suspected of disagreement with the mob rule.
Or that your arguments have been immature and completely not applicable to the debate in the first place.
Well, I mean, if you say so
You try to brush his comment off sarcastically, but he's right. Your stance that homosexuality and necrophilia are similar because they require "harm" or "death" on the part of the other person is flawed in many ways. Gay couples don't have to have anal sex (in fact, lesbians can't at all without using toys). Heterosexual couples can have anal sex too. Anal sex, if done properly, isn't harmful (anyone who's seen a certain infamous picture on the internets knows how far bum holes can stretch if conditioned). Even good ol' vanilla heterosexual sex is commonly painful for the female if it's her first time. And if the guy's penis is long enough to hit the cervix, heterosexual sex can be harmful even beyond the first time.
Yes, anal sex is harmful if you do it wrong. Most things work that way.
-
I know gay Christians. Shit like that bugs me. It's a sin, and all sins are equal in God's eyes. It's just as sinful as rape, adultery, lying, etc.
He who hast not sinned may cast the first stoned. All sins are equal, meaning, if you stole your friends pen and never gave it back, you are just as much a sinner as a gay person. If Christians are going to crusade against homosexuality, they should crusade against all sin. Also, why is it lost that Jesus clearly preaches "Hate the sin, not the sinner" and that the wicked need love more than the righteous.
All this is coming from someone who has never believed in god, has never attended church regularly and has only read the Bible out of sheer curiosity. Sometimes I feel sorry for true Christians because of how much people who know nothing have mucked up their religion.
-
You try to brush his comment off sarcastically, but he's right. Your stance that homosexuality and necrophilia are similar because they require "harm" or "death" on the part of the other person is flawed in many ways.
But...that is not at all "my stance"...
-
Then maybe you should try straightening out and clarifying what your actual arguments are. Instead of confusing yourself trying to trap everyone else in logical loopholes, as opposed to actually supporting your own stance.
-
Then maybe you should try straightening out and clarifying what your actual arguments are. Instead of confusing yourself trying to trap everyone else in logical loopholes, as opposed to actually supporting your own stance.
Yea, you know, maybe I should
-
Discussion needs to move on from the individual poster back to the individual argument
-
I think the major point to be made is that God knows that all of us are sinners. Sin is beyond our will. The term "we're only human" comes into play here. I've been saying this, but I don't think it's catching on. Jesus came here and died for us because we're all dirty sinners. Every day. Technically, to make a comparison, if you're married and you even think about somebody else in a lustful way, it's a sin. I'd be so bold as to say that a gay guy thinks about being gay as much as a straight guy thinks about casual sex. If we ask for forgiveness and let him into our lives by believing in Jesus, that's what Christianity is all about.
-
I think the major point to be made is that God knows that all of us are sinners. Sin is beyond our will. The term "we're only human" comes into play here. I've been saying this, but I don't think it's catching on. Jesus came here and died for us because we're all dirty sinners. Every day. Technically, to make a comparison, if you're married and you even think about somebody else in a lustful way, it's a sin. I'd be so bold as to say that a gay guy thinks about being gay as much as a straight guy thinks about casual sex. If we ask for forgiveness and let him into our lives by believing in Jesus, that's what Christianity is all about.
Are you saying being gay is a sin?
-
The OP asked "Is it wrong if a Christian doesn't take issue with homosexuality?" If he didn't believe it to be a sin, then he wouldn't be asking the question. I don't know really myself. I don't care. My point was that believing in Jesus is all that matters.
-
One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6. He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed." It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them.
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife. If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.
-
One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6. He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed." It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them.
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife. If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.
Right, but you can act out your sexual desires on your wife. But just because someone is gay they can't act out their sexual desires? After god made them that way in the first place? That just doesn't make sense and isn't right. It's contradictory to itself.
-
I can only add that this scenario would indeed be difficult.
-
I can only repeat that God did not create ANY OF US the way we are. Religion may teach that...the Bible does not.
-
@Vivace
Yes, science had found a gene connected to homosexuality but it doesn't mean it's mutation or something like that. Illness is defined like that: it must be harm your body physically and psychologically. Some scientist can say it's illness with their articles, I've read them too but they always end up being wrong. Even WHO says it's not illness, plus what we learn from genetic school it's not illness, even a little. So there is nothing to be cured. But there is really something that has to be cured: homophobia. To hate people, just because they are different from them, is a illness, a big one. We have to understand one point. Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a inclination like heterosexuality. You all can see the proof from the nature. If people are not considered as a proof on that matter because of using their brain, you can still see some of other animals are homosexuals, not choosing it, it's their instinct.
-
I agree with SeRoX....It''s NOT an illness.
But it is an imperfection. All here who are perfect, raise your hands. ::)
Didn't think so. :laugh: :P
I also don't think alcoholism is an illness. It's a condition. It's an imperfection.
Someone else might have a heart condition that is not an illness nor is it in any way terminal. They can go on to lead perfectly normal lives provided they maintain a certain strict diet. It's an imperfection. And it's an imperfection that effects the way they live the rest of their life. If they want to live, they must conform to certain restrictions that maybe don't effect other people. But God didn't MAKE the person have a heart condition. God will someday heal *ALL* people of their imperfections.
-
Eh, I wouldn't call it an imperfection or illness (lolwut).. I would compare it with blue or brown eyes, light or dark skin colour.
-
I would compare it with blue or brown eyes, light or dark skin colour.
Oddly enough, Hitler viewed it the same way.
-
The thing is homosexuals can't naturally procreate. That's one argument i've heard and understand it's fact. I understand it's not a choice, but is it the result of upbringing?
-
The thing is homosexuals can't naturally procreate. That's one argument i've heard and understand it's fact. I understand it's not a choice, but is it the result of upbringing?
Lots of people can't procreate.
That said, I have no idea what the two halves of your post have to do with each other.
-
You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?
I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.
-
The thing is homosexuals can't naturally procreate. That's one argument i've heard and understand it's fact. I understand it's not a choice, but is it the result of upbringing?
Lots of people can't procreate.
That said, I have no idea what the two halves of your post have to do with each other.
They don't have anything to do with each other, I seem to have a hard time conveying what I'm trying to say.
With the procreation thing, I'm meaning unless they really want to have their own DNA they can't naturally do it. Yes, others can't as well, but to them its not a choice. With Homo's that is a choice. Naturally
Now, Does the upbringing have something to do with being that way? What about gender confusion?
I do agree though that homophobia needs to be cured. I find it funny how people are that scared/fear homosexuals, makes no sense because people want aliens to swoop by yet we can't even accept our own differences.
-
I also don't think alcoholism is an illness. It's a condition. It's an imperfection.
What you "think" is irrelevant to what the facts are. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The American Medical Association definition of alcoholism:
Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is defined by the American Medical Association (AMA) as "a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations."
Apologies for the slight thread derail, I just didn't want that kind of misinformation to be presented without pointing out how fundamentally wrong it is.
-
You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?
I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.
Gender confusion? I've seen women who let their boys dress like girls, play with girls stuff etc... and vice versa, but somehow the child doesn't understand the difference between a girl and boy.
I get what your saying in your last paragraph, I'm Bi and knew it since I was like 8. I didn't come out till like a year or two ago, nothings changed. Which makes me believe nothing is wrong with it, whats wrong are the others who don't understand what it feels like to be this way. For this I am glad I am Bi, because I understand how ignorant people are about this and other things in general, how people don't really know anything at all.
-
I also don't think alcoholism is an illness. It's a condition. It's an imperfection.
What you "think" is irrelevant to what the facts are. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The American Medical Association definition of alcoholism:
Alcoholism or alcohol dependence is defined by the American Medical Association (AMA) as "a primary, chronic disease with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations."
Apologies for the slight thread derail, I just didn't want that kind of misinformation to be presented without pointing out how fundamentally wrong it is.
Fair enough...I retract.
But I will add this message from Bill W. himself....
"We have never called alcoholism a disease because, technically speaking, it is not a disease entity. For example, there is no such thing as heart disease. Instead there are many separate heart ailments, or combinations of them. It is something like that with alcoholism. Therefore we did not wish to get in wrong with the medical profession by pronouncing alcoholism a disease entity. Therefore we always called it an illness, or a maladya far safer term for us to use."
Still...you're right...it doesn't quite fit.
I live with relatives who suffer from bi-polar disorder...which I know is termed a "condition" and not a "disease".
I guess I was using "alcoholism" because of the way the clinical psychiatrist referred to bipolar. She said of bipolar that it wasn't a disease or an illness because can never be terminal, and doesn't lead to death in any way. Instead, she (a graduate PhD of Wazzu) referred to it as a "condition"...which is something that a person can learn to live a completely normal life while still suffering from the "condition". Based on that...the parallel to alcoholism *seemed* to fit. But it's obvious my conclusions were premature. I apologize.
-
You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?
I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.
Gender confusion? I've seen women who let their boys dress like girls, play with girls stuff etc... and vice versa, but somehow the child doesn't understand the difference between a girl and boy.
Yeah I get what are saying but it's totally upbringing style. Some children can be effected and some not. And I also see the parents you explain and their children. That's why we have effeminate boys and manly girls around us. The effeminate boys can be %100 straight, which I've already seen with my own eyes, one of my friend. But that could be against men and women inner nature. Read some articles about that and many of them define this psychological problem. I kind of agree, not everyone but probably many of them hate their bodies as being a man or woman. But I also have not any problem with their living. If they are happy, I'm happy.
-
You understand it's not a choice but you also say it can't procreate. And how can it be the result of upbringing? Considering many of us are from %100 straight parents, how can we be brought up like homosexuals?
I understand, from that view it can be seemed like it's a choice we can decide but it's not. Like, %100 straight family bring up us but suddenly we turn into a homosexual. Does it make a sense? I said it earlier, it can be seemed like a choice because thanks to some social effects we can realize that we are homo. It's like "you press the button of a machine and the system starts to work but what if you don't press". That's why some of us realize it so late. Even we are from %100 straight family, even we live %100 straight area and even we don't know nothing about same-sex orientation we can be homosexual.
Gender confusion? I've seen women who let their boys dress like girls, play with girls stuff etc... and vice versa, but somehow the child doesn't understand the difference between a girl and boy.
Yeah I get what are saying but it's totally upbringing style. Some children can be effected and some not. And I also see the parents you explain and their children. That's why we have effeminate boys and manly girls around us. The effeminate boys can be %100 straight, which I've already seen with my own eyes, one of my friend. But that could be against men and women inner nature. Read some articles about that and many of them define this psychological problem. I kind of agree, not everyone but probably many of them hate their bodies as being a man or woman. But I also have not any problem with their living. If they are happy, I'm happy.
True. Seems that we won't know anytime soon, so all we can do as humans is accept them and move on since they've been on this Earth for quite some time. Some Native tribes call them Two-spirits and are treated righteously as equals, even greater.
Also, could it be the devil has twisted the facts to say god said homosexuality is wrong?
-
From my view, I do not believe things like that. We write here explanation supported by science, at least what we know about this mater. The devil, God things are very personal and related personal beliefs. Some who are deist or atheist do not see this matter that way whereas believers do. So I can't say anything about your question as a deist.
-
I appreciate all the feedback guys. It's another 'Happy Circle Friday' in Script class today. We'll see if the topic is brought up again
-
One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6. He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed." It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them.
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife. If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.
I actually attended a panel of religious professors talking about sexuality about a week ago. One of them brought his bible, found that passage, and pointed out that those passages were likely mistranslated, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people, like pederasts, for instance. He also said that in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality.
-
One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6. He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed." It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them.
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife. If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.
I actually attended a panel of religious professors talking about sexuality about a week ago. One of them brought his bible, found that passage, and pointed out that those passages were likely mistranslated, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people, like pederasts, for instance. He also said that in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality.
Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, that argument is not really very sound. While one could perhaps make that argument taking I Cor 6 in complete isolation, passages like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 are pretty clear about the specific acts that are at issue. There really isn't much room for interpretation about what those passages mean.
The statement that "in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality" is also a bit misleading. The actions (i.e. homosexual sex) were most certainly discussed. What was not discussed is homosexuality as a "lifestyle", as it often is these days. So, yes, it was discussed. It was simply discussed differently.
-
One of the texts in new testament that speak of homosexuality is I Cor 6. He forms a list of sins that if one practices, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. He also mentions that "such were some of you, but you were washed." It is not sinful to have sexually immoral desires, it is sinful to act on them.
As a heterosexual man, I am tempted with thoughts of being unfaithful to my wife. If I were to practice this, it would be sinful and I would put my hope of eternal salvation at risk.
I actually attended a panel of religious professors talking about sexuality about a week ago. One of them brought his bible, found that passage, and pointed out that those passages were likely mistranslated, and that "sodomites" referred to more than just gay people, like pederasts, for instance. He also said that in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality.
Putting aside for a moment the issue of whether homosexuality is right or wrong, that argument is not really very sound. While one could perhaps make that argument taking I Cor 6 in complete isolation, passages like Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 are pretty clear about the specific acts that are at issue. There really isn't much room for interpretation about what those passages mean.
The statement that "in biblical times, no one even talked about homosexuality" is also a bit misleading. The actions (i.e. homosexual sex) were most certainly discussed. What was not discussed is homosexuality as a "lifestyle", as it often is these days. So, yes, it was discussed. It was simply discussed differently.
He said the same about the Romans passage as well, and I probably just paraphrased that last bit incorrectly. But if a guy who studies the bible and other religious texts, and all the issues surrounding that for a living says that there are probably translation and historical context issues, I'm likely to believe him.
And weren't Leviticus and all the old laws thrown out with Jesus anyway? Why does that matter? :P
-
And weren't Leviticus and all the old laws thrown out with Jesus anyway? Why does that matter? :P
No need for the " :P " smiley, because you make a perfectly legitimate point. You are absolutely correct. Christians should not take a position that something is wrong merely because there is an OT law against it, as that law was for the Jews and the Jews only. But where after Jesus, certain laws are repeated, we can draw upon their OT counterparts for context. To draw upon a crude analogy in law, the U.S. legal system is derived from the British common law system. Early in this nation's history, it was quite common to draw upon English cases for precedent. Sometimes, those cases were disregarded on the grounds that they are not binding upon the U.S. since we have our own legal system. But some of those cases were indeed followed, not because they were binding upon us in the U.S., but because we had enacted similar laws and were drawing upon precedential analysis of those laws that seemed applicable. Make sense?
-
I love that analogy, bosk, never thought of it from that angle :tup
-
Plus, Paul (I think it was Paul who wrote all the stuff about homosexuality in the NT) had some sort of weird vendetta against homosexuals. His issue=/=my issue.
-
Plus, Paul ... had some sort of weird vendetta against homosexuals. His issue=/=my issue.
??? No he didn't.
-
I knew I'd be mistaken. As a Christian, I can honestly say that reading my Bible is my absolute weakest point.
-
Well, it was Paul who had the most to say about it in the NT, but there is nothing to indicate he (or any other Bible writer) had a "vendetta against homosexuals." That view isn't really supported by what he wrote.
On a different but somewhat-related topic, I was taking my kids on a cub scout field trip yesterday, and we drove past a busy intersection that usually has those guys that dance around and twirl sings hawking something or other. You know the ones, right? Well, those guys weren't there. But there was a guy looking very angry and holding a large sign that said "God hates fags." I could only shake my head. Made me sad that someone could be so misguided in their faith and have nothing better to do that be blatantly insulting.
-
Plus, Paul ... had some sort of weird vendetta against homosexuals. His issue=/=my issue.
??? No he didn't.
I honestly think Paul's only "issue" with it was that Jews were against it, and he was a Jew.
*pure speculation on my part, yes I know*
-
I think it's fairly clear that Paul condemned all sorts of sexual misconduct, especially homosexuality.
-
I wouldn't put an "especially" in that description at all. He spoke out against adultery and fornication more than the couple of passages where he addresses homosexuality.
-
I wouldn't put an "especially" in that description at all. He spoke out against adultery and fornication more than the couple of passages where he addresses homosexuality.
I suppose so, but it could simply be that at the time that Paul wrote, homosexuality was explicitly recognized as a blatant example sexual misconduct and perhaps he saw no need to elaborate on subject that was, in his mind, fairly uniformly condemned by the majority of monotheistic peoples.
-
I think it's fairly clear that Paul condemned all sorts of sexual misconduct, especially homosexuality.
Paul "especially" spoke out against all kinds of sin. Paul speaks explicitly to homosexuality in the beginning of the letter to the Romans, but beyond that it appears in lists. Among the things Paul gets very riled up about are hypocrisies and meaningless divisions. See, his interactions with Peter recorded in the letter to the Galatians and his letters to the Corinthian church.
-
I wouldn't put an "especially" in that description at all. He spoke out against adultery and fornication more than the couple of passages where he addresses homosexuality.
I suppose so, but it could simply be that at the time that Paul wrote, homosexuality was explicitly recognized as a blatant example sexual misconduct and perhaps he saw no need to elaborate on subject that was, in his mind, fairly uniformly condemned by the majority of monotheistic peoples.
Keep in mind that in Corinth (who Paul was addressing in 1st Corinthians) there were many temples where priestesses engaged in prostitution with its members. For new converts to Christianity it could be difficult to leave that behind, hence why Paul addressed sexual immorality as a whole.
-
I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their loving commitment criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out marriages between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call marriage. For someone could always argue that even the loving commitment criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of same-sex marriage also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of marriage. Therefore, their position is incoherent.
Let me know what you think.
-
:corn
-
I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their loving commitment criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out marriages between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call marriage. For someone could always argue that even the loving commitment criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of same-sex marriage also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of marriage. Therefore, their position is incoherent.
Let me know what you think.
Strictly about the whole animal, corpse thing; marriage is usually defined as mutual love. There is no mutual love between humans and animals or humans and corpses. Regarding polygymy and incest, those are honestly amendments to the definition as opposed to aspects of the definition.
-
I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their loving commitment criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out marriages between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call marriage. For someone could always argue that even the loving commitment criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of same-sex marriage also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of marriage. Therefore, their position is incoherent.
Let me know what you think.
:lol Holy strawmen batman.
For one I don't really have a problem with polygamous and/or incestuous marriages. I mean, incestuous marriages can bring on issues of consent (depending on the relationship) and the health of any children involved, but in principle I see no reason to make it illegal. They're going to be banging anyways, marriage doesn't really change anything there.
Second, I don't give a shit if a guy wants to marry his dog (though animal cruelty could come into effect...), his dead girlfriend, or his car either, but that's besides the point. No one has said the sole criteria is that the people be in love, they've simply said that the criteria should be that they're consenting adults - note that in none of the other examples you gave were consenting adults involved. This objection is simply silly - legally speaking (which is really the only thing that's in quesion here), what would a marriage between a live person and a corpse even entail?
-
To play devil's advocate...
Who are we to say that an animal is incapable of "mutual love"? Can that be proven??
[flame suit on]
-
To play devil's advocate...
Who are we to say that an animal is incapable of "mutual love"? Can that be proven??
[flame suit on]
First off, the burden of proof is on the positive statement, not the negative. Second an animal cannot consent, that is proven by the fact that an animal cannot consent.
-
To play devil's advocate...
Who are we to say that an animal is incapable of "mutual love"? Can that be proven??
[flame suit on]
First off, the burden of proof is on the positive statement, not the negative. Second an animal cannot consent, that is proven by the fact that an animal cannot consent.
I actually agree... I just think that given enough time, lawyers can make *anything* ambiguous. You honestly mean to tell me you havn't heard of dumber things in the field of law?? And think of anything that humans thought was stupid 50 years ago that are commonplace now. I mean....just as a for instance. Try going back 50 years and telling someone that "in the future", we've discovered that a child not being able to sit still was called ADD and was treated as a medical condition. My intention is not to paint exact correlations...just general principals with a broad brush stroke. (like I said, I agree with you)
-
I'm not even sure what your point is. Have dumb things in the past happened in the field of the law? Well hell yea, that's what helps define humans, doing stupid things. Does this have anything to do with homosexual marriage? No.
-
Just that I agree that the thought of animal's being capable of "mutual love" being rather silly...but that never stopped anyone.
But your right...I'm probably getting too broad and slightly off topic. I just thought it was relevant.
-
Just that I agree that the thought of animal's being capable of "mutual love" being rather silly...but that never stopped anyone.
But your right...I'm probably getting too broad and slightly off topic. I just thought it was relevant.
I gotcha. Problem is animal/human marriage has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. The idea that it is in any way related or some how causal with some slippery slope argument is just silly.
-
Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago? *THAT* was my point.
EDIT: Honestly...I'm not *really* being terribly serious...but I also think that (as silly as my point is) that it does have *some* relevance.
-
Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?
Blacks and whites getting married. Good thing we didn't let THAT happen.
-
Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?
Blacks and whites getting married. Good thing we didn't let THAT happen.
There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white, or a rape.
-
Ya...but what was silly 50 years ago?
Blacks and whites getting married. Good thing we didn't let THAT happen.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. And again, let me underline that I AGREE WITH YOU. Somethings are relative to the time frame. At that time, alot of people thought that it was an abomination (something I disagree with)...now it's acceptable (something I do agree with)...but that doesn't mean that something I have a *different* opinion of couldn't be considered *just* as stupid now, and *just* as acceptable later.
The simple answer is that I'm getting metaphysical...to some lame degree....I guess....just to be some kind of comical version of annoying (bazinga)...but I might be missing the mark in typeface.
-
The fact is, there still has not been one argument against legalized gay marriage that isn't pure discrimination, religion driven, or not some slippery slope argument. There has still been no logical, lawful explanation to why in the United States of America, gays should not be able to marry each other. Just the simple fact that people have a problem with two humans who love each other and want to be married, is beyond me. Equal rights, for all men and women are created equal. No one's rights are taken away by gay marriage. Only if it is withheld are rights taken away.
-
Wow @omega's post. :lol
Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way. :P The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.
-
Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs and I'm not even saying that it's right. But once one has a portion of their needs in order, they start looking into other people's shit. It isn't right.
There is a Christian marriage, but marriage has been around before Jesus and in areas of the world that wouldn't hear about Jesus for many years. I personally feel that true love has the presence of God in it. But, I'm not going to say "You're not in love, you're gay. God wouldn't approve." Because I'm not going to judge people. It isn't my place - and chances are I'd be wrong.
-
Whether you judge people who are gay or not is your own prerogative. But we shouldn't be making laws that say gays can't marry just because of religion.
The other thing that I think is funny, is the people who say we should have laws based on Christian religion are typically very against other countries that have laws strictly because of the Islamic religion.
-
Wow @omega's post. :lol
Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way. :P The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.
When you have no argument (and he doesn't have an argument) then you just use provocative nonsense to distract. Note where the discussion went after those comments. Off topic. It's a classic tactic.
-
I've been thinking about this topic recently. Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards. But given the first premise, there is no way they can consistently rule out the legitimacy of polygamous marriages or incestuous marriages; and given their second premise, there is also no way they can insist in principle on their loving commitment criterion for marriage in a way that would rule out marriages between people and animals, living people and corpses, or indeed anything whatsoever that someone might want to call marriage. For someone could always argue that even the loving commitment criterion is as arbitrary and open to challenge as the heterosexual criterion is. Yet defenders of same-sex marriage also claim that they are opposed to these other purported forms of marriage. Therefore, their position is incoherent.
Let me know what you think.
Are you honestly drawing parallels between homosexual marriage and bestiality/necrophilia again?
-
The fact is, there still has not been one argument against legalized gay marriage that isn't pure discrimination, religion driven, or not some slippery slope argument. There has still been no logical, lawful explanation to why in the United States of America, gays should not be able to marry each other. Just the simple fact that people have a problem with two humans who love each other and want to be married, is beyond me. Equal rights, for all men and women are created equal. No one's rights are taken away by gay marriage. Only if it is withheld are rights taken away.
One of the biggest arguments I have is explaining it to children. A women I work with always says "I don't want to explain to my child that a man can love another man". It makes me sick. Maybe you shouldn't have raised them to think that love could only be between opposite sexes.
-
Yeah, I agree.
I do not think it is directly related to the topic but part of it tells us "we" spend our times to think people's choices, livings and problems and make them world's matter. But why? Personally I don't give a damn.
Let's live on, we already have our own problems.
-
Yeah, I agree.
I do not think it is directly related to the topic but part of it tells us "we" spend our times to think people's choices, livings and problems and make them world's matter. But why? Personally I don't give a damn.
Let's live on, we already have our own problems.
This idea is so simple, yet so true. It is actually an extremely strong point.
-
The fact is, there still has not been one argument against legalized gay marriage that isn't pure discrimination, religion driven, or not some slippery slope argument. There has still been no logical, lawful explanation to why in the United States of America, gays should not be able to marry each other. Just the simple fact that people have a problem with two humans who love each other and want to be married, is beyond me. Equal rights, for all men and women are created equal. No one's rights are taken away by gay marriage. Only if it is withheld are rights taken away.
One of the biggest arguments I have is explaining it to children. A women I work with always says "I don't want to explain to my child that a man can love another man". It makes me sick. Maybe you shouldn't have raised them to think that love could only be between opposite sexes.
Louis CK has a funny bit about this in one of his standup specials.
-
I am no more bothered by this than I am that it is lawful for a man and a woman to cohabitate outside of marriage.
I believe God's plan that he created the sexual relationship for husband and wife is crystal clear.
It disappoints me that our culture does not see this mandate and hence the sexual revolution.
But I do not count it my responsibility to seek to enforce laws against cohabitation (or homosexual marriage), but I do count it my responsibility to point people to the wisdom of God's law and to exhort those who claim to follow God's law but ignore it.
-
In that matter, blame mothers and fathers! They are the ones who keep having homosexual children. :biggrin:
-
In our 12th Grade Scripture class every Friday, we get the desks in a circle and write down questions and pass them in and they get randomly distributed among the students and they pose the question they received to another classmate
Yes, it is wrong. Homosexuality is a result of sin, so if a Christian doesn't take issue with it, then they are on the side of sin, so they are in the wrong.
WTF? Really - that's allowed in schools unchallenged? Fucking absurd.
Anyway, I'm a total atheist and bisexual (and I'm also a historian who's seen clearly how Christian attitudes and ideas have been shaped by man over the centuries), so it's pretty obvious what my stance is without even having to bother articulating it; I don't really feel any need to quote Biblical passages to prove what attitudes are the 'correct' one for a Christian to take as I don't think anyone should be forming their personal moral and value systems based on a really old fictional book written by humans*. I don't beleive in any sort of deity or spiritualism, good/evil, universal concepts of right/wrong, or the concept of afterlife or sin. I don't agree with gender binaries (gender's performative, sex is biological) or binaries of sexuality either (see the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale) - everyone's probably a bit gay), and I'd much rather people with a predilection for non-monogamy engaged in honest consensual polyamoury than lying and cheating. I much prefer the Kantian categorical imperative to Jesus' Golden Rule.
If people are gonna bandy around lines about 'gay genes' and 'choice' and 'sin' in relation to homosexuality, they're an intolerant fool in my eyes who deserves no respect from me. If people really loved Jesus and his teachings as much as they claim to, they'd recognise the hypocrisy of hating on their fellow man for reasons that the person probably spent years of their life trying to fight and not admit to anyone simply out of that fear of intolerant attitudes from other people. If people are happy and everyone has informed consent, then all is good.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/403113_381182261898924_182429061774246_1730916_537255977_n.jpg)
* (fair enough, some people are happy believing in stuff - including some of my very good friends - each to their own if it makes ya happy, just don't proselytise around me, and don't use scripture to justify being an asshole to people / bend passages to reinforce some shitty worldview and then expect me to accept it as a totally valid reason for having that worldview - if you want to be a nice, open-minded and tolerant person, then do that - in my mind you don't need faith to do that. If you want to be a cunt, then do that too - just don't try and convince me I can't protest against said cuntishness because a book says it's OK)
-
Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech. There is no reason to be so abrasive here.
-
Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech. There is no reason to be so abrasive here.
This. Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.
-
Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech. There is no reason to be so abrasive here.
This. Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.
That's not me being abrasive. That's just how I speak. All it basically says is "I'm atheist and think that people should be nice to each other whatever beliefs they have".
-
Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech. There is no reason to be so abrasive here.
This. Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.
That's not me being abrasive. That's just how I speak. All it basically says is "I'm atheist and think that people should be nice to each other whatever beliefs they have".
:lol It came off as much more abrasive in the first post than what you just said. I don't think either hef or I are saying you necessarily intended it to be that way, but please just try to be aware of how it came across, okay?
Oh, and welcome back. Where you been, man?
-
Rick, believe whatever you want, but tone down your attitude and speech. There is no reason to be so abrasive here.
This. Opposing views are not necessarily "hate," and do not need to be responded to in that kind of tone.
That's not me being abrasive. That's just how I speak. All it basically says is "I'm atheist and think that people should be nice to each other whatever beliefs they have".
:lol It came off as much more abrasive in the first post than what you just said. I don't think either hef or I are saying you necessarily intended it to be that way, but please just try to be aware of how it came across, okay?
Oh, and welcome back. Where you been, man?
I'm aware I do use fairly strong language - it's got me in trouble before with people who don't know me very well :p When ya get past the fact I litter things with beautifully British profanities and state things in a matter-of-fact way when in fact they're simply my opinions, and I think that as opinions they can be disagreed-with and challenged, because that's all in the nature of dialectical debate and ensures anything I say can be subject to Popper's Falsification ;)
Been lurking around, I just don't post much on forums any more as they tend to be time-consuming. My post in this thread was my 4th post here in 18 months, hah. Hello!
-
Whether you judge people who are gay or not is your own prerogative. But we shouldn't be making laws that say gays can't marry just because of religion.
The other thing that I think is funny, is the people who say we should have laws based on Christian religion are typically very against other countries that have laws strictly because of the Islamic religion.
My god, this. I would think that's hypocritical, you want people to believe your spiritual and good hearted yet shun almost everything other cultures/religions believe. Guess it is true the devil has manipulated the Bibles words.
-
Wow @omega's post. :lol
Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way. :P The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.
When you have no argument (and he doesn't have an argument) then you just use provocative nonsense to distract. Note where the discussion went after those comments. Off topic. It's a classic tactic.
If you had actually bothered to read what I posted, you would have noticed that it was, in fact, an argument.
-
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
-
Wow @omega's post. :lol
Why do we make ourselves give a damn other's life? But honestly, never saw it that way. :P The fact is one's problem becomes world's problem. But does it make a sense? No at all.
When you have no argument (and he doesn't have an argument) then you just use provocative nonsense to distract. Note where the discussion went after those comments. Off topic. It's a classic tactic.
If you had actually bothered to read what I posted, you would have noticed that it was, in fact, an argument.
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
-
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."
What part of this do you not agree with?
-
So after reading through this thread and the guy pride guy's thread that got locked I have to say that there's a few cats around here that should come clean with themselves before they end up a grown person married w/ a family and the next thing you know they're shooting their next door neighbor because they won't make out with them. Just sayin.
-
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."
What part of this do you not agree with?
It's already been said what the problem with that post is. If you want to have a discussion then reply to the points people posting in this thread actually make instead of the points you wish they were making.
-
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."
What part of this do you not agree with?
This isn't a definition of marriage, mainly because you can't quantify a "loving commitment".
A better definition of marriage is "a commitment between two consenting adults". Obviously, under this definition, if Bill and Melinda are able to get married, and Jim and Pam are able to get married, then Bill and Jim should be able to get married as well, because they're both consenting adults. Polygamy won't be a problem here because we restricted our definition to two consenting adults. Necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia won't ever be a problem because corpses, animals, and children cannot consent.
-
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."
What part of this do you not agree with?
This isn't a definition of marriage, mainly because you can't quantify a "loving commitment".
A better definition of marriage is "a commitment between two consenting adults". Obviously, under this definition, if Bill and Melinda are able to get married, and Jim and Pam are able to get married, then Bill and Jim should be able to get married as well, because they're both consenting adults. Polygamy won't be a problem here because we restricted our definition to two consenting adults. Necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia won't ever be a problem because corpses, animals, and children cannot consent.
But if marriage is (clearly among same-sex supporters) not grounded in the traditional, natural order of things and is merely conventional, then it would be just as arbitrary and open to challenge as heterosexual marriage. Any definition you would attribute to marriage would become merely subjective and arbitrary. So why disenfranchise polygamous couples? And even if that definition would be accepted, then there's no way you can rule out incestuous couples. And who says dead people can't consent? Let's say an individual in a necrophilic relationship signs a contract stating that she would consent to her partner necrophilin'g her body? And who says children can't consent? It's a simple "yes / no, I do / don't consent to having sex with / marrying you). The legal arguments don't concern me as much as the philosophical ones.
-
It was "an" argument, but not one that's relevant to the stances I remember anyone in this thread having. I can't think of anyone else who's posted on these forums who relies on strawmen quite as often as you do.
"Defenders of same-sex marriage claim that what really matters in a marriage is just that the partners are lovingly committed to one another. They also claim that marriage is conventional and not grounded in the natural order of things, so that it is up to us to decide what marriage is about in light of changing standards."
What part of this do you not agree with?
This isn't a definition of marriage, mainly because you can't quantify a "loving commitment".
A better definition of marriage is "a commitment between two consenting adults". Obviously, under this definition, if Bill and Melinda are able to get married, and Jim and Pam are able to get married, then Bill and Jim should be able to get married as well, because they're both consenting adults. Polygamy won't be a problem here because we restricted our definition to two consenting adults. Necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia won't ever be a problem because corpses, animals, and children cannot consent.
And who says dead people can't consent?
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.
-
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.
I lost you here.
-
I have a question for pro-gay marriage people. What do you think about any different parties becoming a civil union? Here's a few examples I have on my mind:
1. marriage between multiple parties (polygamy)
2. marriage between siblings
3. marriage between an individual and a corporation
4. marriage between a corporation and a corporation
-
1. No problem on my end. As long as it's consensual and all parties involved are aware, I'm fine with it.
2. Iffy about this. Science shows that it's not the best idea.
3. Wh...
4. ......at?
-
1. No problem on my end. As long as it's consensual and all parties involved are aware, I'm fine with it.
2. Iffy about this. Science shows that it's not the best idea.
3. Wh
4. at?
Agreed with all of this post 100%. (2) would be more acceptable if it was gay siblings, and then it would remove any risk of conceiving completely.
-
Should what's healthy dictate what's legal? That's a very slippery slope, Adami, if you think siblings shouldn't marry for this reason.
Corporations can be defined as persons and can therefore marry. There's a famous court case on this, I think, but I forgot it.
-
Should what's healthy dictate what's legal? That's a very slippery slope, Adami, if you think siblings shouldn't marry for this reason.
Corporations can be defined as persons and can therefore marry. There's a famous court case on this, I think, but I forgot it.
I won't make any comments on sibling marriage then. Obviously them having children can have some bad genetic problems, but beyond that I can't come up with a good argument against it.
As far as corporations go..............what? I honestly don't care anymore. Some of you guys are just blatantly against the idea for no real reason and are struggling to come up with ANY arguments you can possibly figure out in order to object to it. In this case the objection is there before any of the reasons to object.
-
As far as corporations go..............what? I honestly don't care anymore. Some of you guys are just blatantly against the idea for no real reason and are struggling to come up with ANY arguments you can possibly figure out in order to object to it. In this case the objection is there before any of the reasons to object.
??? I'm not objecting to gay marriage here. I'm asking a legitimate question. I think gay marriage and each of the four things I listed should be legal. I want to see what others think too.
-
As far as corporations go..............what? I honestly don't care anymore. Some of you guys are just blatantly against the idea for no real reason and are struggling to come up with ANY arguments you can possibly figure out in order to object to it. In this case the objection is there before any of the reasons to object.
??? I'm not objecting to gay marriage here. I'm asking a legitimate question. I think gay marriage and each of the four things I listed should be legal. I want to see what others think too.
Oh. My apologies......................cake?
-
The day that Pizza Hut and KFC get married
I better fuckin be there
-
WTF MAH BROTHA ARE YOU RAMBLING ABOOT
-
what the
-
Corporations can be defined as persons and can therefore marry. There's a famous court case on this, I think, but I forgot it.
Pretty sure legal statuses of corporations as 'persons' is just so they can be taxed/sued easier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Mock campaign: https://www.utne.com/Politics/Woman-Wants-to-Marry-a-Corporation.aspx
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
-
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.
I lost you here.
Yeah, you did. That's what I said.
-
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
I think it does. If the issue with gay marriage is that persons should have the right to marry whom they choose, then it follows that corporations also have the right to marry whom they choose.
-
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
I think it does. If the issue with gay marriage is that persons should have the right to marry whom they choose, then it follows that corporations also have the right to marry whom they choose.
As long as necrophilia, beastiality, pedophilia, or whatever is left out, I'm fine.
-
You lost me here. Stop comparing homosexuality to necrophilia and I'll write a response.
I lost you here.
Yeah, you did. That's what I said.
You lost me here.
-
This has nothing to do with gay coupling/marriage; it's just silly and adds nothing of substance to the debate.
I think it does. If the issue with gay marriage is that persons should have the right to marry whom they choose, then it follows that corporations also have the right to marry whom they choose.
A corporation is not a single entity capable of giving its own consent. You then go into the area that the person is married to all the individuals that make up the personnel structure of the corporation in question. Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision. Corporations = a collective of human beings.
If all stakeholders in a corporation vote that they agree to be part of a polyamorous marriage alongside all their colleagues and marry a person with the corporation acting as an umbrella term for all those people, and the spouses of those stakeholders are OK with that, then sure, go ahead. Just don't treat a corporation as a single entity that has sentience and consciousness; and therefore the ability to consent.
I can't beleive I just typed that.
-
Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision.
All that matters is what's legally defined as a person when it comes to the law.
-
Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision.
All that matters is what's legally defined as a person when it comes to the law.
It may be legally defined as a person, but it still has to consent. Find me a way to make the corporation consent, and I'm fine with it. Until then, I'm just considering it a tedious slippery-slope argument that only serves to detract from the crux of the debate.
-
Yes, by all means, people have a right to marry who the heck they want, but the person they're marrying has to consent too, and something that is only a 'person' on a legal technicality just to allow certain elements of the law apply to them with more efficiency, doesn't make the corporation a 'person' that can make such a decision.
All that matters is what's legally defined as a person when it comes to the law.
It may be legally defined as a person, but it still has to consent. Find me a way to make the corporation consent, and I'm fine with it. Until then, I'm just considering it a tedious slippery-slope argument that only serves to detract from the crux of the debate.
The shareholders don't need to be in unanimous agreement for the corporation person to make a decision.
-
Omega, maybe I jumped to conclusions about your response. I still think you are completely, unabashedly, unequivocally wrong, but I won't get hung up on a couple of your less well-constructed arguments and write a formal response to your last post.
A But if marriage is (clearly among same-sex supporters) not grounded in the traditional, natural order of things and is merely conventional, then it would be just as arbitrary and open to challenge as heterosexual marriage. Any definition you would attribute to marriage would become merely subjective and arbitrary. B So why disenfranchise polygamous couples? C And even if that definition would be accepted, then there's no way you can rule out incestuous couples. D And who says dead people can't consent? Let's say an individual in a necrophilic relationship signs a contract stating that she would consent to her partner necrophilin'g her body? E And who says children can't consent? It's a simple "yes / no, I do / don't consent to having sex with / marrying you). The legal arguments don't concern me as much as the philosophical ones.
A. If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the concept of same-sex marriage confuses our classical concept of marriage, ripping it from tradition and custom and making it arbitrary and meaningless. This would be a valid point if we did have a traditional and nonarbitrary concept of marriage, but we don't. Originally, marriage was a process by which the wife was given to the husband by the wife's father. With modernization, civil rights, and the like, this process became a little less misogynistic and awful, but marriage as a tradition has been in a constant state of flux for thousands of years. The way marriage is now is not traditional or significant in any way. People can make their marriages into whatever they want them to be. Married couples can be loving, exclusive, and pious, or they can be hate-filled, open, and atheistic. A heterosexual couple can make a marriage whatever they want; tradition and the church need not be involved. It is arbitrary. Marriage is not an ancient, holy rite. All it is is two people agreeing to get married and do whatever marriage means to them. Marriage is two consenting people agreeing to be wed.
B. What is a "polygamous couple"? Regardless, there is no reason to offer a group marriage. If we look at marriage as what it is, two people consenting to be wed, then group marriages are ruled out. Social norms and our current governmental infrastructure rely on marriages' being between two people as well.
C. I am not opposed to incest in principle. But if we have arbitrary restrictions in place in heterosexual marriage, why does the introduction of homosexuality remove these arbitrary restrictions? I'm sure whatever arguments there are against incest -- the genetic, for example -- still apply.
D. I don't know, basic logic and the definition of consent?
E. See above. Children are not capable of making decisions with such extreme consequences, and as such they cannot give consent. They have never been able to give consent. This is why underage heterosexual couples cannot marry.
Your argument is similar to one I've heard thousands of times by Rick Santorum et al.: marriage is an institution, and the introduction of homosexuality will cause a chain reaction that will allow people to marry dogs, children, corpses, and toasters. That's not the case whatsoever. Marriage is nothing. It is arbitrary. It is a piece of paper. Gay marriage only removes the arbitrary restriction that you can only consent to marry people with opposite genitals.
-
Just because a legal fiction of corporate personhood has been established over the years does not mean that corporations have every right individuals have.
-
Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.
-
I have a question for pro-gay marriage people. What do you think about any different parties becoming a civil union? Here's a few examples I have on my mind:
1. marriage between multiple parties (polygamy)
2. marriage between siblings
3. marriage between an individual and a corporation
4. marriage between a corporation and a corporation
1. Sure, why not.
2. Well, ignoring the fact that incest itself is illegal in some states even between consenting adults, I don't see why not. I mean, there are definite health ramifications for any offspring they may have, but you don't need to be married to have kids. There's also issues of consent when involving parental figures (and possibly even siblings), but in principle? Eh whatever. Go for it if that's their bag.
3. Legally speaking, what does the hell that mean?
4. Isn't that basically a merger? But if not, once again I have no idea what that actually means in legal terms, which is what's relevant here.
When it really comes down to it, the government simply should not be handling marriages at all. However, if it's going to, it should be inclusive, and as it stands there's a non-negligible segment of the population being excluded. You can say that people should also be able to marry their dogs or cars or dead friends or whatever if that's the case, and personally I don't really have a problem with that. But none of those 'marriages' have a legal similarity to the current form of marriage. A corpse can't visit it's spouse in the hospital and a dog can't be given custody of its (step)children if its spouse dies. Either expand the current legal definition to include those currently excluded, or if you want to expand it to corpses and corporations, get rid of it entirely and let people handle themselves.
If you want to argue on philosophical grounds like Omega, that's fine but you're going to have quite a lot of trouble considering the fact that there's no real objective basis for marriage. It's entirely a human construct and has meant vastly different things to different people at different points in time.
-
Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.
Incorrect. There are indeed several cases defining corporations as "persons"--for very limited purposes. There are also many other purposes and circumstances where the law is clear that they are not treated the same as "persons." The problem is that you are zeroing in on the word "person" and using that term differently than how the law uses it in those circumstances. A corporation is a legal entity with certain rights and obligations. In some areas, those rights and obligations overlap those imposed on individual human persons. In others, they do not and are quite different.
-
I say we end the discrimination against corporations and allow them to vote like everyone else.
-
If you want to argue on philosophical grounds like Omega, that's fine but you're going to have quite a lot of trouble considering the fact that there's no real objective basis for marriage. It's entirely a human construct and has meant vastly different things to different people at different points in time.
And so would then be completely arbitrary. To allow only some forms of "marriage" and not others if marriage is nothing but a meaningless, arbitrary human construct would be inconsistent.
-
If you want to argue on philosophical grounds like Omega, that's fine but you're going to have quite a lot of trouble considering the fact that there's no real objective basis for marriage. It's entirely a human construct and has meant vastly different things to different people at different points in time.
And so would then be completely arbitrary. To allow only some forms of "marriage" and not others if marriage is nothing but a meaningless, arbitrary human construct would be inconsistent.
Assuming you subrscribe to a black and what, all or nothing world view and actually define "subjective" to mean "meaningless, pointless, arbitrary and worthless"
-
Oh, look. Omega once again trying to argue that if something isn't 100% objective then that means it must be a complete free for all and the only stance that makes sense is to be ok with anything and everything. Because everyone knows that the definition of "subjective" is "complete acceptance if every possibility."
What a new turn of events.
-
Oh, look its an ehra. *snap*
-
So are you actually going to reply to the valid objection to the argument you're making for a change? Or keep dodging?
-
If his lack of a response to my gigantic post is any indication, he's going to keep dodging.
-
So are you actually going to reply to the valid objection to the argument you're making for a change? Or keep dodging?
Ehra, if a definition of something (morality, marriage, etc) is purely subjective, then such linguistic constructs lose all meaning because then any meaning that could be ascribed to them would be acceptable. Morality "for you" might mean this. Morality "for me" might mean this. Thus the word "morality" has lost all its meaning and is then, ultimately, subject to complete human subjectivity and is then meaningless and arbitrary. A true reflection of Thrasymachus you are.
-
And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.
-
It's "arbitrary" in the sense that there's no objectively right answer. You're trying to then extrapolate from there and say that, since there's no objective answer, everyone must be accepting of every possibility. That's not what the word subjective means.
Morality "for you" might mean this. Morality "for me" might mean this. Thus the word "morality" has lost all its meaning and is then, ultimately, subject to complete human subjectivity
Once again, your argument for why something can't be subjective is because that would mean it'd be subjective.
If anything that's subjective is meaningless and arbitrary then what on earth possessed you to sign up to a fansite dedicated to a band?
-
This is all quite beside the point. Omega's arguments are so needlessly philosophical and hypothetical that I don't even know what his stance on homosexuality is anymore.
-
And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.
Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct. In fact, any definition ascribed to it would not be either correct nor incorrect.
-
And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.
Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct. In fact, any definition ascribed to it would not be either correct nor incorrect.
It does, because we decided it was correct. Omega, you're just never going to understand this. I'll let the others repeat it for you 100 times.
-
Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct.
You mean a subjective view isn't objectively correct? No way!
I don't know if this is some crappy arguing technique you've come up with to annoy people into not arguing anymore so you can convince yourself you're right or you honestly don't understand what the word subjective means, but either way I think it's pretty clear you don't have any place making comments about other people's logic or argumentative skills in the future.
-
And yet language is doing very well. Language is subjective, completely made up. Yes it changes over time and different people have different languages, but languages only exist because GROUPS of people decide on it. It's subjective, but it's agreed upon by the people instituting it. Subjective doesn't mean meaningless.
Just because groups or majorities agree on a the definition of a purely subjective, arbitrary human construct doesn't mean that their subjective view on the meaning of a view is correct. In fact, any definition ascribed to it would not be either correct nor incorrect.
It does, because we decided it was correct. Omega, you're just never going to understand this. I'll let the others repeat it for you 100 times.
No, Adami, it doesn't.
Suppose two separate groups arrive at what they consider to be a "correct" definition of a word. Which group holds the correct definition? Group 1? Group 2? Neither? Both?
Asserting options 1-3 lead to an objective definition of a word, and so attempts to redefine it would be truly wrong.
Asserting option 4 leads to any such word as being completely arbitrary.
-
It's "arbitrary" in the sense that there's no objectively right answer. You're trying to then extrapolate from there and say that, since there's no objective answer, everyone must be accepting of every possibility. That's not what the word subjective means.
Morality "for you" might mean this. Morality "for me" might mean this. Thus the word "morality" has lost all its meaning and is then, ultimately, subject to complete human subjectivity
Once again, your argument for why something can't be subjective is because that would mean it'd be subjective.
If anything that's subjective is meaningless and arbitrary then what on earth possessed you to sign up to a fansite dedicated to a band?
Ehra, you're proving to be rather obstinate and I think this post illustrates your misunderstanding of the terms and implications of subjective, arbitrary and objective. I think it apt to follow Socrates' example and ignore you for the time being, Thrasymachus.
-
Fantastic argument backing up your previous claims. Bravo.
-
I like how Omega is so opposed to gay marriage that he is just running everyone through hoops to try to discredit gay marriage.
-
Omega: If gays are allowed to marry, then marriage becomes arbitrary and meaningless!
Everyone: But Omega, marriage is already arbitrary and meaningless.
Omega: YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ARBITRARY MEANS I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU
-
I like how Omega is so opposed to gay marriage that he is just running everyone through hoops to try to discredit gay marriage.
Yeah, I'm beginning to be omegafobic.
-
knock off the bashing!
NOW!
-
Omega: If gays are allowed to marry, then marriage becomes arbitrary and meaningless!
Everyone: But Omega, marriage is already arbitrary and meaningless.
Omega: YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ARBITRARY MEANS I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU
Haha.
Instead of me responding that, though, a more adequate response would be:
Omega: Ok, then if marriage is arbitrary and meaningless, then what's to stop me from defining marriage as anything I (or anyone) so desire? Would anything not be able to be defined as marriage? No. Animal-Human "marriage"? Sure. Incestuous "marriage"? Sure. Necrophilic "marriage"? Sure. If there ever was a way to defeat your own reasoning...
And the hostility. Quite telling. Indignation is the soul's defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause.
-
In case that warning was not clear, it is not only directed at Omega, but also at the rest of you who are attacking him. It needs to stop from both directions.
Omega, given that you pretty much just disregarded Yesh's warning, this is the last you will be warned before being shown the door.
-
Omega: If gays are allowed to marry, then marriage becomes arbitrary and meaningless!
Everyone: But Omega, marriage is already arbitrary and meaningless.
Omega: YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ARBITRARY MEANS I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU
Haha.
Instead of me responding that, though, a more adequate response would be:
Omega: Ok, then if marriage is arbitrary and meaningless, then what's to stop me from defining marriage as anything I (or anyone) so desire? Would anything not be able to be defined as marriage? No. Animal-Human "marriage"? Sure. Incestuous "marriage"? Sure. Necrophilic "marriage"? Sure. If there ever was a way to defeat your own reasoning...
Not really. Just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it can mean anything and everything. People see colors differently, for example. One man's blue may be another's purple. The disparity, however, doesn't mean we can define blue as "fish". Subjectivity doesn't mean that something is all things. People have been saying this to you for several pages.
You're still working off the assumption that marriage, as it is now, is significant and nonarbitrary in some way. I'm not going to write out my initial response again, because it's a page back and ready to be read, but just answer me: how could something nonarbitrary change as much as marriage has? If marriage is so embedded in the natural order of things as you claim, how could it be so different today than it was one, two, three thousand years ago? It becomes extremely obvious when looked through this lens that marriage is a purely social construct.
So, marriage is invented. Arbitrary. Marriage is just a formal commitment to one other person with some legal consequences. Marriage is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean marriage is anything. Animals, corpses, and children are still not involved because these are all things that cannot consent. This remains the same even if you allow homosexual marriage, because homosexuality does not negate consent.
-
Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.
Incorrect. There are indeed several cases defining corporations as "persons"--for very limited purposes. There are also many other purposes and circumstances where the law is clear that they are not treated the same as "persons." The problem is that you are zeroing in on the word "person" and using that term differently than how the law uses it in those circumstances. A corporation is a legal entity with certain rights and obligations. In some areas, those rights and obligations overlap those imposed on individual human persons. In others, they do not and are quite different.
Okay. Well, isn't that a bit inconsistent? If a corporation isn't a person in one scenario, it shouldn't a person in any scenario (and vice versa).
-
Legally they do, if they are legally defined as a person.
Incorrect. There are indeed several cases defining corporations as "persons"--for very limited purposes. There are also many other purposes and circumstances where the law is clear that they are not treated the same as "persons." The problem is that you are zeroing in on the word "person" and using that term differently than how the law uses it in those circumstances. A corporation is a legal entity with certain rights and obligations. In some areas, those rights and obligations overlap those imposed on individual human persons. In others, they do not and are quite different.
Okay. Well, isn't that a bit inconsistent? If a corporation isn't a person in one scenario, it shouldn't a person in any scenario (and vice versa).
It's not inconsistent, because a corporation is never simply defined as "a person". That's a pretty vast oversimplification of the American corporate system. As bosk said, corporations have the same rights and responsibilities as people in some select circumstances -- taxation, for example, or suing/being sued. The sentence "a corporation is a person" is a falsehood, and a pretty obvious one at that. It makes about as little sense as the sentence "Ms. Krueger then married the McDonald's Corporation".