|
Good news, BSA might be starting to slowly pull its head out of its ass!:
As early as next week, the Boy Scouts of America may announce it will allow gay Scouts and troop leaders, a spokesman for the group has told USA TODAY.
If this policy shift is approved by the national board meeting next week, it will be a sharp reversal of the Scouts' decades-old national policy banning homosexuals.
|
On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs.
Birth control is the hype word people use for estrogen tablets. A huge percentage of women use birth control to regulate their hormonal balance so they aren't monsters on their period. As to the number of people concerned with the propagation of the human race? Seriously, no, that's not an argument you can make and expect to be taken seriously.
Seven billion people stand silent. Waiting, motionless. The radio crackles for a moment. The television screens flicker.
Heads crowd closer on six different continents, bristling in anticipation.
ITTTTT'S THOMAS MALTHUS EVERYONE!!!
Seriously, nobody gives two shits about overpopulation (an issue which is one of humanity's greatest problems of the future). You're suggesting that people are concerned about underpopulation, even in light of humanity's growth rate. This is absurd. This does not give value to an intrinsic dislike of homosexuality.
|
United States43460 Posts
You missed the point. It's not about underpopulation, it's about giving every sperm a shot at becoming a person. God hates wasted sperm.
|
On January 29 2013 12:57 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:48 Jormundr wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children. I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
When and where were these gender roles traditional, and what were they?
What strengths are biologically given to men to make them more able to "bring-home-the-bacon"?
Enlighten me!
|
On January 29 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else.
Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
On January 29 2013 13:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Birth control is the hype word people use for estrogen tablets. A huge percentage of women use birth control to regulate their hormonal balance so they aren't monsters on their period. As to the number of people concerned with the propagation of the human race? Seriously, no, that's not an argument you can make and expect to be taken seriously. Seven billion people stand silent. Waiting, motionless. The radio crackles for a moment. The television screens flicker.
Heads crowd closer on six different continents, bristling in anticipation.
ITTTTT'S THOMAS MALTHUS EVERYONE!!!Seriously, nobody gives two shits about overpopulation (an issue which is one of humanity's greatest problems of the future). You're suggesting that people are concerned about underpopulation, even in light of humanity's growth rate. This is absurd. This does not give value to an intrinsic dislike of homosexuality.
Um...I'm not talking about overpopulation at all. I'm discussing whether or not it is permissible to exclude a homosexual from the BSA with Kwark. Please take the time to read the spoilered posts fully so that you know what you're responding to.
|
On January 29 2013 13:07 KwarK wrote:
You missed the point. It's not about underpopulation, it's about giving every sperm a shot at becoming a person. God hates wasted sperm.
Ok, so we've got 2 verses out of several thousand.
Christanity vs Homosexuality: The 0.1%
|
United States43460 Posts
On January 29 2013 12:57 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:48 Jormundr wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. One man, one woman, add misogyny. Got it. I mean, I don't hate christians. I don't actively condemn them as terrible people (because I stay away from them whenever I can). I just try to make sure that they can't get married or raise children. I'm not sure belief in traditional gender roles implies misogyny any more than it implies misandry. I think both sexes should be encouraged to use the strengths biologically given to them. And you brought up child-rearing, so I'll pitch this: It's hard to argue that one mother and one father is demonstrably the ideal situation for a child, however much you may cite the divorce rate, etc.
Traditional is used as a code word for "back how it was before they had rights". If society had previously been matriarchal then people harping on about traditional values would probably be misandrists and I'd feel quite threatened about them pining for the days when they didn't have jobs and men were expected to work long days to earn an income for the family unit. But it wasn't, it was a society in which education, employment and freedoms were severely limited to women who were socially condemned and ostracized for attempting to enjoy the freedoms men took for granted. So, yes, traditional gender roles are misogynistic. Now, if a woman wants that lifestyle she can choose it and that's absolutely fine but suggesting the enforcement of any kind of gender role is infringing upon freedoms and the specific roles implied by "traditional" is massively sexist.
|
On January 29 2013 13:11 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else. Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
|
On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways.
I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
|
Some perspective can be useful in these discussions.
Consider: Can you legislate morality?
In the past people have believed such, and have tried to do so.
I believe that the government and social institutions should reflect and support the morality of its common cultural voice. This does run into trouble with minority groups, and thus we have movements. Its a tricky issue, and currently a lot of the "cultural voice" of NA has been undergoing a shift in regards to homosexuality.
So, regarding homosexuality, people seem to have the stance these days that it is an assumed right (freedom of sexual relations?) for people to have homosexual relations, and liberals condemn those who resist this concept as being ignorant, hateful, bigots etc etc.
Pet Peeve rant:
+ Show Spoiler +Honestly calling someone a BIGOT because they disagree with your morality and world view is just as petty and useless as any other form of name-calling in an attempt to demonize someone with a different view then yourself.
Person A) "I believe X moral issue is true"
Person B) "I believe X moral issue is false"
Person A) "Person B is an ignorant, hateful asshole!"
Person B) "Productive..."
So, why should homosexuality be allowed, tolerated and embraced by society and individuals; and social organizations such as the Boy Scouts? Well, because it is becoming true that the majority of society feels that they should, but I would like to address the common rationale used by supporters of such a position.
The main point people seem to have regarding such is that of personal and sexual freedom, which is a viewpoint I can appreciate but one that does lead to the point: if you do not believe that sex between two (wo)men is deviant, why is sex with a chicken presuming it is safe? Or with a plant or something. If sexual interactions are considered actions devoid of morality, then by logic this separation of morality should be complete and freedom should be extended to all purposes that do not harm others or are inherently unsafe to society.
Of course some people will find it morally objectionable to have sex with plants, or dead people, and they will condemn those that do until their viewpoint becomes in the minority, and then the reverse will happen. The logical extreme and end result is that more things will be considered acceptable, people will have more individual freedom and society will continue to move away from what was once was considered "wholesome".
|
United States43460 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:11 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else. Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested.
You haven't demonstrated that. You have attempted to show that there are objections to homosexual behaviour that aren't just "because they're gay" but your objections do not appear to be consistent with the actions of anyone you suggested might hold them. Imagine if you said "their policy isn't specifically homophobic, they just banned everyone with brown eyes", you would have to show that A) they banned people who weren't gay who had brown eyes and B) they didn't ban people who were gay who didn't have brown eyes. Unfortunately their policy is specifically homophobic.
|
On January 29 2013 13:15 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:11 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else. Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested. Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against.
Please review the post that you just quoted, as I edited it to respond to your initial post against me, which I had not seen. Additionally, please reread the last sentence of the post that you just quoted. My purpose in this thread is NOT to write a peer-reviewed journal article that will display beyond all power of criticism why homosexuality is immoral, and why we should all take up weapons and burn them at the stake. My purpose IS to demonstrate that I can have informed reasons why I may or may not agree with the homosexual agenda, and that because I may disagree with those who do support it doesn't make me backwards or ignorant.
|
United States43460 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:17 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways. I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay.
|
On January 29 2013 13:04 kmillz wrote:Good news, BSA might be starting to slowly pull its head out of its ass!: Show nested quote +As early as next week, the Boy Scouts of America may announce it will allow gay Scouts and troop leaders, a spokesman for the group has told USA TODAY.
If this policy shift is approved by the national board meeting next week, it will be a sharp reversal of the Scouts' decades-old national policy banning homosexuals.
I expect the "This one time, at boy scouts", quotes to be popping through within a month.
|
On January 29 2013 13:17 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways. I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
I am personally fine with anyone who hates niggers. I just don't believe that our government or any commercial or non-profit entity within it should be allowed to discriminate against someone based upon some man-made classification. It seems a bit petty, to decide what a human being can and cannot do based on the color of their skin or who they legally fuck.
|
On January 29 2013 13:17 FeelingTookish wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways. I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant.
I guess i dont feel the same way. I can understand wanting friends who enjoy what i enjoy in order to have interactions based around those things, but i dont think everyone should play starcraft. If i couldnt find friends who played, then i wouldnt try to get people to. I would just find something that people do enjoy that i enjoy also. I actually think the majority of people(atleast on this site) cant relate to that feeling. Or maybe im an exception and everyone else is deceptive.
I could be way off the mark even about myself
|
On January 29 2013 13:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:11 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else. Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested. You haven't demonstrated that. You have attempted to show that there are objections to homosexual behaviour that aren't just "because they're gay" but your objections do not appear to be consistent with the actions of anyone you suggested might hold them. Imagine if you said "their policy isn't specifically homophobic, they just banned everyone with brown eyes", you would have to show that A) they banned people who weren't gay who had brown eyes and B) they didn't ban people who were gay who didn't have brown eyes. Unfortunately their policy is specifically homophobic.
I see. With my objections, I wasn't trying to defend the BSA. I was more or less defending the people who others in this thread have referred to as 'backward' simply because they disagree with the other people's stance. More specifically, I was attempting a rebuttle to the person I quoted in my OP who said the entire problem stemmed from ignorance.
Regarding the BSA, it doesn't matter if they have a logical position or not. The are a private group that does not have to allow everyone, and the people they do allow represent them. If they don't want gays to represent them, there is no reason why they should have to. We may disagree on whether or not that is 'right,' but it is a fact. In another situation, I wouldn't want a GMO company representing me as an organic growth advocate. They may not be pure evil, but their cause still does not line up with mine and they shouldn't represent me on account of that.
|
On January 29 2013 13:19 Foblos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:15 Jormundr wrote:On January 29 2013 13:11 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:50 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:35 KwarK wrote:On January 29 2013 12:30 Foblos wrote:On January 29 2013 12:25 Arghmyliver wrote:
It all just stems from ignorance. I think it's sad that people are so afraid of something they will go to any length to justify their hatred of it - even citing divine edict.
I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably.
: ( I don't think a low view of homosexuality is "ignorant." People who choose to withhold their support of it may acknowledge that it is uniquely abhorrent in the fact that it has no purpose in producing offspring, which is the biological and anatomical purpose of the sex organs, and as far as sex it only satisfies lust. People may also recognize that homosexuals (specifically men) have to undergo extreme rigor in the safety of their sex because they are more likely to produce stds. Some of those people happen to be Christians, yes, and the Bible does indeed cite two places where homosexuality is explicitly condemned, but in the New Testament it does not offer any leeway to hate. I can't speak for other religions. Then, of course there are just hateful bigots and you may be more correct in stating that they are ignorant. Nevertheless, just because someone does not support all the values that you may or may not believe in does not make them ignorant. For these arguments to be consistent then they must also be applied to infertile people or people who use birth control. It would be very hard to make a case that a group was homophobic if they denied access to anyone who engaged in non procreative sex. But when you say it's about procreation but only pick the subgroup of people having non procreative sex who are gays to discriminate against then it's clear that it's actually another criteria being used. Well, I'm only speaking about homosexuals here, and was giving informed evidence of why people don't like it to illustrate that it isn't solely ignorant people who don't support homosexuality. Regarding the infertile people, that doesn't really apply here because it isn't by choice. The example of people on birth control is a better parallel and we could debate on the morality of whether or not men with girlfriends on birth control should be allowed into the BSA (when I was in it I believe we were expected to not be having sex unless we were married...to a female), but there are also other reasons why a woman might take birth control other than just because she is sexually active. I'm not 100% sure what it is, but I have a friend who is frequently sick and the medicine she is on for her illness is something like $500 before insurance and even after insurance it is cheaper for her to pay for birth control out of pocket and the birth control apparently works at least as well for her as the prescription drugs. Are there any cases of anyone being kicked out of the BSA for having protected sex (condom, blow job, hand job) with their girlfriend? Because if not then the "non procreative sex is lustful and immoral" argument would seem to only apply to gays. This is the problem with these arguments. Gays are, in pretty much every respect, much like everyone else. Firstly, I didn't argue that non-protected sex is lust. I said that it seems to me that the only purpose of homosexual sex is to gratify the sexual desires found in everyone: i.e. lust. That said, I'm not a BSA historian so I don't know for a fact, but I would venture to guess that there have been people kicked out for all of the reasons you listed. Essentially though, what it comes down to with the BSA is that they have a right to make their own rules, and whatever logic or rhetoric you use to convince them that their arguments are fallible (if they even argue from a logical perspective) won't matter. They are legally entitled to their beliefs, as are you, and that is that. My only purpose in posting on this thread was to demonstrate that not everyone who opposes the homosexual movement/agenda or whathaveyou are ignorant or backwards as some in this thread have suggested. Good, then explain a logical position that denounces homosexuality. You haven't done that yet. We're in no danger of species extinction through underpopulation, so your former position doesn't hold any weight. Furthermore, your position is driven more ludicrous because the looming threat on the horizon is OVERPOPULATION, something homosexuality has a positive effect against. Please review the post that you just quoted, as I edited it to respond to your initial post against me, which I had not seen. Additionally, please reread the last sentence of the post that you just quoted. My purpose in this thread is NOT to write a peer-reviewed journal article that will display beyond all power of criticism why homosexuality is immoral, and why we should all take up weapons and burn them at the stake. My purpose IS to demonstrate that I can have informed reasons why I may or may not agree with the homosexual agenda, and that because I may disagree with those who do support it doesn't make me backwards or ignorant.
THEN DO THAT! Make a logical, reasonable case for people are vehemently anti-gay! You're the only one in your way, so get to it!. You made a claim. Your claim was that people are against gay people because they can't reproduce.
First off, this is false. A gay man can have his sperm implanted in a surrogate mother. A lesbian woman can have her sperm fertilized externally by a third party and implanted in herself or a surrogate. Second of all, this argument does not reflect the sincere viewpoint of even 1% of the group you are trying to defend. This might be because of the above two points which make this argument kind of pointless.
|
On January 29 2013 13:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 13:17 FeelingTookish wrote:On January 29 2013 12:52 Buff345 wrote:On January 29 2013 12:42 FeelingTookish wrote:
I think it's a bit dehumanizing to wildly paint people who discourage the homosexual lifestyle (majority of the world, all of history I'm pretty sure) as "bigots", "ignorant", people who somehow "fear" homosexuals, and especially "hateful". These just aren't accurate. The vast majority of people don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuals as terrible people. They simply believe in the man-and-wife, white picket fence, bring-home-the-bacon kind of lifestyle and I don't think that's to be frowned upon. The problem for me personally though is I have no idea why someone would think its better to be straight or to be gay. Like, how could someone think that one way of life is superior for someone else. I can understand if they are looking at their situation and are like, yo it would be way easier this way. But if the person with the controversial life enjoys living his life that way, then why would anyone else care? I think thats how it is for most people. Unfortunately, i think people are assuming that the only way for someone to think someone else should live their life differently is because of religion. I dont know if thats true or not, but i know that not all religious people tell others to live their lives certain ways. I personally think it is better to be a heterosexual. I totally recommend it. I think it's great and the best way to live. I also like 80's rock music, dubstep, and computer programming. I naturally want people to enjoy what I enjoy and dislike what I dislike. I discourage people from listening to the Beatles and driving a Prius. I encourage people to admire a Firebird Trans Am. I don't feel ashamed of this. I don't feel like a hateful person. Everyone thinks their own way of life is superior. Think of it like that when you see a white Christian man who'd rather not have homosexuals teaching his children that the way of life they've known is oppressive and backwards and ignorant. Homosexuals aren't trying to convert you to gay.
So I'm on some conversion spree now? Just because I voted for defining marriage as between a man and a woman doesn't mean that I have any interest in converting people. I'm incredibly tolerant, but very seldom accepting. I'll tolerate just about anything, and not make a big deal about it, but I'm only going to endorse things I actually do myself, else be labeled a hypocrite. There is a big difference between tolerance and advancement of someone else's cause. I have no obligation to advance the widespread acceptance of a minority viewpoint.
|
Wow, all the Christian hate. Plus the whole argument that Christians are wrong to dislike homosexuals goes against the religion's beliefs.
Here's the deal, to Christians, including myself, homosexuality is sin. Plainly and simply stated in the Bible. If we are to believe the Bible, then we are to subscribe to that notion. If we are to be Christians, we subscribe to said book. Now, other concepts are also in there that I agree a lot of Christians don't adhere to very well. For example, loving thy neighbor, regardless if they are homosexuals, atheists, or the like is a pillar of the faith. So, while Christians view homosexuals as sinners, there is no clause in there to state that they should hate them or such. In this, a lot of Christians are found wanting, I won't disagree with that.
I strongly dislike it when people basically want to throw out the Bible for its stance on things but yet want to still be true Christians. It really doesn't work like that. You may still believe in God, but once you start purposefully dissecting the book into things you agree with and don't, you've effectively created your own religion with the sole purpose to console yourself. Religion isn't something you get to specifically create with any hopes of it being true. (oh the flood of posts on this one point, of which I won't address here.) A great number of Christians believe the religion to be very true, and thus the Bible its guidance. To claim the Bible is wrong, that the Christian should just sit in their house to pray and stay hidden, is the very essence of proclaiming them and their religion as nothing but paper and folded hands. You are stating that Christians are wrong in the same way they proclaim homosexuality wrong. Both sides negate, one based on a religion, and the other based on ideal.
You don't get to tell one group to go hide, but then declare others get full reign to do whatever they want. You stomp on the rights of the one group, in favor of the other. You stomp on the rights of Christians to want their world to be somewhat in alignment with their beliefs. What if society decided that pedophilia wasn't so bad and that the age of consent was 10? I'll tell you one thing, Christians won't like that at all. Other people, however, may see it as a logical extension of being and thus want equal rights. Religion gives a rock to stand on to base one's beliefs. When there is no rock, you can simply adopt any belief and claim its truth and justification. Society does the rest to implant it, which of course doesn't actually mean it's true. Just that it's commonly accepted. (At least until scientifically proven.)
Anyway, I'm just posting some thoughts on religion. One poster above said, "I hope one day we can learn to live more tolerably." Believe me when I say that Christians wish the same thing. Lately it's fun to poke fun at an entire religion because of a small number of people. I don't know any of the types of Christians that would cause the world to rage at us, so I get highly annoyed when those people are used as prime examples of why a religion fails. We have simply way too many people in the world, and as a result, you are going to get bad apples in every walk of life.
So, to finalize, the Boy Scouts are a Christian organization. To Christians who read their Bible, homosexuals pose a conundrum. If it's the BSA's line to not allow homosexuality (changing it seems), atheists, or agnostics, that is their right. Now it may cost them money, support, etc, but it is ultimately their right to be able to stand for their beliefs. It's easy to stand for your beliefs when they are all encompassing and they go with the general populace. It's generally not so easy when religious. So, I applaud them for standing their ground. If they feel that they need to change, that is also their right.
edit - I apologize for the size of the post. Just had a lot to say I guess. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
35293
3399
939
EPT
