|
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.
This 'fact' proves nothing, because he is here, posting on the forum, beside the fact that there is homosexuality in nature. But there are so many things, like the extinction of the big dinosaurs, or even little things like the one sperm that needed to be the one getting the the egg first so many time since we were apes fish whatever ... random force of nature killing a helpless guy who would have otherwise been the husband of a woman in the ancestral line for example. It makes no sense to pick homosexuality out of all things that happened to get to here.
It could also be possible that homosexuals have a greater chance to contribute to society by science and art because they usually don't have the trouble of having children. Since we are were we are, we have to ask if a certain percentage of homosexuals should be viewed as a boon to us.
|
On November 24 2012 23:18 naastyOne wrote:
That "technic specifics" totally invalidate your core argument, allow gays to marry, and they will die out. they will not.
And there is no evidence that lack of oppresion and gay-marriage-lack of children makes a difference in % of gay populance.
But ok, sorry, i went a little too far, in the internets.
I don't know what you mean by "technical specifics". I'm sorry, it's just not clear to me.
And regarding the correlation between oppression and % of the gay population, I think the idea would be that societies where being gay is regarded with such shame would have a lower proporiton of self-identified gay individuals, but that many of those individuals, if raised in a more tolerant society, would actually then self identify as gay.
It's kind of like the reason why everyone laughed at ahmadinejad when he said Iran doesn't have a "gay problem". First, it's not a problem, and second, they do, the gay people in his society just aren't open about it and hide it because they're so repressed and opressed.
|
On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams.
I love east.
On November 24 2012 23:30 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 23:18 naastyOne wrote:
That "technic specifics" totally invalidate your core argument, allow gays to marry, and they will die out. they will not.
And there is no evidence that lack of oppresion and gay-marriage-lack of children makes a difference in % of gay populance.
But ok, sorry, i went a little too far, in the internets. I don't know what you mean by "technical specifics". I'm sorry, it's just not clear to me. And regarding the correlation between oppression and % of the gay population, I think the idea would be that societies where being gay is regarded with such shame would have a lower proporiton of self-identified gay individuals, but that many of those individuals, if raised in a more tolerant society, would actually then self identify as gay. It's kind of like the reason why everyone laughed at ahmadinejad when he said Iran doesn't have a "gay problem". First, it's not a problem, and second, they do, the gay people in his society just aren't open about it and hide it because they're so repressed and opressed.
I think, you`re right.
But, when being gay is not deemed normall, a lot of people will just not think about themselves as gays, and will never know that they could in fact be slightly more attrackted to man than woman.
Then, in the aescient times, it was normall to marry without love, so they may just not notice the difference between no love for women and no love for wife.
Gayness is a problem to birthrate, if 3% of the population will not have children, the rest needs to have more.
Let`s tax the gays more so they fund education and child rearing 
|
On November 24 2012 23:25 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 23:20 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 23:08 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:47 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law. What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage? Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident? If you do not know what hurt is, tough luck, I am not going to play semantic nitpicking games with you The "semantic nitpicking" is often a big legal difference. Besides, you doged the question. Legalistic arguments have no impact on ethical ones, which we are talking about. Laws are inspired by ethics, not the other way around. The relationship is one-sided. As for your question, it would be too great of a tangent considering the topic. So just shortly, there is no moral hurt. There is psychological one. And the actual ethical argument is of course about the comparative amount of hurt caused by individual actions. If you do not see that being jailed and persecuted is bigger suffering than being offended, there is no point in any discussion with you. No it is not one-sided, the laws do affect ethick. THen, you spoke about that behaviour should not be punished unless it makes somebody "hurt". Then you can not define what is "hurt", so that your definition of drawing the line made any sence. Why do you even start going into the relative quantity of hurt without defining it, and go about suffering, not hurt. Maybe you need to make up your mind?
No, laws do not influence ethics, show me how.
I do not need to define hurt as I do not require you to define all the words you use that have commonly known meaning. Definitions are description of meaning, meaning is deeper concept. You cannot define all words without circular logic, some words have to be basic and are not defined, but their meaning is known. Hurt is one of them. As I said either you are psychopath that actually does not know what hurt is, or you are just nitpicking. Either case there is no point discussing with you as such discussion gives me nothing of value. Suffering equals hurt for the purpose of this discussion.
Maybe you should create arguments that have some purpose other than nitpicking.
|
On November 24 2012 23:25 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 23:10 mcc wrote:
There is evidence that probability of male homosexuality is increased by number of older male siblings. Also how do you know male homosexuality is not "transferred" through mother's genes. That would make your inference pretty weak. Plus there is no evidence that number of homosexuals has any correlation with how oppressive society is against them.
Basically your argument is based on very simplistic view of genetics. Plus not all biological causes are genetical. This is definitely true, maternal environment (in the example you cited and that I am familiar with) clearly plays a role. Environment definitely has a role to play in determining homosexuality, and probably a much greater one (otherwise a much higher proportion of monozygotic twins would both be homosexual). Genetic factors are definitely present, though, and I think the vast majority of studies confirm and support this. And again, it's probably quantitative, where multiple genes interact with each other in very complex ways. The recessive hypothetical was only a response to nastyone's argument about dominance/recessive, which is the most simple way of looking at it. But I still do think that if there's a genetic component, given enough time and generations, if you allow homosexual individuals to live how they want then the prevalence of the genotypes will most likely decrease.
It is highly likely the genetic component is highly complex. And your hypothesis is possible, but considering current knowledge holding strong opinion on the subject seems very unjustified. There basically is nothing that supports it, yes, there is nothing that really rejects it either. But in such cases it is much better say, who knows. Especially as whatever the reality it has not really any bearing on the main topic.
|
On November 24 2012 15:23 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 15:11 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams. I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time.. If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful. Also, I'm not convinced that people have no choice about who they're attracted to.
you should have a look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation
|
On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line?
Well I was following this thread pretty closely and it took 19 pages before this classic argument was brought up. I feel the understanding of homosexuality in general is improving.
|
On November 25 2012 00:04 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Well I was following this thread pretty closely and it took 19 pages before this classic argument was brought up. I feel the understanding of homosexuality in general is improving.
It was actually brought up sooner (and answered).
|
On November 25 2012 00:09 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2012 00:04 Cheerio wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Well I was following this thread pretty closely and it took 19 pages before this classic argument was brought up. I feel the understanding of homosexuality in general is improving. It was actually brought up sooner (and answered).
oh well, there goes my faith in humanity...
P.S.
On November 24 2012 23:10 mcc wrote:
There is evidence that probability of male homosexuality is increased by number of older male siblings. Also how do you know male homosexuality is not "transferred" through mother's genes. That would make your inference pretty weak.
Btw there is a very interesting evolutionary theory on homosexuality called "gay uncle" hypothesis, it adds up nicely to increased homosexuality by number of older male siblings.
The so-called "gay uncle" hypothesis posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton and Mary Jane West-Eberhard.[47] This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
|
On November 24 2012 23:25 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 23:20 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 23:08 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:47 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:41 naastyOne wrote:On November 24 2012 22:37 mcc wrote:On November 24 2012 22:23 Hoberator wrote:
And after homosexuals have their way, how long til we repeal pedophilia laws. How long until we make it legal to have sex with animals too. Where do we draw the line? Right and wrong is all determined by where we draw the line and no man or woman has the right to tell another person where to draw the line. We live in countries, societies, cultures that each have their own way of determining what is "legal" or "acceptable." There is no "denying basic rights." There is only denying unwanted rights. There is no such thing as natural or ideal rights of a human being. These are all just concepts by a greater majority of people in a given place. The greater portion of society upholds what they want in our legal system and is justified by the basis its design.
Edit: I must add, that I don't think a man's health or life is something that should be determined by anyone and that death should never be a solution. We draw the line where someone is hurt ? Do you still not get it after countless people in this thread already made it clear. Harmless behaviour should not be punished. Homosexuality is harmless, pedophilia is not, do you grasp the difference ? Victimless crimes are pretty good indicator something is wrong with the law. What exactly is "hurt"? Physical or moral damage? Why does not abiding the rules earns you a punishment even if nobody was hurt in particular incident? If you do not know what hurt is, tough luck, I am not going to play semantic nitpicking games with you The "semantic nitpicking" is often a big legal difference. Besides, you doged the question. Legalistic arguments have no impact on ethical ones, which we are talking about. Laws are inspired by ethics, not the other way around. The relationship is one-sided. As for your question, it would be too great of a tangent considering the topic. So just shortly, there is no moral hurt. There is psychological one. And the actual ethical argument is of course about the comparative amount of hurt caused by individual actions. If you do not see that being jailed and persecuted is bigger suffering than being offended, there is no point in any discussion with you. No it is not one-sided, the laws do affect ethick. THen, you spoke about that behaviour should not be punished unless it makes somebody "hurt". Then you can not define what is "hurt", so that your definition of drawing the line made any sence. Why do you even start going into the relative quantity of hurt without defining it, and go about suffering, not hurt. Maybe you need to make up your mind? What is your point? That being gay causes someone unfair psychological damage? What about being rich, or attractive, or happy, or smart? People will get jealous and can argue that you are causing them psychological damage basicly over any inequality of human beings or social status/position. The question is is it a fair unintended damage or unfair and intended one (or some other combination of both)?
|
Signed, shared on Facebook, and e-mailed to my family members. Hopefully we can assemble enough pressure to seriously make the Ugandan government reconsider this..
|
On November 24 2012 14:59 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +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. K...this is not the other side of the debate over the ethicacy of active homosexual behaviour. You see that other side all the time in Churches in America, where they make the case for love and respect, but abstinence on the part of homosexuals. This is the, lets kill gays and hang witches crowd, and there is every room to aggressively condemn and abhor them for that. There is every reason to "scream to death". 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. We both know thats false given the majority of Europe doesnt recognize gay marriage either. Are you really suggesting their rationalization for rejecting such a proposal isnt related to infringing on traditional concepts whatsoever? Then what exactly could their rationalization be at all? It was also the argument against gay marriage in Canada as well.
You really voted/debated on it as "opposing traditional marriage"?
I feel that's a very inaccurate term to use. Even if it gets thrown around, I wouldn't use it as a classification of the proposed law. Did you?
Does this mean you no longer have traditional marriage? It wasn't absolved was it?
I realize it's just rhetoric. But in the end, did it come true?
|
On November 24 2012 15:23 Luppy1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 15:11 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 15:07 Luppy1 wrote:On November 24 2012 14:04 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:53 Luppy1 wrote:
Just because it's increasingly acceptable in some western nations, it doesn't mean that the entire world needs to accept it. Personally, I'm glad it's still frown upon in most (if not all) asian nations [and considering the state of things in the world, I can safely say that the asian societies do know better in some aspects.] China and Tibet comes to mind. Genocide and ongoing occupation. And what the Chinese social party did to its inhabitants during Mao (and afterwards)... add censorship on the internet... I'm not convinced by your words. I do not feel you have the same respect for individual life. At least China always puts the nation before any single inhabitant. Hence it's specially hard to make a case for gay rights. Don't know too much about other Asian countries. Much of the culture seems very rich, and cool. But, yeah. Not convinced you are better than us at respecting individual life, nor that you are better off not respecting individual life. Anyway. Can I just remind you that you are "frowning" upon actual people with hopes and dreams, who were born different or developed differently than you. Their first wish is like yours: To be allowed to love and be loved. I'm asking why you are glad that these people are frowned upon. Remove the frown from the "equation" and I'd argue you lose nothing. They have not transgressed nor asking for the right to transgress. Only to be free. If it were within your power to grant this, would you deny them freedom to love? Do we even know for sure whether they're born different? There's no complete freedom for everything where I'm at. Having slightly less freedom doesn't suffocate everyone because most people do realise that it's necessary, since some people need to be protected from themselves. The western nations are probably proud about their freedom. But, personally, I don't think they're doing enough to protect their own people. To me, having complete freedom is too chaotic and it's like moving slowly towards self destruction. While being a homosexual is frowned upon in my country, these people are not hunted down and labelled as criminals. But, it's just widely considered as unnatural and those who confess as being a homosexual would probably be considered as freaks (but, they would not be treated any differently). There's a very negative stigma attached to being a gay, enough for people not to be open about it. Still, It's not as bad as the negative stigma of being bad in school/exams. I don't think you really know what it feels like to be discriminated against for not being straight. Things like doing shitty on exams, or getting bad grades in school are fixable. You can study, you can work harder next time.. If you're gay, you're completely screwed. It's inside you literally every single day reminding you that every little attraction you feel towards someone would get you labeled as a freak even though it's harmless. Even if it's not as out in the open, it's insane how horrible it can be. Even little passive remarks are incredibly hurtful. I've been racially discriminated when I had to live abroad for 4 years. So, I do know what it feels like to be discriminated. It doesn't feel good. But, it's really nothing. I think you're too sheltered (You mentioned the attraction being harmless. Getting called a freak/the passive remarks are just as harmless). Also, I'm not convinced that people have no choice about who they're attracted to. I was just comparing the negative stigma of being a gay and being bad at exams. From where I'm at, the negative stigma attached to being bad at exams is more severe than the stigma attached to being a homosexual. So, it's not really that bad for the homosexuals.
Are you saying stigma is acceptable? You are pointing at something you see as worse, therefore homosexuality should stay illegal and stigmatized? Have you ever seen someone getting bashed for performing bad on a test? I guess maybe some parents are cruel like that, but is it illegal to do poorly on tests, and is such stigmatization acceptable?
|
On November 24 2012 16:15 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 16:10 KingAce wrote:
Just so we get this straight no religion I know fundamentally deems it okay to oppress others in any form. But all major religions I am aware of do reject homosexuality.
People are homophobic and so use religion as a tool to justify their actions against it. Before marriage become a law. It was a religious union.
The persecution of people isn't within religious doctrines.
Sexuality especially for the purpose of pleasure is also not advocated in a number of religions. Because it can be destructive to your spiritual growth. That's why some have a sex after marriage doctrine.
Technically speaking even people having sex outside of marriage, should be frown upon by religion.
This is homophobia plain and simple. I'm also not homophobic, I am aware of what you do, I understand it and have accepted that it exists. Doesn't mean that I have to like it or agree with it. I am also not religious.
?
Of course you do not have to like homosexuality. No one is asking you fuck a dude -_-. You still have no basis to deny them to express themselves.
|
This is such a shame, I don't think these people are aware that homosexuals are people just like themselves, they can't do anything about their sexuality, they are attracted to the same sex, not by choise. I do believe that hate is a work of religion and seeing these people are going to hell now for they do not love thy neighbor, If the priest would actually teach them to love instead of hating they might be stronger as society. I'm not religious, and I think it's a kind of brain wash to control masses, the thing is with "the creator of the universe" on their side, they are too ignorant to achknowledge other people belief because they praise the one "true" god.
the thing that bugs me is people still believe in that shit. with so much scientific prove that there is no god - I cannot understand how living creatures and live in denial. Religion haven't achieved anything but hate and war. Why are people still praying for somthing so immature and stupid?
|
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. 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.
Isn't everything about you more or less a genetic consequence? Should we equate random aspects of you as "handicaps"? Being ginger is a handicap because you get bullied. Homosexuality is a handicap because you can't reproduce. Oh wait. You can.
..
|
On November 24 2012 13:44 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 13:20 kwizach wrote:On November 24 2012 13:14 Cutlery wrote:On November 24 2012 13:10 kwizach wrote:On November 24 2012 12:16 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Way to completely miss the point of his analogy. The original point of the first poster was that we should not tell Uganda how to do things as long as what they do doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of Uganda. Cheerio pointed out that according to that logic, nothing that ever goes on inside another state that doesn't have an impact on us/people outside of that state would ever be our concern, including if there was a genocide going on inside of the state in question. The example he gave, which is perfectly valid, was the extermination of Jews inside of Germany. If you hold the position that we should never mind what goes on inside a state as long as we/people outside the state aren't directly targeted by the policies of the state, how do you justify doing something about Jews getting exterminated inside of Germany? Now, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any course of action here - I'm simply pointing out that Cheerio's analogy and argument are valid. But the UN is about meddling and forwarding their agenda of human rights. Put in place to "guide" the world and try to decide what is "acceptable" and what can be influenced on a more international level. This is definitely the concern of the UN. Whether you/we think it's right or not, the UN was created for exactly this. Not that this means they will do anything. The UN tells "everybody" what to do. For instance they have recently had falling-outs with the US. And gotten heavily criticized by the 'Bush administration' (which was arguably a menace to international politics) I don't think you understood my post. I think the UN is the course of action that resulted from the need of meddling before such views spread across the border. Some argued that as long as no one "outside" is affected, then they can't cry foul. .. And then Hitler invaded Europe/Russia. Hence "we" learned that the previous "passivity" is not perfect. Such extreme beliefs can't be expected to stay entirely contained and not affect other parts of the world. Cue the UN. Regardless of which "side" you're on or which course of action you're (not) advocating, this is specifically the dealings of the UN. Not Canada and its inhabitants. Using Canada as an example of who should not meddle is fine. But ignoring the UN whose job it is to meddle veils his argument and makes it seem more valid than I believe it should be. So simply including the existence of the UN and the reason for its creation is, I believe, the proper reply to the first nested quote. But. Maybe I misunderstood. It's almost 6 am, so, whatever. I won't spin things any further.
I think you want to be replying to WolfintheSheep or StarMoon, not me. I was pointing out that Cheerio's analogy was perfectly valid in support of his argument, and his argument goes in the same direction as yours.
|
On November 24 2012 16:37 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +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: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:
[quote] 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. 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. Clearly I must have hit a nerve with you, I am not homophobic and I don't see how I could contradict myself when I only posted 1 thing about 1 topic. There was nothing else said so there wasn't even the possibility of contradiction. I was asked my opinion and I gave it, I feel like homosexuality is something that needs to be fixed not endorsed. I am not homophobic no matter how aggressive you type your post. Anyway I shared my view, going to stop posting and sleep.
You definitely do not have the right to "fix" anyone. Any slightly invasive procedure, any needle and any test MUST be agreed upon by the subject to be ethical and legal. Therefore you are outside of your rights and immoral if you were to ever impose a fix. And talking about one is disrespectful. When people like who they are, who are you to tell them something about them is wrong? It's your choice to be disrespectful and not see gays as equals and their love as equal, but rather a defect. At least admit that much.
And believing that birds naturally make nests, and left handers naturally write with their left hand, you must also accept that gays naturally are attracted to men.
Your best option is to criminalize it. But saying it doesn't exist in nature is senseless.
|
On November 24 2012 16:41 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 16:36 Glurkenspurk wrote:On November 24 2012 16:31 HTOMario wrote: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:
[quote] 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. Birds aren't born with nests but yet they make them? They use the tools around them to survive, just like early man killed animals and cooked them with fire and used their pelts to stay warm no? I'm not bashing gay people... I have no problem with them, this is just what I believe. Doesn't that just diffuse the entire idea of "natural" then? Also there are gay birds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_displaying_homosexual_behavior last thing I wanted to comment on before I go sleep, there are many animals that have shown same sex attractions, there are also many animals in many different species that were born with many genetic deficiencies. I don't believe it's tied only to human beings and do believe that for some reason it is something that happens on a noticeable genetic level.
So you believe this, but this belief is somehow not "pre-judgemental"? You do realize the definition of Homophobia also mentions prejudice? You must attribute this to more than a belief to rid yourself of homophobia. Like linking homosexuality in animals with genetic defects (that you mentioned) by other means than believing it.
|
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.
It changes yes, I never claimed otherwise. I'm not sure if you're putting words in my mouth here  Just wanted to mention that I never said "it doesn't change anything".
Marriage under law with privileges, which is what gays want to partake in, has been around for how long? And this gives reason to discriminate individuals under laws how?
Marriage was changed substantially when given special standing within the law. Even thought it was around for millenia before that, you cannot claim that THIS (gay marriage) is the substantial change, I don't believe.
All should be equals under the law. No more, no less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
