| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
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. aw shit, I wish someone gave me a memo, I'm going to hell for sure, I've wasted at least 10x more sperm than your average 20 year old gay guy. | ||
|
Foblos
United States426 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:30 Jormundr wrote: 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. Again, read the spoiled quotes. In full. At the end of my first post I said "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." The people I was referring to there are what I would interpret as the "people are vehemently anti-gay," and I make no excuse for them. I'm also not intending to make a completely logical and reasonable case for the anti-gay side. I simply raised a few points of why someone who is reasonably well informed may object to the homosexual lifestyle. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote: 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. It's a private group which apparently receives government funding and/or benefits that other private groups do not receive. Do you not see a problem with that? | ||
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:28 Foblos wrote: Regarding the BSA, it doesn't matter if they have a logical position or not. It absolutely does matter whether or not they can logically defend their stance as not homophobic. I feel at this point you're just sidestepping into "it doesn't matter anyway" when you've run out of ground to retreat to. It might not matter in the sense that they cannot be legally compelled (in the US) to alter an openly homophobic policy but it absolutely matters for their public image and for people who may want to not be a part of a homophobic organisation. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:35 Foblos wrote: Again, read the spoiled quotes. In full. At the end of my first post I said "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." The people I was referring to there are what I would interpret as the "people are vehemently anti-gay," and I make no excuse for them. I'm also not intending to make a completely logical and reasonable case for the anti-gay side. I simply raised a few points of why someone who is reasonably well informed may object to the homosexual lifestyle. But your points were ignorant, poorly thought through and nonsensical. You have utterly failed to show why anyone not ignorant would be homophobic. If anything you've shown the opposite. If you're really trying to defend opposition to gays here then you are doing your side no credit. | ||
|
Foblos
United States426 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:36 KwarK wrote: It absolutely does matter whether or not they can logically defend their stance as not homophobic. I feel at this point you're just sidestepping into "it doesn't matter anyway" when you've run out of ground to retreat to. It might not matter in the sense that they cannot be legally compelled (in the US) to alter an openly homophobic policy but it absolutely matters for their public image and for people who may want to not be a part of a homophobic organisation. I don't intend to sidestep. My purpose was never to defend the BSA's position. Regarding their right to maintain a position which you may find morally wrong or logically lacking, I think Mecra wrote quite an eloquent post explaining it. On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: 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.  | ||
|
HumpingHydra
Canada97 Posts
On January 29 2013 12:04 Risen wrote: Can a man say no? Yes. Can an animal? End of discussion. Damn that was hard to think through, eh? Edit: don't know why I expect anything different from someone who in the same post says he follows higher power morals not realizing he's been taught all his morals by other humans and not God. Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it? I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify. I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44205 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:41 HumpingHydra wrote: Ok, I'll bite. Lets suppose a man has a dolphin or bonobo. Both of which have sex for purposes other than reproducing. Is it ok for the man to have sex with the bonobo or dolphin as long as he doesn't force it to have sex with him? What if he bribes the bonobo or dolphin with food, and they're ok with it? I know thats wierd (and its a decently stupid example, i think theres truth here), but I feel like there are so many situations that are hard to justify. I don't think athiests are fine with that, but I could be wrong. One thing I do appreciate about atheism is that usually the people are critical thinkers. If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Nobody needs to eat steak, they're just hedonists indulging urges. It's no different. Beastiality gets an all clear from me up until the animals themselves sign a petition against it which I'll expect right after the one banning abattoirs. | ||
|
FeelingTookish
United States16 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:23 Jormundr wrote: 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. I, believing in limited government, think that the government has no place throwing tax money at any social organization, regardless of purpose, regardless of their social and political values. In California, whites, and especially asians are empirically discriminated against in the public universities with respect to admission. This is also wrong. It seems we agree. | ||
|
mecra
United States83 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:45 KwarK wrote: If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Nobody needs to eat steak, they're just hedonists indulging urges. It's no different. Beastiality gets an all clear from me up until the animals themselves sign a petition against it which I'll expect right after the one banning abattoirs. This is a perfectly good example of one of my points. The world has the ability to define right and wrong simply by whim or until it becomes common practice. People might argue about torturing the animal vs just killing it, but again, how can anyone really argue either way without a moral base. Animals can't speak words, so unless we use their actions, there's no justification to claim what's happening is wrong. This is obviously where Christians grind against the world since a great deal of their morals come from religious texts and are thusly already defined. In 10-20 years, who knows what the world will say is right or wrong. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the nature of a system that self defines itself whenever it desires. So, as with homosexuality, what will be the item of moral debate in the next generation? | ||
|
StarMoon
Canada682 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:57 mecra wrote: This is a perfectly good example of one of my points. The world has the ability to define right and wrong simply by whim or until it becomes common practice. People might argue about torturing the animal vs just killing it, but again, how can anyone really argue either way without a moral base. Animals can't speak words, so unless we use their actions, there's no justification to claim what's happening is wrong. This is obviously where Christians grind against the world since a great deal of their morals come from religious texts and are thusly already defined. In 10-20 years, who knows what the world will say is right or wrong. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the nature of a system that self defines itself whenever it desires. So, as with homosexuality, what will be the item of moral debate in the next generation? This is largely the point I was trying to make, unfortunately it seemed to be largely ignored as well  .Morality is subject to the perspective of the majority. | ||
|
HumpingHydra
Canada97 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:57 mecra wrote: This is a perfectly good example of one of my points. The world has the ability to define right and wrong simply by whim or until it becomes common practice. People might argue about torturing the animal vs just killing it, but again, how can anyone really argue either way without a moral base. Animals can't speak words, so unless we use their actions, there's no justification to claim what's happening is wrong. This is obviously where Christians grind against the world since a great deal of their morals come from religious texts and are thusly already defined. In 10-20 years, who knows what the world will say is right or wrong. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just the nature of a system that self defines itself whenever it desires. So, as with homosexuality, what will be the item of moral debate in the next generation? You could understand his post? I couldn't sift through all the sarcasm... If it was sarcasm. Murdering animals? Who murders animals? The closest you can get to murder (that is acceptable in society) is hunting for sport, but thats for the challenge, the hunt, not the physical act of killing? Mind you, I may have missed KwarK's point entirely because Im tired/dumb/both. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:45 KwarK wrote: If you can murder an animal then you can rape an animal. Ugh why does this seem so logical and illogical at the same time? | ||
|
FeelingTookish
United States16 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:08 Jormundr wrote: 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! Really? You haven't figured out that women are better looking and men are stronger, that women are better at dealing with small children, and a man makes a better commando, sheriff, ditch-digger, etc? Is this too common-sensical for you or do you want me to dig up obscure statistics and lengthy historical arguments? If you can't accept this premise, then any argument we have will be rather low-level and semantic. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
 .But aside from that this recent discussion makes me wonder if there is any reasonable justification for...not liking homosexuals? Wanting to ban them from holding positions in your club? I guess that's what it comes down to. Well I think there may be in terms of natural, inborn aversions to certain types of people. Like, certain individuals may dislike talking to fat people, because all of that blubber makes them uncomfortable for whatever reason (lol) - maybe its just disgusting to them, and they don't want to look at all that flabbiness and observe the deterioration of any human body. Along the same vein, maybe its also reasonable for certain people to dislike gays, because their sexual preferences gives them a "freakish" nature that others may find disturbing. So then, is it okay to discriminate against someone, or deny them access to the higher levels of your club? Would it be "moral" to look down upon a beautiful person's club, which does not allow ugly people to join? I feel like that's what could be going on here. Its a club, that among other things, promotes "straight" sexuality and a certain way of life because they think that the homosexual way of life is somewhat perverse or disturbing, so they keep it out of the club. Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed by these sorts of things (if they indeed are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion. Not sure if this is necessarily the case. But anyway I somehow doubt that my hypothetical idea is very likely. But for the indoctrinated, I think there is something to be said about transitioning from bigoted religious belief to something inborn that can't be shaken. Then its not so easily defined. | ||
|
mecra
United States83 Posts
On January 29 2013 14:01 FeelingTookish wrote: Really? You haven't figured out that women are better looking and men are stronger, that women are better at dealing with small children, and a man makes a better commando, sheriff, ditch-digger, etc? Is this too common-sensical for you or do you want me to dig up obscure statistics and lengthy historical arguments? If you can't accept this premise, then any argument we have will be rather low-level and semantic. Mental differences even! Men and women are very different physically and mentally. If you take the evolutionary stance, there are even more differences that may have lessened over time. I, however, certainly have no desire to lactate! So evolution can leave the women with that.  | ||
|
Buff345
United States323 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:34 mecra wrote: 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. I think youre making some sweeping generalizations about christians that are not necessarily true. Homosexuality may be a sin, but so is flipping someone off when they cut into your lane on the highway. It's a sin to eat too much and to not study enough for your tests. The definition of sin wasnt layed out so we can tell eachother not to sin, its there so we can know that we are incapable of being perfect. Just because a christian doesnt care whether or not people are gay doesnt mean they are throwing the bible out the window. Theres a problem people have within themselves that permeates beyond their actions. If someone claims they dont have a problem then it isnt up to me to change their mind. If someone says they do have a problem, then me telling them that they need to stop sinning isnt going to help them at all. So in light of this, as a christian who believes he is holding to all of the bible, i have to disagree with you. If it claims to be a christian organization it shoudnt expel children who have "problems" it should try to help them actually take care of the real issue. And if the child doesnt think he has a problem, its kind of messed up for me to try and be the hand of god in convicting them | ||
|
mecra
United States83 Posts
On January 29 2013 14:03 radscorpion9 wrote: Is it morally wrong for people to be disturbed (if they are)? I feel like the assumption is that, its okay to criticize them (Boy scouts) because they just have some bigoted attitudes against gays that aren't founded on anything except baseless hatred - or similarly, based in the perceived fantasy that is religion. Again, if you keep discounting religion and falsifying it, you won't ever understand it. You say baseless hatred, I don't see hatred (you over-dramatized) but an adherence to their religion. If you negate that simply because you don't believe it, then it's quite easy for me to negate your view of homosexuality as being ok. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
