|
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 06:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:54 biology]major wrote:
That's fine with me, as long as it includes islam in some way It is a weird stance to take, because it oversimplifies everything. Islam is not some magical religion that makes people prone to committing violent acts. People used to say that about communism. And the concept of revolution after the French killed all the nobility. People could turn around to tomorrow and use science to justify brazen acts of terror. Are people going to start demanding we call them "rational terrorist"?
no in that case, we would call him a secular rational non islamic terrorist. JK, but what Obama did was weird, not tying the religion to ISIS. It is being tied together now publicly, first by Trump and now it will continue. Fareed Zakaria a leftist "non practicing muslim" said radical islamic terrorism, and even mentioned sunni terrorism. The tide is turning plansix.
|
On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:
Not always true. Look at Spain and Japan. They are legitimately struggling and will continue to suffer from low birth rates.
I take your point, fair enough. I still think they're going to be okay.
|
On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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? 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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved?
No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family.
|
On May 24 2017 07:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:58 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 biology]major wrote:
That's fine with me, as long as it includes islam in some way It is a weird stance to take, because it oversimplifies everything. Islam is not some magical religion that makes people prone to committing violent acts. People used to say that about communism. And the concept of revolution after the French killed all the nobility. People could turn around to tomorrow and use science to justify brazen acts of terror. Are people going to start demanding we call them "rational terrorist"? no in that case, we would call him a secular rational non islamic terrorist. JK, but what Obama did was weird, not tying the religion to ISIS. It is being tied together now publicly, first by Trump and now it will continue. Fareed Zakaria a leftist "non practicing muslim" said radical islamic terrorism, and even mentioned sunni terrorism. The tide is turning plansix.
Not at all. Muslims have been talking about combating terrorism and addressing it since 9/11 and before. They just do it in a language you don't read, so it doesn't happen. Obama refereed to them as ISIS and did not use the term radical Islam because the CIA and military experts said he shouldn't. They testified to that in congress when Ted Cruz was dumb enough to ask about it and they told him the exact same thing. That group has always been linked a version of Islam. You have this weird concept that the world is not talking about violence and terrorism in the Middle East because you don't see it and it isn't in terms you feel are acceptable. There is no tide. Nothing has changed beyond we have a deeply stupid president that doesn't listen to people who tell him how words translate into Arabic.
|
On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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? 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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family.
Yes, because there were no functioning societies before the Bible.
If I recall, cultures like Greece and Japan did just fine with a bit of open buggery.
|
On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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? 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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family.
Are you saying that should also be the expectation today? If I follow your reasoning, you are defining why homosexuality was previously defined as negative. Because the stakes were so high, society turned to gay dudes and said "just do it, I don't care if you hate it". Are the stakes less high today? Are the reasons homosexuality was defined as negative still true today? My impression is no. Well, there are legitimate benefits to having homosexuals procreate. But from my perspective, I would not ask a straight dude to bang another dude for the sake of population growth, if it worked that way. Similarly, I would permit a gay dude to run around being gay because the alternative feels cruel.
|
On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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? 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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? Also, congrats on 13337 posts! You are truly, particularly 1337. Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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? 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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. The negative impact was important at the time of the Bible cause you had to win against the Canaanites and the importance of every man was highlighted by the amount of people who died before they could be old enough to fight. It's not that important today, people survive a lot and we don't really need them that much. If it was important today, I don't think you could afford to lose all of those immigrants that you're sending back, I'm pretty sure that's more than 30k people lost. Not always true. Look at Spain and Japan. They are legitimately struggling and will continue to suffer from low birth rates.
And the low birth rates in Spain and Japan are due to gay people. Is that the argument you're trying to make?!
|
Really? Never mind that you are saying that the bible should be followed as a guide in the first place. Are you saying before the bible, there was no guide for a functioning society? . That is some seriously warped view of history you have there. There were things like Code of hammurabi, thousands of years before the bible was ever written.
I mean how does such an ignorant worldview come about? History didn't start in 1776, and USA is not the only society in the world. There was Sparta for instance, a gay warrior elite society which existed and dominated its region for more years than USa existed. Ok, so it was also a slave society, but USA was also a slave society and the bible doesn't seem to be against slavery either.
|
On May 24 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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? 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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family. Are you saying that should also be the expectation today? If I follow your reasoning, you are defining why homosexuality was previously defined as negative. Because the stakes were so high, society turned to gay dudes and said "just do it, I don't care if you hate it". Are the stakes less high today? Are the reasons homosexuality was defined as negative still true today? My impression is no. Well, there are legitimate benefits to having homosexuals procreate. But from my perspective, I would not ask a straight dude to bang another dude for the sake of population growth, if it worked that way. Similarly, I would permit a gay dude to run around being gay because the alternative feels cruel.
Your problem here is that you're too hung up on this homosexuality business. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm only pointing out why the Bible says what it does and describing its larger relevance in light of your comment that the Bible no longer has any relevance.
|
On May 24 2017 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Really? Never mind that you are saying that the bible should be followed as a guide in the first place. Are you saying before the bible, there was no guide for a functioning society? . That is some seriously warped view of history you have there. There were things like Code of hammurabi, thousands of years before the bible was ever written.
Or you could use common sense.
|
On May 24 2017 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Really? Never mind that you are saying that the bible should be followed as a guide in the first place. Are you saying before the bible, there was no guide for a functioning society? . That is some seriously warped view of history you have there. There were things like Code of hammurabi, thousands of years before the bible was ever written.
Pretty sure we wrote a bunch of stuff about civil duty after the Bible too.
On May 24 2017 07:13 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Really? Never mind that you are saying that the bible should be followed as a guide in the first place. Are you saying before the bible, there was no guide for a functioning society? . That is some seriously warped view of history you have there. There were things like Code of hammurabi, thousands of years before the bible was ever written. Or you could use common sense.
Evidences has shown that the modern civil society runs counter to common sense. It took a lot time to prove to people that chopping off peoples hands for stealing wasn't productive.
|
On May 24 2017 07:13 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Really? Never mind that you are saying that the bible should be followed as a guide in the first place. Are you saying before the bible, there was no guide for a functioning society? . That is some seriously warped view of history you have there. There were things like Code of hammurabi, thousands of years before the bible was ever written. Or you could use common sense.
I wouldn't say common sense is actually that common without the societal context.
Things like "eye for an eye", which are considered barbaric now, were quite a step up from the old alternatives.
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:10 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 07:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt 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:
[quote]
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. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved? No, sexual preference is not a choice, but that's not the point. The purpose of things like the Bible was to set out clear, bright line rules to guide a mass of idiots towards being a functioning society. Accordingly, the expectation was that the gay man would simply suck it up, marry a woman, and support his family. Are you saying that should also be the expectation today? If I follow your reasoning, you are defining why homosexuality was previously defined as negative. Because the stakes were so high, society turned to gay dudes and said "just do it, I don't care if you hate it". Are the stakes less high today? Are the reasons homosexuality was defined as negative still true today? My impression is no. Well, there are legitimate benefits to having homosexuals procreate. But from my perspective, I would not ask a straight dude to bang another dude for the sake of population growth, if it worked that way. Similarly, I would permit a gay dude to run around being gay because the alternative feels cruel. Your problem here is that you're too hung up on this homosexuality business. I'm not arguing for or against it. I'm only pointing out why the Bible says what it does and describing its larger relevance in light of your comment that the Bible no longer has any relevance.
I'm not saying the bible has no relevance. So long as people buy into it, it has relevance. What I am arguing in favor of is people examining the bible and accounting for things like you said. We should still totally not kill people, we shouldn't cheat on our wives, we shouldn't steal, but wait, this reproductive directive doesn't actually make sense anymore. We can probably ignore that and let gay people go about their merry business.
From there, I asked why homosexuality should still be viewed as a sin modern day. There was a lot better reason for homosexuality to be a sin when we needed to crank out babies. I am saying people should examine the reasoning for the label of sin, way back when, then look at current day and question whether it should still be considered a sin.
|
On May 24 2017 07:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 07:13 Incognoto wrote:On May 24 2017 07:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Really? Never mind that you are saying that the bible should be followed as a guide in the first place. Are you saying before the bible, there was no guide for a functioning society? . That is some seriously warped view of history you have there. There were things like Code of hammurabi, thousands of years before the bible was ever written. Or you could use common sense. I wouldn't say common sense is actually that common without the societal context. Things like "eye for an eye", which are considered barbaric now, were quite a step up from the old alternatives.
Yeah but that's what made us who we are. Not the Bible or something else.
People progressively decided that they weren't OK with capital punishment for petty theft, that gays should actually be able to marry, etc. They looked at gay marriage and realized "hey you know what I don't really care what gay people do after all, I should just let them do what they want".
Old regressive people are the ones whom are struck with a lack of common sense. They bring their religious ideals or their own views to a higher standard than the "live and let live" which is basically common sense 101.
|
On May 24 2017 07:03 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:58 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:54 biology]major wrote:
That's fine with me, as long as it includes islam in some way It is a weird stance to take, because it oversimplifies everything. Islam is not some magical religion that makes people prone to committing violent acts. People used to say that about communism. And the concept of revolution after the French killed all the nobility. People could turn around to tomorrow and use science to justify brazen acts of terror. Are people going to start demanding we call them "rational terrorist"? no in that case, we would call him a secular rational non islamic terrorist. JK, but what Obama did was weird, not tying the religion to ISIS. It is being tied together now publicly, first by Trump and now it will continue. Fareed Zakaria a leftist "non practicing muslim" said radical islamic terrorism, and even mentioned sunni terrorism. The tide is turning plansix.
Bruh, tell me what the first I in ISIS stands for.
|
Homosexuality does largely seem to be a spectrum of how willing you are to tend one way or the other. I don't doubt that having the stigma against it does much to promote that fabled "family unit" regardless of where you stand from a moral perspective.
That said, even in those family friendly times of old, there certainly was a nontrivial number of homosexual affairs that happened...
|
You know, you'll think a country that fought a civil war over the right to own slaves would understand that just because a significant amount of people believe something should be true, doesn't make it a moral right, nor as a basis for law. Personally gays make me feel uncomfortable, but I don't argue that there is some sort of inherent "civil virtue" in following the Bible or that being gay is not "responsible civic behaviour".
|
|
|
My guess is that he will join Donald's Trump team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
