Well again the word 'morally' is used as a blanket over what you really mean by your opposition, when you push those opposed to gay rights, gay's, etc.. they tend to say safe words like "morally opposed, don't believe in it" while not telling us why they hold those positions.
Obviously there is a difference, I mean there were people who hated blacks, but would never hang or hurt them. Then there were those who lynched them.
So yes, a difference no doubt, but I think we're talking about an intolerance scale here.
I never once said I was morally opposed to it. I was simply pointing out the error in starseed's (?) logic and playing devil's advocate. I'll definitely agree with you its still an intolerance scale, but just cause someone decides to be part of that scale (either end of the spectrum), doesn't mean they all want homosexuals to end up in jail or to be hung.
The Following User Says Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
Btw never said you were opposed to it, just speaking in general terms of the debate on the issue. I have a habit of using the word 'you' when not referring to the poster I replied to.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
Last edited by Thor; 06-11-2010 at 05:33 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Even now some believe pedophilia isn't a "choice"...
It is a choice? Because of all the great other benefits of the pedophile lifestyle or something, people just choose one day to be pedophiles?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jar_e
Anyways, I still think my point is valid that there's a huge difference between being morally opposed to something and going out and executing gays...I don't think its that far of a stretch?
Is there? Morals are about what someone or everyone considered to be right and wrong. Saying something is immoral is saying that it is wrong and should not happen.
What does wrong mean? Harmful to an individual or a group or society? Telling a group of people that their attraction is harmful to society is itself harmful, especially if it in-fact isn't harmful.
Even if someone doesn't advocate executing or imprisoning homosexuals, by saying it is immoral they are still doing harm to homosexuals, just a smaller amount. A small amount is ok?
I think it is ok to be morally against something but you have to establish why it is immoral first, and "it's icky to me" doesn't cut it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
I like the idea of insisting that a spectrum of morality is recognized from external factors and synthesiszed, or it's personally identified and constructed, thus yielding an introspective responsibility upon the individual who will possess and question said morality.
What you're saying in your last sentence is be honest and clear with yourself, so to speak. Sometimes we can be so gd lazy that we allow others to sweep us up in what their code of ethics and morality are.
I look at individuals who were good at unifying people through their contempts for other mores, people, environments et al. and installing a set a morality within those welcoming minds. These people are truly in need of examination. What is the reason behind their causes? Power seems easy. That reverend is something of concern. He does remind me of other hate spewing, power hungry Facists. I don't see how the alleged problem affects personally those usually at the vanguard of the movement.
In an ideal world all people are introspective and question and change their own ethics over time etc etc.
Just like in an ideal world everyone is politically conscientious and make an effort to understand the issues an make good decision when they vote.
But the reality is that people don't, humans are sheep and heavily influenced by their subconscious and swayed by media and their peers. And I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion, it's just who we are.
Being able to spend time in thought about your morals and the consequences to society assumes that people even have the time or encouragement to do so. Happens a lot on a university campus, less so much when the entire society is in a tough situation with poverty and lack of education and all that.
I guess where I'm going with this is the idealist in me says "Free Speech Period". If a white supremacist group wants advocate hate they should be able to say it, others will call them out for it, and the superior position will win out.
But it's not an ideal world, not everyone does (or can) evaluate things, and even if they try they are still influenced by media and peer pressure and all kinds of other things.. so given that is it ok to limit free speech with "hate speech" type laws, because people can't protect themselves? But then who decides what's hate speech? By what standards? How do you prevent that from limiting legitimate speech?
It's above my pay grade, as they say.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
In an ideal world all people are introspective and question and change their own ethics over time etc etc.
Just like in an ideal world everyone is politically conscientious and make an effort to understand the issues an make good decision when they vote.
But the reality is that people don't, humans are sheep and heavily influenced by their subconscious and swayed by media and their peers. And I don't mean that in a derogatory fashion, it's just who we are.
Being able to spend time in thought about your morals and the consequences to society assumes that people even have the time or encouragement to do so. Happens a lot on a university campus, less so much when the entire society is in a tough situation with poverty and lack of education and all that.
I guess where I'm going with this is the idealist in me says "Free Speech Period". If a white supremacist group wants advocate hate they should be able to say it, others will call them out for it, and the superior position will win out.
But it's not an ideal world, not everyone does (or can) evaluate things, and even if they try they are still influenced by media and peer pressure and all kinds of other things.. so given that is it ok to limit free speech with "hate speech" type laws, because people can't protect themselves? But then who decides what's hate speech? By what standards? How do you prevent that from limiting legitimate speech?
It's above my pay grade, as they say.
First emboldened part is that, I've encountered, as have you, many who do this without access to upper levels of education. Perhaps it was their environment that encouraged them to do so: create a code of individualized morality that discords with contemporary morality. However, you are correct and places where there is abject poverty and lack of basic social resources then people will believe whatever message keeps the community unified and fighting for a better tomorrow. I see this as a major contributor to terrorist doctrine. I define terrorist as anyone using violence in an attempt to achieve something political, religious, economical.
The second part is a volatile undertaking to determine standards of permissibility in the free speech act. It's about as challenging as roe vs wade. Adhering to culturally relativistic ideas, the standards can and will vary universally. I see why nations like Canada, Aus, NZ and the United States, then to similar levels UK and France, are so valuable to this planet. If religions are limited more in their scope in these nations (US), then it can be a democratic (as close to as possible) exercise by which all citizens can contribute towards. HOwever, we see that religious and political movements contribute to much of violence and tensions that differ over perceived morality. And we also see corruption of the democratic entity within nations like the ones I have listed and people from these countries turning blind eyes to the malfeasance of their officials in charge of preserving our rights and interests.
With Kurt Westergaard being nearly murdered by a religious zealot and Trey Parker and Matt Stone for being threatened we see individuals who will look to exact vengeance on behalf of alleged morality. So, if you are physically free to say something, are you truly free from consequence? (as you have touched on) Thus are you safe? Is it then fair to broach the safety issue with violence and exterminate the threats of free speech? Or is passive resistance a better method?
Is it safe to say speech can be free and your actions can also be free? I say anything exhorting violence towards any group is wrong and abhorrent, but is a double standard when used against the enemies of your morality?
To me this is the crux of the issue. Perhaps as a nation we can rally to provide amnesty towards those we know who are persecuted, which is something that nations can do, but what risk of breaching rules of engagement truly prevent justice. We see it time and time again. I think we may need to start a real A team and pull some tom clancy stuff.
__________________
My Sig is terrible...le sigh
Last edited by Ziggy Lidstrom; 06-11-2010 at 08:18 PM.
It is a choice? Because of all the great other benefits of the pedophile lifestyle or something, people just choose one day to be pedophiles?
People do things all the time that are self destructive or harm those they love. I see it as examples of our sin nature. You might not have a clue why but, you certainly can't deny that humans are prone to self destruction choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Is there? Morals are about what someone or everyone considered to be right and wrong. Saying something is immoral is saying that it is wrong and should not happen.
What does wrong mean? Harmful to an individual or a group or society? Telling a group of people that their attraction is harmful to society is itself harmful, especially if it in-fact isn't harmful.
Wrong is what is opposite to right. It is whatever opposes or walks against the right order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Even if someone doesn't advocate executing or imprisoning homosexuals, by saying it is immoral they are still doing harm to homosexuals, just a smaller amount. A small amount is ok?
It sure is OK. It is a price of free speech. A small price compared to the price others have paid to offer this freedom. If Canadians didn't have the right to make moral judgments and contribute their views to the national consensus homosexuality would still be illegal; Women still wouldn't have the vote; There would still be strict limitations of imigration based on race; ect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I think it is ok to be morally against something but you have to establish why it is immoral first, and "it's icky to me" doesn't cut it.
I think the natural revulsion to seeing men act feminine or women act masculine is relevant to the debate. Sometimes our instincts are right.
I do however agree that the icky feeling by itself "doesn't cut it". I also realize that we have seen only a small portion of what this fellow had to say about the subject.
Like abortion homosexuality is an action; It is something you do. Niether actions merits should be debated void of a full understanding of the mechanics of the acts. There is a reason why abortionists are so opposed to pictures of their work being published and homosexual activists talk about their commited relationships and not so much their public bathroom adventures.
It is a choice? Because of all the great other benefits of the pedophile lifestyle or something, people just choose one day to be pedophiles?
Is there? Morals are about what someone or everyone considered to be right and wrong. Saying something is immoral is saying that it is wrong and should not happen.
What does wrong mean? Harmful to an individual or a group or society? Telling a group of people that their attraction is harmful to society is itself harmful, especially if it in-fact isn't harmful.
Even if someone doesn't advocate executing or imprisoning homosexuals, by saying it is immoral they are still doing harm to homosexuals, just a smaller amount. A small amount is ok?
I think it is ok to be morally against something but you have to establish why it is immoral first, and "it's icky to me" doesn't cut it.
As I said in response to Thor's post, I never said I was morally opposed to it. I was just trying to point out the fallacy. I also agreed with Thor that it is all on a spectrum of intolerance and obviously harmful to the acceptance of homosexuality.
Calgaryborn, why do you want to make this entirely about sex?
I do not condemn all heterosexuals because some of them screw each other in public places, or lick each other's faces on the subway. The actions of some are irrelevant when discussing the rights and privileges of a whole group.
We do not demand equal unions before the law because we have a sinister plot to take over the public washrooms of the nation and turn them into venues for unscheduled orgies.
Why does the state need to know the mechanics of our sexual intercourse? The state can certainly ban public sex, and protect the public by cracking down on blow jobs in public washrooms, but that has nothing to do with gay rights.
I may have a natural revulsion towards the thought of sexual intercourse with a woman, but that does not mean I think it is some subconscious indication that females are evil, and sex with them will destroy society and force civilization to come to a crashing halt. (Sounds ridiculous? Some evangelicals have claimed just that about gay marriage.)
People do things all the time that are self destructive or harm those they love. I see it as examples of our sin nature. You might not have a clue why but, you certainly can't deny that humans are prone to self destruction choices.
That's true they are, though usually there is some kind of payoff at some level. Drink to much, but actually drinking deadens the pain of something else or there's addiction. Eat too much because it satisfies short term. Lying to get ahead. Insulting others to make ourselves feel good. Etc. There's gains to some destructive behaviours that any of us would feel and we always make choices to ether give in or to not give in.
And everyone is guilty of giving in at some point to some degree to something.
But for something like rape there's still the payoff for the rapist, they get off on the power of the situation, or the violence, or whatever, but there's something that benefits the rapist. The difference here is most people don't have to make a choice not to rape someone every day in the same way that most people make a choice not to eat the whole cake.
But the pedophile does, they are attracted to children sexually and every day they have to decide not to act out on it, or decide to give into that desire and and do something harmful. Most people don't have to actively decide to not abuse a child.
So yes many people (everyone to some degree I would say) engages in destructive behaviour; no one can be perfect. The difference is some people are tempted by things that 99% of us never have to be tempted by.
That of course doesn't mean that things should be allowed, but I think it's important to understand, and it would be nice some day to be able to actually help those people rather than just put them in jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
It sure is OK. It is a price of free speech. A small price compared to the price others have paid to offer this freedom. If Canadians didn't have the right to make moral judgments and contribute their views to the national consensus homosexuality would still be illegal; Women still wouldn't have the vote; There would still be strict limitations of imigration based on race; ect.
Good point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I think the natural revulsion to seeing men act feminine or women act masculine is relevant to the debate. Sometimes our instincts are right.
And sometimes they aren't. If one person's natural revulsion is relevant, then so is another person's lack of natural revulsion, which leaves us back where we began. Unless you want to count up numbers but then we're back to taking the vote away from women if we can just get enough votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I do however agree that the icky feeling by itself "doesn't cut it". I also realize that we have seen only a small portion of what this fellow had to say about the subject.
That documentary had quite a bit of it, including very direct questions with very direct answers, so his position is pretty clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Like abortion homosexuality is an action; It is something you do. Niether actions merits should be debated void of a full understanding of the mechanics of the acts.
Homosexuality is as much an action as heterosexuality. But that's fine, if you want to say an action's merits shouldn't be debated void of a full understanding of the mechanics of the acts then that's ok.
Anything homosexuals do together heterosexuals also do together.
So that eliminates the mechanics of the acts from the debate because anything brought up as an argument for or against one side equally applies to the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
There is a reason why abortionists are so opposed to pictures of their work being published and homosexual activists talk about their commited relationships and not so much their public bathroom adventures.
Public bathroom adventures? Was that before or after raping little boys?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
As I said in response to Thor's post, I never said I was morally opposed to it. I was just trying to point out the fallacy. I also agreed with Thor that it is all on a spectrum of intolerance and obviously harmful to the acceptance of homosexuality.
Last time I play devil's advocate
Oh for sure, you were clear on that so I was just asking the questions and making the points. Devil's advocate is a worthy role.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Calgaryborn, why do you want to make this entirely about sex?
Homosexuality is a sexual act. You are homosexual because of who you have sex with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
I do not condemn all heterosexuals because some of them screw each other in public places, or lick each other's faces on the subway. The actions of some are irrelevant when discussing the rights and privileges of a whole group.
Firstly, I was not talking about rights and privileges. I was speaking about what is morally right and wrong. If you want to talk about rights; I believe we should have a right to be morally wrong. I'm for limited government in our lives. Certainly what two consenting adults do freely in private is no concern of the State.
Publically there should be limits to expression where it offends the moral sensibilities of the general public. Clothing is an example of an area where we limit public expression. What you can wear to a night club and what you wear to a court is different. Likewise what you wear to a beach and what you are allowed to wear to work probably are quit different. Sexual expression is another area where our society limits what is acceptable based on the moral consensis of the population. As societies morals change these laws also change.
Secondly, It is OK to see sex in a public bathroom as morally wrong. If you accept heterosexuals having sex in public as morally Ok it doesn't mean I should modify my morality to accept that homosexual behavior. I don't believe either is morally acceptable and I believe the countries laws against it are fair. I brought up bathroom sex because it is a well documented homosexual behaviour. One which most of our society finds morally wrong.
I see a man treating another man as a woman to be morally wrong. I realize that is a minority opinion today but, it is my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
We do not demand equal unions before the law because we have a sinister plot to take over the public washrooms of the nation and turn them into venues for unscheduled orgies.
Again we weren't talking about the legal but the moral aspect of your behaviour. Marriage unions between homosexuals is way off topic and I've commented on it several times already on this board. You see the privilege of marriage as something that should be afforded to homosexual couples because it is discriminatory not to. I see the sole purpose of the State providing the benefits of marriage at all is because of what a heterosexual marriage has the potentual of producing: Children. What it is to be Canadian isn't preserved or transmitted through our laws. It is transmitted and preserved through our children. The best state we can give our children(all other things being equal) in order to raise them to contributing adults is in a heterosexual marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
Why does the state need to know the mechanics of our sexual intercourse?
They don't need to know the mechanics. You and I need to know the mechanics of homosexual sex in order to make an informed moral opinion. What makes you a homosexual is the mechanics of what you do and to whom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
I may have a natural revulsion towards the thought of sexual intercourse with a woman,
It may be a natural feeling or it may be enviromental but, either way you know that men having sex with women is how we survive and prosper as a species. If it isn't morally good then our existance isn't morally good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
but that does not mean I think it is some subconscious indication that females are evil, and sex with them will destroy society and force civilization to come to a crashing halt. (Sounds ridiculous? Some evangelicals have claimed just that about gay marriage.)
I don't speak for some evangelicals. I speak for myself.
I see the sole purpose of the State providing the benefits of marriage at all is because of what a heterosexual marriage has the potentual of producing: Children.
Well, now we're going back down a very unproductive road, aren't we? You're repeating a thoroughly debunked argument, and I almost feel like I am repeating the process of exploding it. So I'll be brief:
1. Not all heterosexual marriages produce children.
2. Homosexuals can also have children. Some of those children are raised by homosexual couples.
3. Not all children are born to heterosexual couples that are married.
4. Not all people (heterosexual or homosexual) should have children, but some of those do, irrespective of whether they are married.
In short, marriage--and this is not mere rhetoric, this is a historical fact--has nothing whatsoever to do with children. Nor does it have anything to do with religion, though religious institutions have long acted as state functionaries by performing marriages.
If you think it does, you're not paying attention. Marriage is a civic rite by which property is shared and long-term pair bonds are codified before the state. In short: it's about two things: stuff and sex. It involves children only inasmuch as they count as stuff (and in my world, children are people, so that pretty much ends that argument right there).
To claim that marriage is about children is not only ahistorical nonsense, it is utterly without any logical basis. But more to the point, if you consider the actual historical function of marriage, there is no reason whatsoever to deny that rite to same sex couples, which have been part of society since our species moved from the grasslands to the bread basket.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
You can still be a homosexual and never have sex. Homosexuality is not just a sex act, it is about being naturally attracted to someone of the same sex. Two human beings can fall in love and want to spend the rest of their life together without having to be a certain combination of genders. My point is, sex is beside the point. It is only focused on for sensational purposes.
I am not sure if you misunderstood, but I do not think public sex is ok. It just seemed like you were painting all homosexuals with the same brush because of the actions of some. I agree that laws against it are fair.
I know it is going back on a tangent, but I think the basis behind your argument against same-sex marriage has many gaping holes. Human beings do not require the institution of heterosexual marriage to provide a loving and nurturing environment to allow children to reach their full potential. Two men or two women can do just as well as the traditional gender combination. Children need loving parents who provide balanced discipline and instruction, and that is not dependent on whether or not the parents are of different genders. Opposite sex couples today do not marry for the sole purpose of raising children, nor do their licenses get revoked upon learning that they are sterile. Our civilization has adapted marriage to be exclusive to members of the opposite sex, but it is time to reverse that discriminatory policy.
People today are having children outside the marriage arrangement at ever growing numbers... it is almost at an equal ratio. This traditional idea is outdated, and needs to be adapted. (and it is adapting)
That's true they are, though usually there is some kind of payoff at some level. Drink to much, but actually drinking deadens the pain of something else or there's addiction. Eat too much because it satisfies short term. Lying to get ahead. Insulting others to make ourselves feel good. Etc. There's gains to some destructive behaviours that any of us would feel and we always make choices to ether give in or to not give in.
And everyone is guilty of giving in at some point to some degree to something.
But for something like rape there's still the payoff for the rapist, they get off on the power of the situation, or the violence, or whatever, but there's something that benefits the rapist. The difference here is most people don't have to make a choice not to rape someone every day in the same way that most people make a choice not to eat the whole cake.
But the pedophile does, they are attracted to children sexually and every day they have to decide not to act out on it, or decide to give into that desire and and do something harmful. Most people don't have to actively decide to not abuse a child.
So yes many people (everyone to some degree I would say) engages in destructive behaviour; no one can be perfect. The difference is some people are tempted by things that 99% of us never have to be tempted by.
That of course doesn't mean that things should be allowed, but I think it's important to understand, and it would be nice some day to be able to actually help those people rather than just put them in jail.
The Bible uses the word "concupiscence" which means the lusting after lust. I don't know a modern equivalent to the word but, surely you can see concupiscence being practiced regularly in our society. I think many of these compulsions have there roots in such behaviour. And just like the alcoholic what started as recreation becomes a horrible addiction.
I guess I'm trying to say that I'm not convinced such people are completely blameless for the state they are in. I do agree that we need to better understand their compulsions and what mental health can do to help them overcome them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
And sometimes they aren't. If one person's natural revulsion is relevant, then so is another person's lack of natural revulsion, which leaves us back where we began. Unless you want to count up numbers but then we're back to taking the vote away from women if we can just get enough votes.
I'm not saying that having a natural revulsion towards something should be regarded as conclusive proof of its lack of worth. What I said it is relevant. Our instincts should never be outrightly disregarded and they should only be overruled after careful consideration of all avaliable facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That documentary had quite a bit of it, including very direct questions with very direct answers, so his position is pretty clear.
There is no question of his position regarding homosexuality but, I'm not convinced his sole reasoning is what we see. We have just seen a selected few minutes of his lecture. No doubt the most sensational part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Homosexuality is as much an action as heterosexuality. But that's fine, if you want to say an action's merits shouldn't be debated void of a full understanding of the mechanics of the acts then that's ok.
Anything homosexuals do together heterosexuals also do together.
So that eliminates the mechanics of the acts from the debate because anything brought up as an argument for or against one side equally applies to the other.
No because the mechanics of the action doesn't determine the morality of something in and of itself. It simple defines what a homosexual or a heterosexual is.
Well, now we're going back down a very unproductive road, aren't we? You're repeating a thoroughly debunked argument, and I almost feel like I am repeating the process of exploding it. So I'll be brief:
1. Not all heterosexual marriages produce children.
2. Homosexuals can also have children. Some of those children are raised by homosexual couples.
3. Not all children are born to heterosexual couples that are married.
4. Not all people (heterosexual or homosexual) should have children, but some of those do, irrespective of whether they are married.
In short, marriage--and this is not mere rhetoric, this is a historical fact--has nothing whatsoever to do with children. Nor does it have anything to do with religion, though religious institutions have long acted as state functionaries by performing marriages.
If you think it does, you're not paying attention. Marriage is a civic rite by which property is shared and long-term pair bonds are codified before the state. In short: it's about two things: stuff and sex. It involves children only inasmuch as they count as stuff (and in my world, children are people, so that pretty much ends that argument right there).
To claim that marriage is about children is not only ahistorical nonsense, it is utterly without any logical basis. But more to the point, if you consider the actual historical function of marriage, there is no reason whatsoever to deny that rite to same sex couples, which have been part of society since our species moved from the grasslands to the bread basket.
Yes this has become a very unproductive road. Your arguement basically boils down to the following:
1. Hetrosexual marriage doesn't aways produce children
2. Non married couples and same sex couples do raise children and can be good parents
3. Concern about couples producing children was not the historical reason for the government involving themselves in marriage. It was about stuff and sex.
My response:
1. Sometimes you plant a garden and the seeds don't all take. You still plant because enough will work out to produce the crop. Married couples more often then not have children.
2. Yes non married couples do have children. Homosexual couples also can raise children from past relationships or adopted. My contention is that the ideal way for a child to be raised(all other things being equal) is with a Mom and Dad committed to them and each other.
3. Historically same sex couples and eunuchs couldn't marry. Also, historically stuff wasn't a big issue because women couldn't own property. Historically married couples had sex and before the invention of the pill that produce lots of children.
What the government did by extablishing State marriage contracts is make the man liable for the welfare of his wife and their children.
1. Sometimes you plant a garden and the seeds don't all take. You still plant because enough will work out to produce the crop. Married couples more often then not have children.
In fact, this is mere supposition--but even if it were true is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
2. Yes non married couples do have children. Homosexual couples also can raise children from past relationships or adopted. My contention is that the ideal way for a child to be raised(all other things being equal) is with a Mom and Dad committed to them and each other.
Well, now you've moved the goalposts. Surely it's not up to the state to determine what is the "ideal" way for a child to be raised. In any case, you base this contention only on your own bias--there is not a shred of evidence to support that same sex couples are any less "ideal" for raising children, and I suspect you know it.
Quote:
3. Historically same sex couples and eunuchs couldn't marry. Also, historically stuff wasn't a big issue because women couldn't own property. Historically married couples had sex and before the invention of the pill that produce lots of children.
What the government did by extablishing State marriage contracts is make the man liable for the welfare of his wife and their children.
I think the claim "historically stuff wasn't a big issue" is.... maybe the funniest thing you've ever said, though you have had some howlers in the past. If you were a student of history you'd know that historically, stuff (or property, or wealth, whatever you'd like to call it) has always been the biggest issue that both unites and divides us.
EDIT: I'll add only this before letting this argument pass into oblivion as it should. Your logic amounts to this: Most married couples have children, therefore marriage is about children. Surely you can see that your logic is utterly specious. I could as easily say "most married couples have cars, therefore marriage is about cars." The point is this: you can't just make up some argument that kind of sounds logical and pay no attention at all to history. Seriously--it's time for you to widen your reading a little bit. It's not that you aren't smart--you clearly are. You just don't know enough. I can't believe that your religion commands deliberate ignorance. Lift up your eyes.
Last edited by Iowa_Flames_Fan; 06-12-2010 at 01:19 PM.
The Bible uses the word "concupiscence" which means the lusting after lust. I don't know a modern equivalent to the word but, surely you can see concupiscence being practiced regularly in our society. I think many of these compulsions have there roots in such behaviour. And just like the alcoholic what started as recreation becomes a horrible addiction.
That ties into the whole idea of original sin and corruption, which I don't think is meaningful because it ends up being a handwave/magical explanation for things. "Why does this happen", "Oh I don't know, must be man's fallen state", which really doesn't explain anything.
The vast majority of people enjoy alcohol without becoming horribly addicted. The vast majority of people enjoy sex without having to rape or abuse children to get enjoyment. And incidents of these things aren't related to a person's religion, so I don't buy the idea that it's a fallen corruption of the original nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I guess I'm trying to say that I'm not convinced such people are completely blameless for the state they are in. I do agree that we need to better understand their compulsions and what mental health can do to help them overcome them.
People aren't blameless for the actions they take, but what do you mean blameless for the state they are in? What blame, precisely, should a pedophile shoulder for being attracted to children? If it's from man's fallen sinful nature, that's not his fault. If it's because of some combination of how they were born and events during their formative years, what's the blame there? What, looking at too many Playboy magazines all of a sudden turned them into a pedophile?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
I'm not saying that having a natural revulsion towards something should be regarded as conclusive proof of its lack of worth. What I said it is relevant. Our instincts should never be outrightly disregarded and they should only be overruled after careful consideration of all avaliable facts.
If you want to consider instincts then we have to consider everyone's instincts. Some have the instinct to have relationships with members of the same sex, others the opposite sex. Anything we derive from instincts applies to both orientations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
There is no question of his position regarding homosexuality but, I'm not convinced his sole reasoning is what we see. We have just seen a selected few minutes of his lecture. No doubt the most sensational part.
The most sensational part is an example of how far he will go in order to pass a law that will result in the death of homosexuals. Either he really believes what he is preaching, or he doesn't but is saying it to further his goal, I don't know which is worse but both are evil.
Did you watch the Vanguard video I posted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
No because the mechanics of the action doesn't determine the morality of something in and of itself. It simple defines what a homosexual or a heterosexual is.
Not really no, because as I said anything homosexuals do together heterosexuals also do together.
Sexuality is defined by one's attraction, not on the mechanics of what one does. If someone chooses to be celibate they are still heterosexuals or homosexuals, even though there are no mechanics going on.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Was that before or after raping little boys?
Devil's advocate is a worthy role.
