|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 00:02 Simberto wrote:On May 24 2017 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" Well, there are some ethical concerns regarding peni that make sense. For example, if the person who the penis is supposed to go into does not what that penis in there. But in general, i agree with you. It is really weird. I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact. But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes. Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no. Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship? I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. Except Mohdoo was talking about people that concern themselves where other people's penis go. To the point there they try to pass laws allowing them to deny those people services or discriminate against them. Or attempt to gain exceptions from their public responsibilities as judges or civil servants. Those people want a goverment just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctors offices. Which is why I brought up the fact of marriage and who decides what it is. I didn't receive a response on that, so whatever.
The legal benefits and rights associated with marriage? The government decides that through laws. They always have. The same with adoption, which is the act of extinguishing the rights of the previous parents and granting them to the adopting parents. We have placed the burden of that task directly on the Judicial system.
|
On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 00:02 Simberto wrote:On May 24 2017 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" Well, there are some ethical concerns regarding peni that make sense. For example, if the person who the penis is supposed to go into does not what that penis in there. But in general, i agree with you. It is really weird. I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact. But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes. Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no. Show nested quote +Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship? I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion.
the no pigs restriction by some stems from pigs being dirty animals and by others due to pigs being carrier of diseases.
while this doesnt apply anymore, we all know how reluctantly people change. especially ancient rules.
|
On May 24 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 00:02 Simberto wrote:On May 24 2017 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" Well, there are some ethical concerns regarding peni that make sense. For example, if the person who the penis is supposed to go into does not what that penis in there. But in general, i agree with you. It is really weird. I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact. But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes. Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no. Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship? I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. Except Mohdoo was talking about people that concern themselves where other people's penis go. To the point there they try to pass laws allowing them to deny those people services or discriminate against them. Or attempt to gain exceptions from their public responsibilities as judges or civil servants. Those people want a goverment just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctors offices. Which is why I brought up the fact of marriage and who decides what it is. I didn't receive a response on that, so whatever. The legal benefits and rights associated with marriage? The government decides that through laws. They always have. The same with adoption, which is the act of extinguishing the rights of the previous parents and granting them to the adopting parents. We have placed the burden of that task directly on the Judicial system.
No, that's not why the topic was relevant. You can go up the quote chain and see and respond to it in context if you want.
|
On May 24 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 00:02 Simberto wrote:On May 24 2017 00:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" Well, there are some ethical concerns regarding peni that make sense. For example, if the person who the penis is supposed to go into does not what that penis in there. But in general, i agree with you. It is really weird. I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact. But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes. Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no. Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship? I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. Except Mohdoo was talking about people that concern themselves where other people's penis go. To the point there they try to pass laws allowing them to deny those people services or discriminate against them. Or attempt to gain exceptions from their public responsibilities as judges or civil servants. Those people want a goverment just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctors offices. Which is why I brought up the fact of marriage and who decides what it is. I didn't receive a response on that, so whatever. The legal benefits and rights associated with marriage? The government decides that through laws. They always have. The same with adoption, which is the act of extinguishing the rights of the previous parents and granting them to the adopting parents. We have placed the burden of that task directly on the Judicial system. No, that's not why the topic was relevant. You can go up the quote chain and see and respond to it in context if you want.
Danglars, for once in this thread could you use your words and explain yourself, rather than telling someone to figure out what the hell you are saying? Maybe I am deeply stupid, but I cannot figure out why marriage law wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion that started with a Judge asking to be removed from an adoption case.
|
People didn't eat pork because it caused (neuro)cysticercosis before the days of food hygiene (still a problem today). Guess people thought eating "dumb" animals made people dumb (seizures).
|
On May 24 2017 02:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 00:02 Simberto wrote:
[quote]
Well, there are some ethical concerns regarding peni that make sense. For example, if the person who the penis is supposed to go into does not what that penis in there.
But in general, i agree with you. It is really weird. I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact. But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes. Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no. Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship? I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. Except Mohdoo was talking about people that concern themselves where other people's penis go. To the point there they try to pass laws allowing them to deny those people services or discriminate against them. Or attempt to gain exceptions from their public responsibilities as judges or civil servants. Those people want a goverment just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctors offices. Which is why I brought up the fact of marriage and who decides what it is. I didn't receive a response on that, so whatever. The legal benefits and rights associated with marriage? The government decides that through laws. They always have. The same with adoption, which is the act of extinguishing the rights of the previous parents and granting them to the adopting parents. We have placed the burden of that task directly on the Judicial system. No, that's not why the topic was relevant. You can go up the quote chain and see and respond to it in context if you want. Danglars, for once in this thread could you use your words and explain yourself, rather than telling someone to figure out what the hell you are saying? Maybe I am deeply stupid, but I cannot figure out why marriage law wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion that started with a Judge asking to be removed from an adoption case.
I saw what Mohdoo wrote as an aside rather than relating to a Judge and adoption. At least, that's how I read "Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize." I'm glad you also have thoughts on marriage law. If you want to insert yourself in place of Mohdoo in a response I wrote to him and he did not address, show you understand why it was applicable in the first place ... neither of us having brought up adoption or legal benefits and rights after the fact.
|
On May 24 2017 03:01 riotjune wrote:
People didn't eat pork because it caused (neuro)cysticercosis before the days of food hygiene (still a problem today). Guess people thought eating "dumb" animals made people dumb (seizures).
Fun thing about this is, Pigs are really smart, smarter than Dogs by far and also hygienic.
|
On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion.
I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place.
What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."
There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought.
On May 24 2017 03:01 riotjune wrote:
People didn't eat pork because it caused (neuro)cysticercosis before the days of food hygiene (still a problem today). Guess people thought eating "dumb" animals made people dumb (seizures).
This relates to my point. People who don't eat pork for religious reasons are deeply deficient in my eyes. It as a practice does not have a modern justification. It has no moral justification (other than to protect the pig, but I am not including that under the assumption that such people eat other forms of meat) and it has no physical justification (assuming this person eats other meats with similar health effects), so it is just someone doing something for the sake of belief. Now, until such people try to prevent other people from eating pork, I don't really give a shit. If someone's religious beliefs compelled them to dump molasses over their head every night before bed, I wouldn't give a shit. I think its dumb and senseless, but it just doesn't matter. I'd say "lol, you're retarded, but you be you". Someone is clearly harming themselves, in my eyes, when they dump molasses over their head before bed. If nothing else, think of your damn pillow. But I would never try to stop someone from dumping molasses on their head.
|
On May 24 2017 03:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:56 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:47 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 02:33 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 02:11 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I mean, sure, but that's clearly not what I was referring to. I am saying it blows my mind that people see a difference between it going in a male or a female. The fact that people could believe "yeah, I can understand why god would want to prevent that" makes me lol The problem lies instead with what the state calls marriage and who defines the fact. But it was interesting to hear you presume no ethical concerns are raised with where a penis goes, then immediately remember you actually have a lot of ethical concerns about where a penis goes. Are you actually pretending I was being that vague? Or are you just being your typical quippy self? You really think I see no limitations about how people touch each other? You're only hurting yourself with silly nonsense like this. I get it, you thought you could make a point. But no. Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize: There are people who see ethical concerns regarding where a penis goes. Its such a ridiculous concept that sometimes I just have to take a moment and think "man, how fucking retarded" I get that you enjoy broad generalizations then retreating to a very narrow point. I don't see anything ridiculous at all. If we assume for a moment that a good chunk of humanity believes that they themselves do not hold sole responsibility for morals and ethics, it follows that a whole host of actions and interactions could be morally wrong as determined by a supernatural entity. Is it equally silly that some religions have diet restrictions? Or number and species involved in a sexual relationship? I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. Except Mohdoo was talking about people that concern themselves where other people's penis go. To the point there they try to pass laws allowing them to deny those people services or discriminate against them. Or attempt to gain exceptions from their public responsibilities as judges or civil servants. Those people want a goverment just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctors offices. Which is why I brought up the fact of marriage and who decides what it is. I didn't receive a response on that, so whatever. The legal benefits and rights associated with marriage? The government decides that through laws. They always have. The same with adoption, which is the act of extinguishing the rights of the previous parents and granting them to the adopting parents. We have placed the burden of that task directly on the Judicial system. No, that's not why the topic was relevant. You can go up the quote chain and see and respond to it in context if you want. Danglars, for once in this thread could you use your words and explain yourself, rather than telling someone to figure out what the hell you are saying? Maybe I am deeply stupid, but I cannot figure out why marriage law wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion that started with a Judge asking to be removed from an adoption case. I saw what Mohdoo wrote as an aside rather than relating to a Judge and adoption. At least, that's how I read "Sometimes its funny to stop for a moment and realize." I'm glad you also have thoughts on marriage law. If you want to insert yourself in place of Mohdoo in a response I wrote to him and he did not address, show you understand why it was applicable in the first place ... neither of us having brought up adoption or legal benefits and rights after the fact.
So what you are saying is your response to him is limited to things that have nothing to do with US politics, laws or how marriage functions in this country?
As I pointed out, Mohdoo comment was in reference to people claiming the ethical high ground while trying to marginalize homosexuals in this country. I really felt his intent was pretty clear given the context of the discussion on the page. But you see pretty set on taking it in this very new direction that seems to imply he is calling religions stupid.
|
On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought.
Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance.
|
On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance.
Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society?
|
Canada13401 Posts
On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society?
To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation.
|
Norway28747 Posts
Can you really name any ways contemporary society is hurt by homosexuals having consensual sex? Do you believe this, homosexuals having consensual sex on the same terms heterosexuals have consensual sex harms the 'civic virtue' within society itself?
|
On May 24 2017 03:47 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation.
Ok, so if i changed 100 (jesus christ you guys, why isn't it obvious when I am joking!?!?!?) to 3, I think my original post is well defended. Ignoring the horrors of sexual addiction, 2 dudes casually, without too much of a care whether they bang or not, since they are demonstrably not addicted to sex, decide to do some dirty (and by that I mean safe, consensual, intercourse, not sex in a dirty environment where contagions may be present), there are no negative impacts to society.
|
On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society?
Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society.
|
On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance.
I know I have already said that, but I still can't wrap my head around how this "US rightwing" works regarding internal consistency. You promote personal liberties, free market, small government and what not, but when it comes to people shagging, suddenly the "effect on society" comes first? C'mon, where is your obsession with freedom now?
|
Norway28747 Posts
Like, I can get that one would have the opinion that monogamy is better than polygamy. I can get that one can be opposed to gay adoption from a 'protect the children from inevitable bullying' perspective. But I don't really get any argument for why consensual homosexual monogamous sex is worse than consensual heterosexual monogamous sex. And then I don't understand any argument against homosexual marriage, because to me it sounds like that's the type of homosexual relationship the people opposed to homosexuals should favor.
|
On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society.
You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior?
Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything.
|
On May 24 2017 03:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Can you really name any ways contemporary society is hurt by homosexuals having consensual sex? Do you believe this, homosexuals having consensual sex on the same terms heterosexuals have consensual sex harms the 'civic virtue' within society itself?
To understand xDaunt you have to know that this is what his utopia looks like
It's basically some kind of 19th century Victorianism where masturbation summons the devil and gay people having fun threatens the nation
|
On May 24 2017 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:47 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation. Ok, so if i changed 100 (jesus christ you guys, why isn't it obvious when I am joking!?!?!?) to 3, I think my original post is well defended. Ignoring the horrors of sexual addiction, 2 dudes casually, without too much of a care whether they bang or not, since they are demonstrably not addicted to sex, decide to do some dirty (and by that I mean safe, consensual, intercourse, not sex in a dirty environment where contagions may be present), there are no negative impacts to society.
Sex addiction haha! It is not, and never was about logic, it is about feelings and culture, mixed with the drift to feel better than others, and oppress people through controlling their sexuality.
There are actually a number of sexual norms we take for gra ted today, which have been very different in the past, like:
-Young people are not ready to have sex, even though their bodies are capable of reproducing.
-Prostitution, and publicly talking about it.
-People of superior social status have rights to sex with servants of lower ones.
-Having multiple wives.
Having multiple concenting wives is not quite harmful to society either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
