|
On November 24 2012 18:15 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 17:29 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 17:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 24 2012 16:43 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 16:37 Ghostcom wrote:On November 24 2012 16:32 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 16:25 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 16:23 Praetorial wrote:On November 24 2012 16:22 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 16:13 Glurkenspurk wrote:
[quote]
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend. A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here. So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue. If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such. I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them. How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"? people like me? More so to point out that I am not homophobic, a lot of arguments revolving around this topic is you're just homophobic get over it. You almost certainly are. The vast majority of arguments, such as the against nature one you used, are things that the anti-gay individual does not ideologically subscribe to, rather they make an exception just for opposing homosexuality. When you take one stance on a single issue and then a completely contradictory stance on the same situation regarding every other issue you encounter then you're simply engaging in a hypocritical doublethink to allow you to rationalise your irrational bias against that issue. In this case your argument that it is against nature is contradicted by your lifestyle unless you add the addendum "it's only wrong to go against nature if the way you go against nature is being gay" at which point it's all pretty transparent. Sorry but you are homophobic. I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness. Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias. Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2539990/pdf/bmj00433-0060d.pdf Regardless of whether they're in the ICD-10 and DSM-4 (which are both up for revision by the way), is no clear basis on the subject of whether it's a phobia or not. I can give you countless literature that show the definition of phobia in the DSM is the exact same as what has been ascribed to homophobes. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-13252-001http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v15n01_06http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/0002-9432.73.2.167/abstractWhile I agree that the term homophobia is thrown around too soon, to say it doesn't exist is another matter entirely. P.S. How do you know what is included in the DSM-5 or not? I think you should go back and reread what I initially wrote, because it seems quite clear that you did not understand that my opposition to the word was with its usage in this thread, these kinds of discussions and in the general society. Because it seems necessary, let me reiterate: At no point did I claim the concept of homophobia does not exist - I claimed that people have been and are using it wrongly and as such it has lost its original meaning and become a stupid term which should be abandoned all together, especially as it in its current use alludes to an underlying disease of some sorts on the basis of people disagreeing with you. Also, let me recommend to you to actually read the articles you reference because they do not talk about homophobia in the way you want to portray its existence (or if they do I am unsure why in the world you would ever debate my initial statement): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02 <--- Describes homophobia as the phenomenon of internalizing societies pressure to not be gay - which is very different from being used to describe a person opposed to gay rights.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/0002-9432.73.2.167/abstract <---- The very first line of the abstract says that "Racism, sexism, and homophobia do not fit into any current diagnostic category." P.S.: I thought it was common knowledge amongst anyone with a smidgen of interest or knowledge of psychopathology that the proposed revisions of DSM-V are published regularly?
On November 24 2012 16:37 Ghostcom wrote:
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies.
Oh, are you certain you did not imply it didn't exist? If you did not imply such, you definately weren't coherent in explaining that position.
First of all, I provided the links to show professionals in the sector use homophobia as a valid term describing certain dispositions that are alike of descriptions of phobia used in DSM. I did not provide it to somehow disprove an argument you misconstrued earlier, resulting in my misunderstanding of your opinion on the subject.
As to the first link, isn't a person opposed to gay rights in a way of speaking internalizing societies pressure to not be gay? He expresses his opinion that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, thus condoning and actively arguing for the internalization of societies pressure.
Second link, I suppose you should read the entire article, or maybe the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the excerpt?
I'm starting to wonder if you yourself have actually read it, or just the excerpt.
P.S. Yes, to which I again ask you, how do you know? Since it's not released yet and still under revision despite whatever proposals they've so far released.
|
On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 16:28 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 16:22 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 16:13 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 16:10 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 15:49 Smat wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 13:47 whatevername wrote:On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that. Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers. If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom. Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it. Why? Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend. A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here. So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue. If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such. I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them. Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing. This going against nature thing is absurd. You don't have laser eyes and yet you eat your meat cooked. You don't have fur and yet you wear clothes. It's the kind of nonsensical doublethink that people bring out whenever they want something to bash the gays with and then put it back before they ever take a look at the implications of it. If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Show nested quote +Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
It is. In no way have I been refering to civilized living. There's so much more that has been vital to the survival of our species that's hardwired into our being than simply reproduce. I'm not sure where you're going with whether the 'gay gene' worked well or not due to eventual emergence of castrating men and such... I hope you do realize that it may have been effective in the beginning stages of our species and is pretty much useless now, as many things we are born with are nowadays.
|
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
|
On November 24 2012 18:39 Shival wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 18:15 Ghostcom wrote:On November 24 2012 17:29 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 17:02 Ghostcom wrote:On November 24 2012 16:43 Shival wrote:On November 24 2012 16:37 Ghostcom wrote:On November 24 2012 16:32 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 16:25 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 16:23 Praetorial wrote:On November 24 2012 16:22 HTOMario wrote:
[quote]
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"? people like me? More so to point out that I am not homophobic, a lot of arguments revolving around this topic is you're just homophobic get over it. You almost certainly are. The vast majority of arguments, such as the against nature one you used, are things that the anti-gay individual does not ideologically subscribe to, rather they make an exception just for opposing homosexuality. When you take one stance on a single issue and then a completely contradictory stance on the same situation regarding every other issue you encounter then you're simply engaging in a hypocritical doublethink to allow you to rationalise your irrational bias against that issue. In this case your argument that it is against nature is contradicted by your lifestyle unless you add the addendum "it's only wrong to go against nature if the way you go against nature is being gay" at which point it's all pretty transparent. Sorry but you are homophobic. I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness. Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias. Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2539990/pdf/bmj00433-0060d.pdf Regardless of whether they're in the ICD-10 and DSM-4 (which are both up for revision by the way), is no clear basis on the subject of whether it's a phobia or not. I can give you countless literature that show the definition of phobia in the DSM is the exact same as what has been ascribed to homophobes. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-13252-001http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J082v15n01_06http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/0002-9432.73.2.167/abstractWhile I agree that the term homophobia is thrown around too soon, to say it doesn't exist is another matter entirely. P.S. How do you know what is included in the DSM-5 or not? I think you should go back and reread what I initially wrote, because it seems quite clear that you did not understand that my opposition to the word was with its usage in this thread, these kinds of discussions and in the general society. Because it seems necessary, let me reiterate: At no point did I claim the concept of homophobia does not exist - I claimed that people have been and are using it wrongly and as such it has lost its original meaning and become a stupid term which should be abandoned all together, especially as it in its current use alludes to an underlying disease of some sorts on the basis of people disagreeing with you. Also, let me recommend to you to actually read the articles you reference because they do not talk about homophobia in the way you want to portray its existence (or if they do I am unsure why in the world you would ever debate my initial statement): http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02 <--- Describes homophobia as the phenomenon of internalizing societies pressure to not be gay - which is very different from being used to describe a person opposed to gay rights.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1037/0002-9432.73.2.167/abstract <---- The very first line of the abstract says that "Racism, sexism, and homophobia do not fit into any current diagnostic category." P.S.: I thought it was common knowledge amongst anyone with a smidgen of interest or knowledge of psychopathology that the proposed revisions of DSM-V are published regularly? Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 16:37 Ghostcom wrote:
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. Oh, are you certain you did not imply it didn't exist? If you did not imply such, you definately weren't coherent in explaining that position. First of all, I provided the links to show professionals in the sector use homophobia as a valid term describing certain dispositions that are alike of descriptions of phobia used in DSM. I did not provide it to somehow disprove an argument you misconstrued earlier, resulting in my misunderstanding of your opinion on the subject. As to the first link, isn't a person opposed to gay rights in a way of speaking internalizing societies pressure to not be gay? He expresses his opinion that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, thus condoning and actively arguing for the internalization of societies pressure. Second link, I suppose you should read the entire article, or maybe the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the excerpt? I'm starting to wonder if you yourself have actually read it, or just the excerpt. P.S. Yes, to which I again ask you, how do you know? Since it's not released yet and still under revision despite whatever proposals they've so far released.
Are you being obtuse for the purpose of it now? When I wrote the snippet about it not being phobia it was quite obviously in the sense it was being used in the thread so far. I even linked you to an editorial discussion in which it was explained in detail why the usage in this conjunction does not make any sense when you challenged me. I fail to see how the obvious conclusion then is to jump to arguing that we should continue to use the word wrongly because it is being used to describe a completely different phenomenon by a few health professionals (a phenomenon which is not a phobia in itself either).
The second article exactly argued that it was not a phobia in the traditional sense, but should rather be treated as a disorder of its own (a hostile personality), once again supporting my initial statement and the editorial article I linked, that being opposed to gay rights is not a phobia and thus "homophobia" is a wrong term to apply. I have yet to see a single of the articles you linked provided backup for you claim that it is in fact a phobia in accordance to the DSM-4 guidelines, meaning that it is (very condensed) an irrational fear (and an irrational belief is not a fear) of which the sufferer is itself aware of the irrationality of.
P.S.: Have you read any of the proposals they have released? None of them have mentioned homophobia, nor has it been mentioned in any of the suggested new diagnosis. The deadline is in may 2013. I think it is pretty obvious that a wording of "nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5" is appropriate. Also, why are we even discussing this if you do not think it important what is included in DSM and ICD (which coincidently is what the majority of the medical society agrees upon should be considered diseases/disorders) but will rather list independent articles as proof for the reasoning behind calling this a phobia?
EDIT: I honestly do not see where we are heading with this discussion and doubt it will have any meaningful conclusion, so I will go to bed, it is after all 2 am here in the states. Goodnight.
|
United States41962 Posts
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
|
On November 24 2012 18:34 Ghostcom wrote:
You are effectively arguing that people should not be allowed to have certain thoughts and that is not only hypocritical when you at the same time argue people should practice whatever sexuality they have, but also the start of a slippery slope towards an Orwellian society with its thought-police.
What I am essentially getting at is that if you want to argue freedom for all to practice what they believe in, you have to tolerate those who disagree with you and just be happy that they are a rapidly (although still too slowly) declining part of the population.
I am tolerating those who disagree with me, and I certainly don't advocate for a totalitarian society.
It's quite simple really, Everyone has the right to free speech. And I have the right to free speech too, which I happen to be using to call them out on their bullshit.
|
On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
What about the freedom of eating POO POO
|
On November 24 2012 14:22 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:16 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ. This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?) "Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group.
Well nowadays maybe. But in Europe and elsewhere, it would be definitely a departure from the past. And we'll see what that means for the traditional family (or maybe mean nothing) and other cultural results. As for it not changing anything or infringe on anything, it does change plenty. I don't think dismissing the changes does any good for gay marriage proponents. Kids learn earlier that Katy has two dads or Mike has 2 moms and a dad (let's say gay adoption). Who's to say some kid given up for adoption with two parents that are straight will grow up just fine with gay parents? And please, don't generalize this to just some other minority group. We didn't enslave the gays for many years and make them run plantations. We've never deprived them of voting rights. We've never prevented them from marrying (haha, lighten up a little, gay men and women are able to marry the opposite sex still). Marriage has been around for millenia and changing it substantially is something to talk about separate from the ability to marry someone of different race, economic class, or country.
|
You know, balls to the majority of you self-entitled, self-satisfied, first world privileged types. I honestly expected less of an intellectual wank. Take this from someone who is 'African' whatever the **** that means - when shit goes down in Africa, shit goes down. They published names of the 'leading gays' in a Ugandan newspaper a few months back - some of them were subsequently murdered, and their deaths went unremarked. Do any of you have the balls to say you are OK with that?! It is going to get shit loads worse, and no-one is even going to notice. TIA - This Is Africa. We have more murders per day in South Africa then most of you assholes have per annum, YOU CAN BE UPSET ABOUT THIS. Drop your f*cking philosophy major act and start GIVING A SHIT. I have a family of frigging Zimbabwean refugees living in my back yard, 6 of them sharing one loo, living from hand to mouth because its BETTER than where they came from.
If you honestly don't care about it, don't waste your time writing a Wikipedia referenced post on f*cking Teamliquid. This isn't about the many intricate, legal details you would like to hash out, this is about normal, good people being cut down where they stand for no reason at all.
Over it.
P.S. an update on the Avaaz site says the death penalty clause may have been removed, though jail sentences are still in.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_gay_death_law/?tKrSSbb
|
On November 24 2012 20:40 EvilLiBraRian wrote:You know, balls to the majority of you self-entitled, self-satisfied, first world privileged types. I honestly expected less of an intellectual wank. Take this from someone who is 'African' whatever the **** that means - when shit goes down in Africa, shit goes down. They published names of the 'leading gays' in a Ugandan newspaper a few months back - some of them were subsequently murdered, and their deaths went unremarked. Do any of you have the balls to say you are OK with that?! It is going to get shit loads worse, and no-one is even going to notice. TIA - This Is Africa. We have more murders per day in South Africa then most of you assholes have per annum, YOU CAN BE UPSET ABOUT THIS. Drop your f*cking philosophy major act and start GIVING A SHIT. I have a family of frigging Zimbabwean refugees living in my back yard, 6 of them sharing one loo, living from hand to mouth because its BETTER than where they came from. If you honestly don't care about it, don't waste your time writing a Wikipedia referenced post on f*cking Teamliquid. This isn't about the many intricate, legal details you would like to hash out, this is about normal, good people being cut down where they stand for no reason at all. Over it. P.S. an update on the Avaaz site says the death penalty clause may have been removed, though jail sentences are still in. http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_gay_death_law/?tKrSSbb
You act like we don't have our own problems that we have to deal with. How about the people of Africa deal with their own problems? While authoritarianism is lamentable anywhere, it is always on the march everywhere. In other words, it is up to the people in their own lands to fix the problems of their own lands. I fight for my own liberties - I don't have the time to fight for everyone else in the world - nor would I want to. It is enough a burden as is to beat back the psychopaths in my own area.
Never mind the fact that advocating foreign adventurism in the name of humanitarianism produces authoritarianism in the home country. I don't want a standing army - regardless of the reason.
|
On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you
Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved.
You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion.
What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion.
Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
|
United States41962 Posts
On November 24 2012 19:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:22 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 14:16 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ. This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?) "Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group. Kids learn earlier that Katy has two dads or Mike has 2 moms and a dad (let's say gay adoption). Who's to say some kid given up for adoption with two parents that are straight will grow up just fine with gay parents?
A) Science is to say. The research as to whether homosexual parents make a difference is back, they don't. It's all very well to engage in this rhetoric about "maybe it's bad, we just don't know" but it's complete bullshit, it's just that you don't know.
B) Who is to say they won't grow up just fine? If you want to deny shit to people while having it yourself then you need to make an active case for it, saying "who is to say" is not a good argument for denying shit.
C) If you're denying people children based on random "who is to say" rhetoric then who is to say that two men or two women is worse than one man or one woman. It's bizarre that you would go after homosexual couples before single parents.
D) Who is to say a bunch of other factors don't also mess up children. Highlighting homosexual parents and saying that it is the one criteria in which you intervene is absurd, children generally end up with some kind of issue whatever their parents are. You for example probably had heterosexual parents but you've ended up hating gays, who's to say that would have happened to you with homosexual parents.
|
United States41962 Posts
On November 24 2012 21:20 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved. You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion. Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral.
|
On November 24 2012 20:58 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 20:40 EvilLiBraRian wrote:You know, balls to the majority of you self-entitled, self-satisfied, first world privileged types. I honestly expected less of an intellectual wank. Take this from someone who is 'African' whatever the **** that means - when shit goes down in Africa, shit goes down. They published names of the 'leading gays' in a Ugandan newspaper a few months back - some of them were subsequently murdered, and their deaths went unremarked. Do any of you have the balls to say you are OK with that?! It is going to get shit loads worse, and no-one is even going to notice. TIA - This Is Africa. We have more murders per day in South Africa then most of you assholes have per annum, YOU CAN BE UPSET ABOUT THIS. Drop your f*cking philosophy major act and start GIVING A SHIT. I have a family of frigging Zimbabwean refugees living in my back yard, 6 of them sharing one loo, living from hand to mouth because its BETTER than where they came from. If you honestly don't care about it, don't waste your time writing a Wikipedia referenced post on f*cking Teamliquid. This isn't about the many intricate, legal details you would like to hash out, this is about normal, good people being cut down where they stand for no reason at all. Over it. P.S. an update on the Avaaz site says the death penalty clause may have been removed, though jail sentences are still in. http://www.avaaz.org/en/uganda_stop_gay_death_law/?tKrSSbb You act like we don't have our own problems that we have to deal with. How about the people of Africa deal with their own problems? While authoritarianism is lamentable anywhere, it is always on the march everywhere. In other words, it is up to the people in their own lands to fix the problems of their own lands. I fight for my own liberties - I don't have the time to fight for everyone else in the world - nor would I want to. It is enough a burden as is to beat back the psychopaths in my own area. Never mind the fact that advocating foreign adventurism in the name of humanitarianism produces authoritarianism in the home country. I don't want a standing army - regardless of the reason.
You're doing it again. If you don't care, don't post. If you have an issue in your country that you would like to make me aware of, let me know. If I think it's relevant, I'll do what I can. This is because I value human life wherever it exists, as tough and unrealistic as that can be at time.
|
On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder.By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Show nested quote +Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc.
Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!".
Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you.
And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes".
But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
|
On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 16:28 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 16:22 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 16:13 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 16:10 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 15:49 Smat wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 13:47 whatevername wrote:On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that. Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers. If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom. Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it. Why? Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend. A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here. So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue. If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such. I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them. Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing. This going against nature thing is absurd. You don't have laser eyes and yet you eat your meat cooked. You don't have fur and yet you wear clothes. It's the kind of nonsensical doublethink that people bring out whenever they want something to bash the gays with and then put it back before they ever take a look at the implications of it. If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that. Show nested quote +Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong. It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Your inference is wrong. Just because someone cannot have offspring does not mean (biologically) that it is a disorder. Or are you going to claim that worker bees also have disorder ? SO it might be disorder, but you have absolutely no evidence that it is. And if it is, there is absolutely no reason to persecute them as unlike some other sexual behaviours like pedophilia (that also should be prosecuted only for actual act not preemptively) there is no harm done.
|
On November 24 2012 19:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:22 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 14:16 Danglars wrote:On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote:
To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others
-That a definition is more important that the happiness of others
-That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote
-That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ. This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?) "Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group. Well nowadays maybe. But in Europe and elsewhere, it would be definitely a departure from the past. And we'll see what that means for the traditional family (or maybe mean nothing) and other cultural results. As for it not changing anything or infringe on anything, it does change plenty. I don't think dismissing the changes does any good for gay marriage proponents. Kids learn earlier that Katy has two dads or Mike has 2 moms and a dad (let's say gay adoption). Who's to say some kid given up for adoption with two parents that are straight will grow up just fine with gay parents? And please, don't generalize this to just some other minority group. We didn't enslave the gays for many years and make them run plantations. We've never deprived them of voting rights. We've never prevented them from marrying (haha, lighten up a little, gay men and women are able to marry the opposite sex still). Marriage has been around for millenia and changing it substantially is something to talk about separate from the ability to marry someone of different race, economic class, or country.
In Europe nobody really cares except few catholic countries.
|
On November 24 2012 16:22 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 16:13 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 16:10 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 15:49 Smat wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 HTOMario wrote:On November 24 2012 13:47 whatevername wrote:On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote:
So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western. The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that. Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers. If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom. Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it. Why? Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend. A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here. Homosexual animals exist, therefore I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that because our goal is to procreate, homosexuality by definition is a choice? That's wrong because of the aforementioned animals. And not only that, even if every man and woman on earth were homosexual, we could still reproduce. Also, what about asexual people, are they chosing to be asexual as well?
If people can be born mentally impaired, without arms, without eyes, without hearing, with autism, with dislexia, then why can't they be born a woman in a man's body, or a man being sexually attracted to other men?
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue. It's not a choice. Why in god's name do people think its a choice. That gay kid that got bullied so hard he did suicide? Did he choose that? Dear lord, what a load of rubbish.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such. What do you mean by treated? Treated as in trying to cure it or treated as in how we as people treat them? In the first case, why fix something that does no harm and the people who 'have it' don't even want to be fixed. If you meant the second, do you also advocate that we should treat people with only one arm differently? Or deaf people? Blind people? Are they lesser human beings because they're different?
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them. So, for no other reasons than your own misguided thoughts you would vote against something other people enjoy, even if the thing they enjoy does not affect you in the slightest, nor does it harm anyone?
|
On November 24 2012 12:16 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 09:23 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 09:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 08:58 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 24 2012 07:50 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote:
I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea. yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people. This is a pretty pathetic straw man. Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another. Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code. This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business? And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business? Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking: 1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two. 2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one. 3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago). 4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was. And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
You still haven't answered the question. No problem I'll repeat it for you. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
|
On November 24 2012 21:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 21:20 shadymmj wrote:On November 24 2012 19:10 KwarK wrote:On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote:
they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining.. You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless. It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved. You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion. Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes. Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral.
they're obviously connected to some degree, but okay, let's take a purist stance and call them independent
my question is, so what? morality is subjective, i.e. an opinion. in itself it is worthless because it means nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
