EPT48 hours to stop Uganda's anti-gay bill - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
| ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On May 10 2011 12:20 Kuror wrote: Edit again: I did some researching and the website is for real and they do have an impact on voting. So don't worry, it's not a scam :D I signed it. But I'm curious in what way they have an actual impact? (Sorry if this was already explained somewhere). | ||
|
tryummm
774 Posts
On May 10 2011 12:28 Highlight wrote: is this serious? jeez death penalty? why aren't the major news networks covering this? Propagandizing terrorism (Which kills around 100 Americans in the United States per year) is a lot more important. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills?? I'm a conservative Christian and the bible is the Word of God. Yet I don't hate gays and not only that, but I love gay people. Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians (the Sons of God). Who am I to pass judgement and condemn another made in the image of God? I am no better as a fellow sinner. What about levitical law? I should be dead by now!!!! (remember the one about rebellious children? I should be stoned to death by now). But I'm still alive - WOW. Does that mean the bible is null? By no means! What then is the purpose of the law? It is to show us the ultimate consequence of sin and the holiness of God. It is our tutor and it teaches us what Sin is. So then - will a Man who sleeps with another Man die? Yes. God will judge him on the last day and he will be punished for his sin. Did God eat his words? No. Did he ask us to deal out justice? No - "for Vengeance is mine", says the LORD. Your arrogance is astounding. At what point did you believe yourself to be the highest authority of christianity? The truth is that with a club that has 1.5 billion members the rules vary all across the board. There isn't a minimal requirment to be called a christian other then to identify yourself as such. Christianity has plenty of anti-gay parts wich is exactly from wich certain christians derive their justification for oppressing homosexuals and even creating laws such as this. What is the purpose of this law? The law is exactly what it is. It is exactly as it is written down. It isn't designed to "show us the ultimate consequences" or whatever nonesense you fantasize about, it's a law designed to kill homosexuals. It's pretty 1:1. You proceed to once again ignore one half of the bible and embrace the other. You say that god will judge and humans should not. The problem here is that the bible delivers countless examples of where it very clearly wants you as a follower to judge. The bible swings between only god may judge and you should judge, it does so all the time. The bible contradicts itself wich is too be expected from a piece of literature written by hundreds over even more years. Christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine. This is how the world works. You may have some deluded view of how christianity is picture perfect and doesn't promote violence against anyone but the truth is that even sowing two different kinds of seeds next to each other warrants a stoning. It's deeply disturbing how people are actively trying to re-write not only reality but even their own faith in order to match it up with how they feel things should be. Christian doctrine is very anti-gay and the people in Uganda are largely motivated by their religion. Just because you have a different take on a book that provides a million different ways to read it, doesn't mean you are more or less right. Your reading of the bible is just as valid as the Uganda way of reading the bible. Both versions are present in this one heavily contradicting book. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 14:30 wwer wrote: Signing this petition amounts to nothing more than saying "I'm against this bill." If you can say that in public on TL, why can't you articulate this position in the public record? Some of the major arguments employed in support of this bill contradict all of the available evidence. This bill and the arguments supporting it represent a major entry in the public discourse on the issue of gay rights Failure to oppose this bill implies that those arguments are legitimate and fails to dispute the statements this bill makes. I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. You are entitled to your bigotry. On May 11 2011 13:16 dcemuser wrote: I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. How charitable of you. Money from private US interest groups and US aid helped the creation of this bill. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family_%28Christian_political_organization%29#The_Fellowship_and_Uganda) If this law passes US foreign aid money could then be used to enforce it. By failing to publicly oppose this bill, you give it tacit consent. [/quote] I can oppose it, but I shouldn't HAVE to go on record opposing it. I shouldn't have to be responsible for every bad thing I see that goes on the world. I don't know what your last point is about. Ok, so US private interest groups funded this bill? Private interest groups that I'm not a part of and don't support in any way, shape, or form? And don't tell me just because I'm a Christian automatically means what every other Christian in this world decides to do I have to magically support. Everyone sins. And yes, I am entitled to think homosexuality is wrong. Just as much as you are allowed to think it's okay. Nothing wrong with that. And good job breaking the quote, too many quotes in here to fix it :p | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:23 zalz wrote: Your arrogance is astounding. At what point did you believe yourself to be the highest authority of christianity? The truth is that with a club that has 1.5 billion members the rules vary all across the board. There isn't a minimal requirment to be called a christian other then to identify yourself as such. Christianity has plenty of anti-gay parts wich is exactly from wich certain christians derive their justification for oppressing homosexuals and even creating laws such as this. What is the purpose of this law? The law is exactly what it is. It is exactly as it is written down. It isn't designed to "show us the ultimate consequences" or whatever nonesense you fantasize about, it's a law designed to kill homosexuals. It's pretty 1:1. You proceed to once again ignore one half of the bible and embrace the other. You say that god will judge and humans should not. The problem here is that the bible delivers countless examples of where it very clearly wants you as a follower to judge. The bible swings between only god may judge and you should judge, it does so all the time. The bible contradicts itself wich is too be expected from a piece of literature written by hundreds over even more years. Christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine. This is how the world works. You may have some deluded view of how christianity is picture perfect and doesn't promote violence against anyone but the truth is that even sowing two different kinds of seeds next to each other warrants a stoning. It's deeply disturbing how people are actively trying to re-write not only reality but even their own faith in order to match it up with how they feel things should be. Christian doctrine is very anti-gay and the people in Uganda are largely motivated by their religion. Just because you have a different take on a book that provides a million different ways to read it, doesn't mean you are more or less right. Your reading of the bible is just as valid as the Uganda way of reading the bible. Both versions are present in this one heavily contradicting book. Lol so just because other people who call themselves Christians wrote this bill, it automatically makes every single Christian in the world responsible? Give me a break. Maybe I should redefine my religion to "Fascism" and start doing good things in the world to help Hitler's reputation. | ||
|
Sight-
184 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:23 Ftz wrote: The categorical imperative tests if making something universal creates a contradiction in the action not if making an action universal Homosexuality is consistent with the categorical imperative in an awkward heterosexual sex for procreation kind of way. EDIT: You're viewing it as an ends-based hypo-test. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On May 11 2011 15:51 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Can you give a reason as to why it is false? It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle. The same argument could be made about what would happen to society if everyone was male. However, that does not make it wrong to be male. Many traits that are okay as one variety of a diverse set would be detrimental/perilous to society if everyone adopted them. If everyone was an astronaut or lawyer, there would be a shortage of food. If a "small" number of people take these professions, that does not lead to a Malthusian catastrophe. One could even conclude from this logic that strict heterosexuality is bad. If everyone had sex with men and men only, there would be no reproduction (since no man would have sex with a woman). Same if everyone had sex with women and women only. By that criteria, bisexuality is the moral position. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:38 Signet wrote: The same argument could be made about what would happen to society if everyone was male. However, that does not make it wrong to be male. Many traits that are okay as one variety of a diverse set would be detrimental/perilous to society if everyone adopted them. If everyone was an astronaut or lawyer, there would be a shortage of food. If a "small" number of people take these professions, that does not lead to a Malthusian catastrophe. One could even conclude from this logic that strict heterosexuality is bad. If everyone had sex with men and men only, there would be no reproduction (since no man would have sex with a woman). Same if everyone had sex with women and women only. By that criteria, bisexuality is the moral position. I'm just going to say your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Look up the definition of "heterosexual" | ||
|
Sight-
184 Posts
Your arrogance is astounding. At what point did you believe yourself to be the highest authority of christianity?..... ...You proceed to once again ignore one half of the bible and embrace the other. You say that god will judge and humans should not. The problem here is that the bible delivers countless examples of where it very clearly wants you as a follower to judge. The bible swings between only god may judge and you should judge, it does so all the time. The bible contradicts itself wich is too be expected from a piece of literature written by hundreds over even more years... Christianity is responsible for this anti-gay bill. You need to understand that just because you are religious doesn't mean you get to re-write reality to fit your religion. The people of Uganda are deeply christian and a large portion (84%) of the population is christian. This homophobia is the result of christian doctrine.... It's deeply disturbing how people are actively trying to re-write not only reality but even their own faith in order to match it up with how they feel things should be. Christian doctrine is very anti-gay and the people in Uganda are largely motivated by their religion. So what? YOU get to decide with whom s/he gets to indentify? Why does s/he have to identify with anyone who declares themselves christian? | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:43 Uhh Negative wrote: I'm just going to say your last paragraph doesn't make sense. Look up the definition of "heterosexual" A heterosexual man would only have sex with women. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with women, then nobody would have sex with the men. Therefore this man (by this "if everyone did X" argument) should not have sex only with women. A heterosexual woman would only have sex with men. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with men, then nobody would have sex with the women. Therefore this woman should not have sex with only men. The fallacy is in judging a trait's goodness by imagining a hypothetical where every individual in the entire species takes the exact same action. I know what "heterosexual" means, don't assume that because you personally don't understand an argument that it can only be explained by the ignorance of others. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:04 Signet wrote: A heterosexual man would only have sex with women. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with women, then nobody would have sex with the men. Therefore this man (by this "if everyone did X" argument) should not have sex only with women. A heterosexual woman would only have sex with men. However, if everyone in the species only had sex with men, then nobody would have sex with the women. Therefore this woman should not have sex with only men. The fallacy is in judging a trait's goodness by imagining a hypothetical where every individual in the entire species takes the exact same action. I know what "heterosexual" means, don't assume that because you personally don't understand an argument that it can only be explained by the ignorance of others. Well I'm saying heterosexual means sex with a someone of the opposite sex. So if everyone did "X" with X being sex with someone from the opposite sex, it works. I'm just saying if that action is having sex with someone from the opposite sex, it works. If woman, have sex with man. If man, have sex with woman. Your thought is good you just didn't use the best example because you twisted the definition of heterosexual a little bit. It is true, that society needs heterosexuals to continue to exist in the future. It is not true, that society needs homosexuals to continue to exist in the future. That's all the guy was saying. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On May 11 2011 22:37 Sight- wrote: The categorical imperative tests if making something universal creates a contradiction in the action not if making an action universal EDIT: You're viewing it as an ends-based hypo-test. This use of Kant is so stupid and abusive it's actually laughable. I agree with you about Kant being a bit black and white, the problem here is that this is a completely tendentious use of the categorical imperative, to an extent where it doesn't make any sense anymore. With such reasoning you could very well say that Kant was immoral because he didn't have an active sexual life and that if everybody etc... Which, I hope everybody would agree with me, is silly. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
I think the fact that "heterosexual" has to be broken down to a different absolute standard for men (have sex with women) than for women (have sex with men) itself shows the fallacy of extending an individual's traits to the entire species. More generally, diversity of traits (and genes) is sometimes a better outcome for the species than having one single trait shared by all individuals. Regardless, I'm glad we agree that this is not a proper way to evaluate morals/goodness.  | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Lol so just because other people who call themselves Christians wrote this bill, it automatically makes every single Christian in the world responsible? Give me a break. Maybe I should redefine my religion to "Fascism" and start doing good things in the world to help Hitler's reputation I never said this. I never included all christians with the people in Uganda. He was trying to pretend that the people of Uganda were not christian. Big difference and a big lie. So what? YOU get to decide with whom s/he gets to indentify? Why does s/he have to identify with anyone who declares themselves christian? Identify? Who ever said anything about that. He can identify with whomever he likes. The point is that the people in Uganda are christians whilst he was trying to remove the blame of christianity by pretending that they aren't "real" christians. I never said all christians enage in the type of behavour we see from Uganda-chistians. If you want to criticque me it will have to be about what i said, not what you wished i said. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:21 Signet wrote: Yes I gave counterexamples showing "only having sex with men" is bad and "only having sex with women" is bad, to create an argument in favor of bisexuality over either an exclusive preference toward men or an exclusive preference toward women. I think the fact that "heterosexual" has to be broken down to a different absolute standard for men (have sex with women) than for women (have sex with men) itself shows the fallacy of extending an individual's traits to the entire species. Regardless, I'm glad we agree that this is not a proper way to evaluate morals/goodness. I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that genders should be evaluated separately or something? I just don't see what you're getting at really. It's not really a different standard for men and women. If you look at it from an outside all you see is pairs of men-women. On May 11 2011 23:22 zalz wrote: I never said this. I never included all christians with the people in Uganda. He was trying to pretend that the people of Uganda were not christian. Big difference and a big lie. Identify? Who ever said anything about that. He can identify with whomever he likes. The point is that the people in Uganda are christians whilst he was trying to remove the blame of christianity by pretending that they aren't "real" christians. I never said all christians enage in the type of behavour we see from Uganda-chistians. If you want to criticque me it will have to be about what i said, not what you wished i said. But see, by placing the blame on "Christianity" you seem to be implying that all Christians are responsible. That's the problem we have with that. | ||
Pholon
Netherlands6142 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:25 Uhh Negative wrote: I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that genders should be evaluated separately or something? I just don't see what you're getting at really. It's not really a different standard for men and women. If you look at it from an outside all you see is pairs of men-women. No I'm saying an individual's actions should be judged by their own effects alone. Trying to project them to 100% of the species is invalid. (see: If everybody was an astronaut) In fact I've seen a study (sorry this was a long time ago, I dont have a source readily available so take my memory with a grain of salt) where herds of sheep that had homosexual males among them had greater reproductive success overall than herds where all males were heterosexual. So despite the fact that a herd where all males were gay would not reproduce, the gay trait being present in some individuals was actually beneficial. | ||
|
Sight-
184 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:20 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh, I didn't finish one of my sentences. I meant to say it tests for an internal contradiction NOT that it tests for a bad scenario. So homsexual sex, if extended to everyone, doesn't contradict it's purpose, which is fun, expression of love, etc.This use of Kant is so stupid and abusive it's actually laughable. I agree with you about Kant being a bit black and white, the problem here is that this is a completely tendentious use of the categorical imperative, to an extent where it doesn't make any sense anymore. With such reasoning you could very well say that Kant was immoral because he didn't have an active sexual life and that if everybody etc... Which, I hope everybody would agree with me, is silly. If MAY create a bad scenario (humans dying off in a generation) but that is NOT what the CI tests for. That's a bad consequence, which is not what Kant cares about. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On May 11 2011 23:37 Signet wrote: No I'm saying an individual's actions should be judged by their own effects alone. Trying to project them to 100% of the species is invalid. (see: If everybody was an astronaut) In fact I've seen a study (sorry this was a long time ago, I dont have a source readily available so take my memory with a grain of salt) where herds of sheep that had homosexual males among them had greater reproductive success overall than herds where all males were heterosexual. So despite the fact that a herd where all males were gay would not reproduce, the gay trait being present in some individuals was actually beneficial. Oh okay I've got it. Makes sense now and I agree. Can't examine something in a vacuum. Everything has to examined in context and practicality. | ||
| ||
