I'm sad my first thread on these forums has to relate to something as hateful as this, but I feel it is something worth raising awareness of. Uganda is on the verge of pushing through a controversial anti-homosexuality law that was previously defeated. This law mandates, at minimum, prison sentences for homosexuals. As is the habit of parliaments worldwide, the Ugandan leadership has chosen the end-of-year rush to push this bill through in a largely christian nation. The saddest thing is there is strong support for the bill, as gayness is viewed as practically Satanic in many African countries. I've linked a couple of articles from a reputable South African news source, I'd suggest doing some research of your own. There is also a link to the Avaaz petition if you believe that sort of thing can solve problems.
There was a full documentary following this bill on youtube. It is an amazing one. Unfortunately, i think the channel that actually made it took it down, but here is part 1/5.
Edit: If only people could use their persuasive speech, passion, and efforts towards peace...
On November 23 2012 20:56 acidstormy wrote: There was a full documentary following this bill on youtube. It is an amazing one. Unfortunately, i think the channel that actually made it took it down, but here is part 1/5.
On November 23 2012 20:51 shell wrote: oh Africa.. why can't you just be peacefull and happy!
So many problems and so little help!
sad.. sad.. day for uganda and it's gay community!
You have community leaders saying stuff like "gays eat da poo poo" and if anyone dares argue against this and try to ask for evidence they are probably shunned, assaulted, etc.
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.
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.
I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group.
However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope.
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.
I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group.
However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope.
I think youre missing that this is something fairly new and on the rise in some parts of africa. In the middle east theyve had medeival values for a very long time.
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.
I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group.
However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope.
I think youre missing that this is something fairly new and on the rise in some parts of africa. In the middle east theyve had medeival values for a very long time.
I wouldn't say that at all - Africa has never been a great place to be gay. In South Africa, we are currently experiencing a very disturbing trend where lesbians are 'correctively' raped and/or murdered. Once again, not nearly as much outrage as one would hope for. It's kind of hard to say anything definite about the history of homosexuality anywhere in the world to be honest - it is an extremely recent trend, relatively speaking, to accept it as normal, in any country. The only thing I can say with certainty is that is has existed for a very, very long time.
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.
of course you cant just touch a countries sovereignty. nobody wants to send troops there, so calm down. but you should be able to express your thoughts and feelings about a matter, even when its in a foreign country. you can actually change many things through communicating. not all, but many.
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.
I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group.
However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope.
I'm pretty certain he isn't playing devil's advocate. Asked another way, who gave you the right to decide what is right and wrong in the world?
50 years ago moral standards were very different, and 50-100 years from now they will change even more. Every generation has this superiority complex it seems, where they think they are know-it-all but then a mere 50 years is enough to change a societies moral laws upside down.
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.
I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group.
However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope.
I'm pretty certain he isn't playing devil's advocate. Asked another way, who gave you the right to decide what is right and wrong in the world?
50 years ago moral standards were very different, and 50-100 years from now they will change even more. Every generation has this superiority complex it seems, where they think they are know-it-all but then a mere 50 years is enough to change a societies moral laws upside down.
Easy way out of taking responsibility for anything, ever ...
While I agree 150% that morality is a shifting standard, I'm prepared to take a stand on an issue. If someone were to try and kill one of my gay friends because of his gayness, I would not hesitate to take a stand - I'd like to think this sentiment extends to any gay person out there, regardless of imaginary sovereign boundaries.
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.
Sure and the same could to some extend be said about psychologically ill and sexually more deviant people in the western world (loss of rights, enprisonment etc.). However, those things are another straw on the camels back in terms of revolt-sentiment. Nobody ilikes to trade with a country with a cvil war raging, cause who should you make the deals with? By truely suppressing a group of people in society you are making a group of society motivated for going against the ruling power. If more groups get angered by the government, and it is inevitable to some extend, the government has to use more force to kill dissidents. The more force they use the more anger will build up in society and you have a negative spiral. There are several ways to deal with that: Either you have people complaining getting up for an election that people trust or the power used can be so extreme that peoples fears will keep them from expressing their opinion. Alternatively there are other strong motivaters to control the people, but I do not know how powerful they really are in the long run. Laws against certain behaviour is destabilising to some extend and since gay sentiment is moving towards a much more rights-oriented direction in most parts of the world, it is a dangerous way to go for ban and harsh punishment in the longer run!
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
I find open displays of religious fervour offensive and disturbing. However, I don't lobby to have them banned, I don't even lobby to force religious parents to not indoctrinate their kids. I just make a point of not being around when they happen, I suggest you do the same.
On November 23 2012 20:48 EvilLiBraRian wrote: . As is the habit of parliaments worldwide, the Ugandan leadership has chosen the end-of-year rush to push this bill through in a largely christian nation.
I'm not religious but please..... there are FAR more Islamic nations where homosexuality is illegal (some where it is punishable by death) than christian nations where it is likewise.And in my opinion they are fine to make whatever laws they want in their own country so long as they don't try to bring that ideology to the west.We are already starting to see that creeping in with a sharia law party in Belgium winning two seats in the recent elections which should be a big concern for the far left since sharia law is not compatible with their own views on homosexuality.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
Totally support this, Africa is much more clever than white people world and we are calling them 3rd world countries. Maybe it is us who are really 3rd world countries and this world is not about money, but about morality?
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
Well, cased closed then.
If it offends you, clearly gays are out of order and shouldn't be allowed to express their love openly.
On November 23 2012 22:43 agfoxGnom wrote: Totally support this, Africa is much more clever than white people world and we are calling them 3rd world countries. Maybe it is us who are really 3rd world countries and this world is not about money, but about morality?
If I ever doubt that I am on the right side of history, I need only listen to the other side to have my worries put to rest.
Its not a matter of gay rights, but human rights. Its up there with gender equality. The world needs to stop being so fucking national and stand up for people in other countries who are being opressed in such a fashion. Its our duty as humans to help our fellows humans.
There are much much much much much more worse problems going on in uganda that makes this issue look like a cold flu. The country is in a state of poverty, as well as being riled with corruption. Then you got the education problems although that falls under poverty. And there is also the problem of child labour and trafficking.
On November 23 2012 20:48 EvilLiBraRian wrote: . As is the habit of parliaments worldwide, the Ugandan leadership has chosen the end-of-year rush to push this bill through in a largely christian nation.
I'm not religious but please..... there are FAR more Islamic nations where homosexuality is illegal (some where it is punishable by death) than christian nations where it is likewise. -snip-
What exactly is your point? He's not attacking christianity, just stating a relevant fact; approaching christmas we have A) People distracted by their religious holiday B) People are more focused on "family values" around christmas, and so the anti-homosexual supporters will have more fervour.
Like some people have already said... I agree, this is bad and something that shouldn't happen, but I really don't feel that this is the most important thing we need to focus on. There are a lot worse things going on in Uganda and the whole of Africa, in fact, for example the civil war that's going on in Congo... Solve the fighting first, then we can work on their ideas ^^
Legislating sexuality is very different from legislating sexual behaviors which may endanger, harm or impeach on other people's rights, law and justice is about equality / fairness, not what is moral and "right" - though it bases the values on which fairness is judged on the society's constructs of morality. This is why we have laws against rape, sexual harassment / assault, but we don't have laws against having sexual thoughts or being sexually active, because that would be absurd. Try applying the very basics of fairness or the concept of the veil of ignorance to this, if gays protested and tried to vote in laws which give out jail sentences to heterosexuals simply because they are heterosexual, not because they made any wrong decision or impeached on other people, they would be the laughing stock of the entire world.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
So we should JAIL them? Isn't freedom of speech relevant? Even if someone states an opinion that I hated, as long as it didn't construe as assault or battery where it caused damages to my well being I'm not going to press legal charges, let alone attempt to legislate it just so my opinion is reaffirmed.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
So we should JAIL them? Isn't freedom of speech relevant? Even if someone states an opinion that I hated, as long as it didn't construe as assault or battery where it caused damages to my well being I'm not going to press legal charges, let alone attempt to legislate it just so my opinion is reaffirmed.
lol wut? i said i think the parades are unnecessary... who said anybody should jail them?
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
Well, there wouldn't be any straight pride parades, because straigth people haven't been discriminated against for centuries. Gay Pride celebrates the end of discrimination and an open, more tolerant world.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
So we should JAIL them? Isn't freedom of speech relevant? Even if someone states an opinion that I hated, as long as it didn't construe as assault or battery where it caused damages to my well being I'm not going to press legal charges, let alone attempt to legislate it just so my opinion is reaffirmed.
lol wut? i said i think the parades are unnecessary... who said anybody should jail them?
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law? Says who? It might be the status quo, but it's revolting and ought to be revoked. The truth of that is no more obvious when you see the obscenities that are inflicted upon the people of these nations.
I said it before, no invisible line will make something any less horrible. You, and many others, overestimate the importance of sovereignty. You ought to look at humanity from an international position, and you would understand that real human beings will end up having their lives destroyed over this.
How morally bankrupt must you be when you cease to care for another human being because of a border? Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
So we should JAIL them? Isn't freedom of speech relevant? Even if someone states an opinion that I hated, as long as it didn't construe as assault or battery where it caused damages to my well being I'm not going to press legal charges, let alone attempt to legislate it just so my opinion is reaffirmed.
lol wut? i said i think the parades are unnecessary... who said anybody should jail them?
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law? Says who? It might be the status quo, but it's revolting and ought to be revoked. The truth of that is no more obvious when you see the obscenities that are inflicted upon the people of these nations.
I said it before, no invisible line will make something any less horrible. You, and many others, overestimate the importance of sovereignty. You ought to look at humanity from an international position, and you would understand that real human beings will end up having their lives destroyed over this.
How morally bankrupt must you be when you cease to care for another human being because of a border? Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
Well to be honest, if you are arguing on the grounds of sovereignty / basis of law, then just use the basis of law and justice, i.e. fairness and veil of ignorance / concept of precedence in common law against them. If you follow the same ideology then no one should complain for example of the legislation of any faith based or opinion based law - say for example sharia law - in another country, no one should complain about the legislation of a police state or a dictatorship in another country - say for example north korea, and especially no one should complain about the voting in of any political party in another country democratically - say for example Hamas and Hezbollah.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law? Says who? It might be the status quo, but it's revolting and ought to be revoked. The truth of that is no more obvious when you see the obscenities that are inflicted upon the people of these nations.
I said it before, no invisible line will make something any less horrible. You, and many others, overestimate the importance of sovereignty. You ought to look at humanity from an international position, and you would understand that real human beings will end up having their lives destroyed over this.
How morally bankrupt must you be when you cease to care for another human being because of a border? Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
Well to be honest, if you are arguing on the grounds of sovereignty / basis of law, then just use the basis of law and justice, i.e. fairness and veil of ignorance / concept of precedence in common law against them. If you follow the same ideology then no one should complain for example of the legislation of any faith based or opinion based law - say for example sharia law - in another country, no one should complain about the legislation of a police state or a dictatorship in another country - say for example north korea, and especially no one should complain about the voting in of any political party in another country democratically - say for example Hamas and Hezbollah.
Which is exactly why this notion of sovereignty, and especially the more recent extreme-sovereignty, which argues that nations can't just decide for themselves, but any outcome of that choice is also rightious, is morally bankrupt, and a repugnant position to take.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: How morally bankrupt must you be when you cease to care for another human being because of a border? Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
Are you operating on the assumption that the majority of human beings regardless of sovereignty agreed with that war? Because the majority of the world's population didn't and thought that America was the country that was misguided.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
Ooh, you really got me there, what a hypocrite am I.
Ooh hang on, I support both the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and have done so repeatedly on this forum.
See, I adhere to an actual ideology, rather than say that whatever horrors some foreign government can conjure up, are automatically good. I don't shift positions just so I can spare the sensibilities of third world totalitarian governments.
- actively and deliberately try to undermine the institution of marriage - use vast financial resources to recruit new gays - have sex consisting largely of fisting and eating feces - target children and teenagers and make them gay (?)
The fact that people have to live in fear because some religious asshole has fabricated and propagated a bunch of "facts" about them is so sickening and frightening...
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.
So you do not care if people are locked or executed for "crimes" that hurt noone. Moral relativism of your kind is rather disgusting. I suppose if most people decided that you need to be killed you would be ok with that, because majority opinion is determining what is right and what is wrong.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
Yeah i'm also glad that i live in a country that says being gay is fully accepted by the law. This is for me just fucked up. I hope people one day just grows up
On November 23 2012 23:22 Zandar wrote: Only one who can and should fix this before the bill gets accepted is the Pope. And Christians could mail him to push him to do that.
I doubt the current Pope will ever do something like that.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
On November 23 2012 23:22 Zandar wrote: Only one who can and should fix this before the bill gets accepted is the Pope. And Christians could mail him to push him to do that.
Pretty ironic for some people to be making the argument that sovereignty excludes people from other countries to act on one country's legislation, while others argue that religious sovereignty transcends national sovereignty and is free to influence one country's politics. I thought we've gone past that point and now base whether or not a cause is just on reason and rationalism.
Ah. Sorry for saying this. And I know it's not respectful and so I am the one erring. But I have to laugh. They might as well be starring in a "Muppets tonight" show. I can't take them as real people at face value. Something is off. It's like stupidity is hilarious, and these people are full of it.
Sorry to all those who have to live in this country.
hahaha! evillibrarian! welcome! what's up dude! we playing DotA tonight?
On topic, I agree that this is pretty retarded. I just wish the world would grow up already. I don't see what another person chooses to do with his penis has anything to do with anyone let alone get jailed for your sexuality. I can't fathom what it must be like to have to live in that kind of secrecy your whole life and be too terrified to find happiness because it would get you locked up.
This kind of backwards logic has to stop somehow. It just keeps getting more ridiculous. Just when it seems there is some progress some idiot comes along and everything moves in the opposite direction.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
On November 23 2012 23:27 Cutlery wrote: Ah. Sorry for saying this. And I know it's not respectful and so I am the one erring. But I have to laugh. They might as well be starring in a "Muppets tonight" show. I can't take them as real people at face value. Something is off. It's like stupidity is hilarious, and these people are full of it.
Sorry to all those who have to live in this country.
It's funny because Christianity was brought into Africa as a means of control and exerting influence from the Western nations while they pillaged the land, who themselves previous and during the colonial period of Africa had the exact same policies discriminating homosexuality in their own countries.
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.
I'm guessing a bit of Devil's Advocate here: a fair point. For example, we don't jump up and down about similar situations in numerous Arabic countries, most likely because they don't care and carry huge economic power as a religiously linked group.
However, the pragmatist in me wants to prevent another messed up situation if possible. Morality is truly up for grabs globally speaking, but the death penalty for homosexuality (a potential end point)? I feel we have, on average, moved on and up from there. All I wish for is a situation where your private (non-criminal) sexual decisions don't end up with you dangling on the end of a rope.
I'm pretty certain he isn't playing devil's advocate. Asked another way, who gave you the right to decide what is right and wrong in the world?
50 years ago moral standards were very different, and 50-100 years from now they will change even more. Every generation has this superiority complex it seems, where they think they are know-it-all but then a mere 50 years is enough to change a societies moral laws upside down.
Ah, but what gave these people the right to murder? Why do they campaign for the right to murder people? Where are the christian morals in this?
I'd argue they have no grasp of the morals they claim to follow. And have been "forced" to take a stance on something based on (christian) morals which they did not make, and don't know how to follow.
Therefore I have decided that this is not correct, this is not right. What they are doing in the name of Christianity is misguided. And could maybe be called wrong.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
I do not see a point of people celebrating religious occasions and I am often "offended" by them when they are belittling other people, therefore everyone should stop, just because I think so. Based on your reasoning no public actions should be happening, because everytime someone is offended and someone finds them useless.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
I think you popl should stop using th lttr "e". I don't think it is rally ncssary to us it, txts ar still radibl without thm, plus I and othrs might find th us of it offnsiv. Practic what you prach and stop using th lttr "e".! Or only us it in privat!
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
Actually, we are not. We are discussing anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, and as an extension of that the question has been brought up whether people who are not from Uganda have a right to judge their laws, and maybe act against them. Noone was talking about nations telling each other what to do except you.
And since we live in nations that accept freedom of speech as a basic right, we have the right to comment on other nations laws, too. Also, as a private person, i don't see why it would be wrong to judge the laws of other nations based on my ethical opinions.
And that is pretty simple in this situation. In my opinion, if it does not hurt anyone else, it is ok. Thus, being gay is ok, since all involved parties are fine with it. Putting gay people into jail is as a result of this not ok, since that hurts people who did nothing wrong. There are morally ambivalent situations. This is not one of them, it is pretty much obvious to anyone that bases his ethical compass on this simple rule, which in my opinion is the best way to do it and pretty much universally accepted.
Edit: Also, i seem to recall we had this exact same thread about a year ago already.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
I think you popl should stop using th lttr "e". I don't think it is rally ncssary to us it, txts ar still radibl without thm, plus I and othrs might find th us of it offnsiv. Practic what you prach and stop using th lttr "e".! Or only us it in privat!
now thats just blatantly trolling. i was at leats trying to convey a point related to the discussion... gg wp liquidlahara
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
I think you popl should stop using th lttr "e". I don't think it is rally ncssary to us it, txts ar still radibl without thm, plus I and othrs might find th us of it offnsiv. Practic what you prach and stop using th lttr "e".! Or only us it in privat!
-
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
Hypocrit! Why do you kp offnding m with th lttr that shall not b usd!
On November 23 2012 22:48 sharky246 wrote: There are much much much much much more worse problems going on in uganda that makes this issue look like a cold flu. The country is in a state of poverty, as well as being riled with corruption. Then you got the education problems although that falls under poverty. And there is also the problem of child labour and trafficking.
This kinda makes me not even want to help them. They at least have to want to help themselves, if they are to expect help from "us". Not that I believe we are capable of helping them anyway. But that's another matter. If this occupies their time and money, then, well. I wont provide them with that money.
To them this seems like an issue. Like a big deal. And so I have to wonder what they really want/need help with. If this is what they work towards.
They have people starving, yet they would rather create and fill up their jails with homosexuals. Don't expect me to pick up the phone next time I see an African child starving on telly... Ahhh. Either they care about their own poverty or they don't. I surely won't care when they do not.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
I think you popl should stop using th lttr "e". I don't think it is rally ncssary to us it, txts ar still radibl without thm, plus I and othrs might find th us of it offnsiv. Practic what you prach and stop using th lttr "e".! Or only us it in privat!
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
Hypocrit!
if u try real hard ull notice that the bolded part "all that onsense" is not written by me but by a user named shadymmj... but ncie try.
Theres alot of talk about "shifting moral standards", as if its totally arbitrary and unpredictable. Look at the big paradigm shifts in the last few hundred years: The ending of slavery, womens sufferage, black civil rights movement, tolerance for homosexuality, anti bullying/childrens rights. They all follow a pretty clear, linear path. Im not a moral absolutist, I dont have the answer, but the extreme moral relativism in this thread is kinda stupid.
Well we've already had the obligatory attempted bash America derail (twice!), we've had the obligatory moral relativism arguments being advanced and thankfully pushed back against hard, and the twist into "I don't understand why gays have to be so open about being gay" land. Thread is right on schedule.
Laws like this are a prelude to a government ignoring or encouraging mob violence against the targeted minority, in this case homosexuals.
Some people appear to believe that "sovereignty" is a natural right that is more sacrosanct than anything, and that the "sovereignty" flag can be waved to excuse just about anything a government does. A government doesn't have an automatic right to sovereignty.
On November 23 2012 23:45 lahara wrote: if u try real hard ull notice that the bolded part "all that onsense" is not written by me but by a user named shadymmj... but ncie try.
Idiot! gg wp liquidlahara
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
On November 23 2012 23:45 lahara wrote: if u try real hard ull notice that the bolded part "all that onsense" is not written by me but by a user named shadymmj... but ncie try.
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
what?[/QUOTE]
I rarely reconsider aspects of my life when people take offence by it. Are you a people pleaser? Thinking your needs are not as important as others comfort? I haven't partaken in any parades but, I really do not see your view as applicable to anyone's life.
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
Gay pride parades or events are ways to build the self-confidence and emotional/psychological security of gay people, to reinforce in their heads the idea that they can be open about their sexuality in public and not have to be afraid that they're going to get harassed or assaulted about it.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
On November 23 2012 23:45 lahara wrote: if u try real hard ull notice that the bolded part "all that onsense" is not written by me but by a user named shadymmj... but ncie try.
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
what?
are u saying this world is free of people ta<king being offended by homosexuality? its a true statement, i however am not offended by it so whats ure point?
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
On November 23 2012 23:45 lahara wrote: if u try real hard ull notice that the bolded part "all that onsense" is not written by me but by a user named shadymmj... but ncie try.
Idiot! gg wp liquidlahara
On November 23 2012 23:40 lahara wrote: lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
what?
are u saying this world is free of people ta<king being offended by homosexuality? its a true statement, i however am not offended by it so whats ure point?
No, I'm saying that banning something from public (be it legal or by pressure from a society) simply because someone claims to be offended is a bad idea. It can be a contributing factor but should never be accepted as sufficient in and on itself.
Anyone can claim to be offended about anything. There is no way for anyone to proof they are not. If you think something is not right make an argument for this. If you are offended by something, simply don't look at it / partake in it and deal with it like a grownup.
On November 23 2012 23:57 Destro wrote: the ignorance of some posters in this thread...
Well to be honest it isn't ignorance, it's just a fact that fundamentally it's possible for people to consider deviant sexuality as immoral because morality systems aren't perfect / concrete / universal. It's going to be an ongoing issue regardless of what gender / sexuality / moral maxims system you cohere to. For example, the fact that middle age and older males still find younger females sexually attractive and we end up with alot of marriages where a 40-50 year old male marries a young 18-24 year old female is extremely repulsive to me, yet it is coherent with heterosexuality and our biology.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
By the definition of natural, as in occurring in nature, homosexuality is perfectly natural, since it is present in a great many species.
This naturalistic argument is also rather silly, because very little of what humans do is natural.
Having a conversation via the internet on a Starcraft 2 forum, not very natural.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Yes, being homosexual which you are born with compared to growing plants to produce drugs, which is completely voluntary action. Of course it is more important to protect gay rights than drug-producer rights. And it is natural, it is not normal (as in common), but homosexuality is natural
On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote: [quote] I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
Do you even read what people say?
You just keep droning on without actually reacting to what anyone says. If you're not going to actually engage other people, why not just spout your opinions at a wall?
People have repeatedly explained to you why these parades matter, and like a broken record, you just repeat "nuh-uh".
On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote: [quote] I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
Your annoying "gg wp" and signature at the end of the posts is also unnecessary and offensive. I think you shouldn't do that.
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
So you're arguing that because certain plants are illegal to grow in many countries (because there's many that it is perfectly legal in) that it must be wrong? What if your Homosexuality was outlawed in All countries would that make it wrong? And there is no proof that humans are "born gay" Who's to say people don't become homosexual because of factors such as gay media promotion, gay pride marches, stuff they see on tv, or any other false imformation they might receive such as "People can be born gay" Mabey uganda wants to stop people from being turned gay through all this brainwash bullcrap? What's wrong with that? And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
So you're arguing that because certain plants are illegal to grow in many countries (because there's many that it is perfectly legal in) that it must be wrong? What if your Homosexuality was outlawed in All countries would that make it wrong? And there is no proof that humans are "born gay" Who's to say people don't become homosexual because of factors such as gay media promotion, gay pride marches, stuff they see on tv, or any other false imformation they might receive such as "People can be born gay" Mabey uganda wants to stop people from being turned gay through all this brainwash bullcrap? What's wrong with that? And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.
No I'm not arguing about that, the end of my comment is "marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits." You started with a generalization "deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants" and I outlined why that generalization is stupid. I did not actually argue pro or con marijuana legalization in my post. But if you must know, I'm actually pro-marijuana legalization provided it's met with the same restrictive legal nature as other controlled substances and given a age limit / legal liability for inappropriate use.
On November 23 2012 22:54 lahara wrote: [quote] well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
Do you even read what people say?
You just keep droning on without actually reacting to what anyone says. If you're not going to actually engage other people, why not just spout your opinions at a wall?
People have repeatedly explained to you why these parades matter, and like a broken record, you just repeat "nuh-uh".
if u read my responmse u will see i explain my point of viewand why i think that the explanations given by tlers on why parades are important are not convincing to me
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
So you're arguing that because certain plants are illegal to grow in many countries (because there's many that it is perfectly legal in) that it must be wrong? What if your Homosexuality was outlawed in All countries would that make it wrong? And there is no proof that humans are "born gay" Who's to say people don't become homosexual because of factors such as gay media promotion, gay pride marches, stuff they see on tv, or any other false imformation they might receive such as "People can be born gay" Mabey uganda wants to stop people from being turned gay through all this brainwash bullcrap? What's wrong with that? And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.
No I'm not arguing about that, the end of my comment is "marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits." You started with a generalization "deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants" and I outlined why that generalization is stupid. I did not actually argue pro or con marijuana legalization in my post. But if you must know, I'm actually pro-marijuana legalization provided it's met with the same restrictive legal nature as other controlled substances and given a age limit / legal liability for inappropriate use.
Like i said there is no 100% proof that "gay" is a "special status" You have a choice if u wanna fuck a man or fuck a woman. You have a choice whether you want to grow merijuana or not. It's up to you. I do know one thing. The penis has 2 purposes 1 for using the bathroom the other for making WOMEN pregnant. If you CHOOSE to use it in other ways then that is up to you.
By the way lahara did you know not everyone who competes in the Paralympics has a mental disability, it's also for people who are physically disabled in some way as well... not everyone there is a "retard."
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
So you're arguing that because certain plants are illegal to grow in many countries (because there's many that it is perfectly legal in) that it must be wrong? What if your Homosexuality was outlawed in All countries would that make it wrong? And there is no proof that humans are "born gay" Who's to say people don't become homosexual because of factors such as gay media promotion, gay pride marches, stuff they see on tv, or any other false imformation they might receive such as "People can be born gay" Mabey uganda wants to stop people from being turned gay through all this brainwash bullcrap? What's wrong with that? And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.
No I'm not arguing about that, the end of my comment is "marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits." You started with a generalization "deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants" and I outlined why that generalization is stupid. I did not actually argue pro or con marijuana legalization in my post. But if you must know, I'm actually pro-marijuana legalization provided it's met with the same restrictive legal nature as other controlled substances and given a age limit / legal liability for inappropriate use.
Like i said there is no 100% proof that "gay" is a "special status" You have a choice if u wanna fuck a man or fuck a woman. You have a choice whether you want to grow merijuana or not. It's up to you. I do know one thing. The penis has 2 purposes 1 for using the bathroom the other for making WOMEN pregnant. If you CHOOSE to use it in other ways then that is up to you.
I'm arguing that no case deserves special status, every case has to be examined on its own merits. So your first sentence affirms what I'm saying.
Secondly I also have a choice whether I want to fuck a man, a woman, a dog, a dead person, or a child. That doesn't make it right. I could also make a teenage female pregnant via rape. I don't understand your argument. We legislate actions that harm others with out consent and capacity of understanding (consideration, capacity, legality, etc etc) as the basis of law, not "freedom of choice".
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
So you're arguing that because certain plants are illegal to grow in many countries (because there's many that it is perfectly legal in) that it must be wrong? What if your Homosexuality was outlawed in All countries would that make it wrong? And there is no proof that humans are "born gay" Who's to say people don't become homosexual because of factors such as gay media promotion, gay pride marches, stuff they see on tv, or any other false imformation they might receive such as "People can be born gay" Mabey uganda wants to stop people from being turned gay through all this brainwash bullcrap? What's wrong with that? And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.
I am pretty sure this guy is blatantly trolling now. I refuse to believe that someone actually believes this. "And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.". Wtf. I dont even know how to react to this.
Also, the whole "we need to protect the children from being turned gay by gay brainwashing" angle is completely absurd. First, why. Even if it were happening (It is not), what is the problem with it? I simply don't see anything wrong with being gay. It should not be a problem to explain why it is in a rational way if it is so obviously wrong. Secondly, people are being turned gay by gay pride parades? How is that supposed to work?
On November 23 2012 23:21 mcc wrote: [quote] And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
Do you even read what people say?
You just keep droning on without actually reacting to what anyone says. If you're not going to actually engage other people, why not just spout your opinions at a wall?
People have repeatedly explained to you why these parades matter, and like a broken record, you just repeat "nuh-uh".
if u read my responmse u will see i explain my point of viewand why i think that the explanations given by tlers on why parades are important are not convincing to me
gg wp liquidlahara
Could you please stop it with the stupid "ggwp liquidlahara" crap, that is obviously only there to annoy everyone? Signing posts is stupid, everyone can see your name at the top of your post. And that "ggwp" just looks like "I won the argument, you are stupid" to everyone else.
On November 24 2012 00:08 [3S]Green wrote: USA has laws that are even WORSTE than this. Here in America you can be sentenced to MANY years in prison just for deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants. Wat's worste growing plants or promoting homosexuality, which is anti-christian and it just itsn't natural lol. Wake up people you're being brainwashed here.
Oh don't start with that, in alot (if not all) countries it's also illegal to grow plants that produce heroin or scopolamine for the purpose of creating a drug, marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits.
So you're arguing that because certain plants are illegal to grow in many countries (because there's many that it is perfectly legal in) that it must be wrong? What if your Homosexuality was outlawed in All countries would that make it wrong? And there is no proof that humans are "born gay" Who's to say people don't become homosexual because of factors such as gay media promotion, gay pride marches, stuff they see on tv, or any other false imformation they might receive such as "People can be born gay" Mabey uganda wants to stop people from being turned gay through all this brainwash bullcrap? What's wrong with that? And if they happen to be "born gay" then why will love it in prison im sure.
No I'm not arguing about that, the end of my comment is "marijuana doesn't warrant a special status, every case has to be judged on its own merits." You started with a generalization "deciding to grow a garden of certain types of plants" and I outlined why that generalization is stupid. I did not actually argue pro or con marijuana legalization in my post. But if you must know, I'm actually pro-marijuana legalization provided it's met with the same restrictive legal nature as other controlled substances and given a age limit / legal liability for inappropriate use.
Like i said there is no 100% proof that "gay" is a "special status" You have a choice if u wanna fuck a man or fuck a woman. You have a choice whether you want to grow merijuana or not. It's up to you. I do know one thing. The penis has 2 purposes 1 for using the bathroom the other for making WOMEN pregnant. If you CHOOSE to use it in other ways then that is up to you.
Okay, riddle me this: When did you "choose" to be heterosexual?
LOL here in europe black people are all like "omg u are racist" if there are jokes about african people and they are not better...killing gays basically, that's it i hate racism in all it's form, i support blacks and gays and don't judge a person over it but this is just the most embarassing moment in the last 10 decades
they are racist themselves and view gays as satanic o.O then they should all "feel the wrath of lady gaga, for she is the queen of the gays and possessed by satan himself" (how africans would possibly view it)
a bit ironic, isn't it?
i remember the first time this bill didn't pass and i voted against the anti-gay-bill sad to see this shit rises again ._.
btw a str8 guy could pull of the poo-poo performance just like a gay one #argument invalid
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
Actually, we are not. We are discussing anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, and as an extension of that the question has been brought up whether people who are not from Uganda have a right to judge their laws, and maybe act against them. Noone was talking about nations telling each other what to do except you.
"We were discussing whether it's okay for people from other countries to judge other countries laws and maybe act against them. No one was talking about countries telling each other what to do except you."
Did you really just write that?
Someone asked him to stay on topic and he simply and correctly pointed out that they were essentially discussing whether it's any of our business in the first place.
Who cares about the specific wording? It was obvious what he meant and the contradiction in what you just wrote there is hilarious.
On November 23 2012 23:21 mcc wrote: [quote] And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
They need them because there is active pressure and the very real threat that their rights as individuals could be taken away at any minute, and also that in many parts of the world their rights are still not considered a given - for example in Uganda which is the center of the discussion. They are still very much actively fighting for their own rights as well as the rights of other human beings. The "Gay" rights parades also preach the values of sexual tolerance which isn't exclusive to just homosexuality, it also includes the rights of transexuals, bi-sexuals, etc, (note that this includes those who are just born into the world with a genetic rarity and could do nothing about it) which emcompasses a larger group than the majority of those taking part in the parade.
This response was posted above and you cherry pick a largely ineffectual response.
well i think their rights shouldnt be endangered and they shouldnt paarade end of story. their parades howevere in spite of being unnecessary should not be banned. i say unnecessary because in countries where homosexual rights are severely threatened parading would be suicidal in the first place gg wp liquidlahara
Do you even read what people say?
You just keep droning on without actually reacting to what anyone says. If you're not going to actually engage other people, why not just spout your opinions at a wall?
People have repeatedly explained to you why these parades matter, and like a broken record, you just repeat "nuh-uh".
if u read my responmse u will see i explain my point of viewand why i think that the explanations given by tlers on why parades are important are not convincing to me
gg wp liquidlahara
Gay parades are necessary because there is still strong opposition to gay rights movements. Why do gay rights do not have be "severely threatened" to justify parades?
On November 24 2012 00:30 DeepElemBlues wrote: By the way lahara did you know not everyone who competes in the Paralympics has a mental disability, it's also for people who are physically disabled in some way as well... not everyone there is a "retard."
i am fully aware of this. i was actuall pmed on this matter by some over zealous pseudo intelectuall 2 weeks ago :D
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
In a way he is describing an ideal world. You shouldn't need to parade about your pride in being gay, straight, male, female. It's just what you are and you should be accepted for what you are.
The fact that he can't acknowledge that we don't live in an ideal world and there's a reason people take "pride" in certain things and not other, more accepted things simply means he is trolling you hard is or genuinely incapable of simple reasoning.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
my point is i personally think its unnecessary for mentioned reasons. i also dont see how one can be proud ot be gay staright male or female. just not ym cup of tea gg wp liquidlahara
On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote: [quote] I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
my point is i personally think its unnecessary for mentioned reasons. i also dont see how one can be proud ot be gay staright male or female. just not ym cup of tea gg wp liquidlahara
When there are people trying to put you down, what better way to lift yourself, and eachother, up; than a big celebration.
On November 23 2012 22:38 Hairy wrote: [quote] I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
my point is i personally think its unnecessary for mentioned reasons. i also dont see how one can be proud ot be gay staright male or female. just not ym cup of tea gg wp liquidlahara
The gay pride parade is about "pride" just in name though, I also take issue with the wording but in reality that's just semantics since the purpose is not to simply express an ambiguous emotional state but to show presence and continued dedication to preserving their way of life as well as the sexual rights of other people not exclusive to their party. People have the freedom to celebrate / protest / parade in a peaceful manner. I may take issue with the GOP / Tea party parades but I understand that they are well with in their rights to, I could choose to engage in a civil discussion about why I think their parades / protests are misconstrued but I can't simply dismiss them on the basis on a word.
On November 23 2012 23:01 zalz wrote: Don't sell your spineless position as anything other than the cowardice that it is. Sovereignty can go to hell when it treads upon the rights of the individual.
So you agree with the wars in the middle east then? And if you disagree with the wars you are a coward, straight out of the George W Bush handbook that one - "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists! " was his exact quote.All those Arab countries gotta be more like 'Murrica! And yet these interventionist policies end up causing far more hardship to the people of those nations than doing nothing does.Pure madness.
please stick to the topic of gay rights in uganda
We are discussing whether it is morally right for one sovereign nation to tell another sovereign nation what it's laws should be.These are relevant examples (Removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan) - This is on topic.
Actually, we are not. We are discussing anti-homosexual laws in Uganda, and as an extension of that the question has been brought up whether people who are not from Uganda have a right to judge their laws, and maybe act against them. Noone was talking about nations telling each other what to do except you.
"We were discussing whether it's okay for people from other countries to judge other countries laws and maybe act against them. No one was talking about countries telling each other what to do except you."
Did you really just write that?
Someone asked him to stay on topic and he simply and correctly pointed out that they were essentially discussing whether it's any of our business in the first place.
Who cares about the specific wording? It was obvious what he meant and the contradiction in what you just wrote there is hilarious.
There is no contradiction. A country telling another country what to do is completely different from PEOPLE from a country judging another countries legislation and trying to change it. If i would found a group that tries to change ugandan gay legislation through legal means (flyers, information, getting the pope to say that gays are ok, whatever), that is a completely different thing then if Germany said something like "either you change your laws or we invade/don't give you aid anymore/whatever). The difference between the two is pretty important.
And somehow he believes that anyone who believes that the first thing is good actually means the second thing. The difference is not merely semantics, there is a distinct difference between the acts of a country as a legal entity and those of individual people, even if they are from that country. Which is why his examples have little to do with this situation, because noone asks for america to invade Uganda, or anything along those lines.
Oh wow..sorry. Couldn't help but laugh when the guy keeps saying "poo poo". Gotta love his sophistication.
Poo-Poo
Poo-Poo everywhere
On topic:
Obscurantism is everywhere... People should check whats happening in their own country... Hell, the other day I had an anti gay marriage march right under my flat, here in France, supposedly one of the more progressist countries.
Im a white straight male, but be it racism, homophobia, sexism or whatever discrimination I loose a bit of faith in humanity. Even though to tell you the truth I didnt have much to begin with.
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.
other moral standards? They are going to imprison or even convict the gay people to death sentence. I've got friends who are gay and there is nothing fucking criminal about that trust me.
Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
No I don't expect that religious believers will accept open, socially tolerated homosexuality, but I don't expect them to put people in jail for it either. I don't expect extreme leftists to tolerate extreme rightist views, but I don't expect them to jail them either. Also considering all sides isn't simply a tolerance issue, it is also an issue of being willing to stand up for what you believe in when your opinion is logically consistent and based on factual evidence and the opposition is not when the opposition is actively hurting other people.
If I disagree with someone's political stance, and that person's political stance is actively hurting the livelihoods of other people, then I do have a choice, if not responsibility to act upon that. If we accept the right for religious believers to exert their influence in politics, we also accept the right for the opposition to that to exert their influence. Not having a personal opinion is just tripe. you do have a personal opinion, choosing to remain neutral is a conscious effort and a decision with consequences.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
i beg ur pardon are you serious or is this a joke in a not funny context?
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Seconded. WN fighting for "traditional families" and "traditional marriage" just like our almighty Lord and Savior intended.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
i beg ur pardon are you serious or is this a joke in a not funny context?
That was my interpretation of what I had bolded above.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Unless you're white and/or rich. Then you gotta pay.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
I am not extremely left because i don´t care about what religion ppl have, if they are gay or straight, black or white. I either like ppl or i dislike them because of their behavior and acting against others and me. You can´t call yourself "christian" if you don´t accept ppl like they are...
Wow, hard to keep track of the many discussions They should create sub-thread threads T_T
If I could just say; for all the interesting, dare I say titillating, argument going on here, there is one pertinent fact. People are going to be killed for a sexual preference that I'd like to think most people here at least tolerate. Actually they are already being killed, you may have realised. Would you be cool with your gay neighbour being dragged before a court, sentenced, and executed because he was also a school teacher? Because that's going to happen in Uganda.
So rather then conflating a rather straight-forward situation with real debate aimed at bettering the lot of the average human, sign a petition, keep the topic alive with everyone you know, at the very least make sure you know better when the same bullshit comes knocking at your door. Whatever you are comfortable with ... just know there is some crazy shit out there.
On November 23 2012 23:57 Destro wrote: the ignorance of some posters in this thread...
Well to be honest it isn't ignorance, it's just a fact that fundamentally it's possible for people to consider deviant sexuality as immoral because morality systems aren't perfect / concrete / universal. It's going to be an ongoing issue regardless of what gender / sexuality / moral maxims system you cohere to. For example, the fact that middle age and older males still find younger females sexually attractive and we end up with alot of marriages where a 40-50 year old male marries a young 18-24 year old female is extremely repulsive to me, yet it is coherent with heterosexuality and our biology.
would you be offended if the 18-24 year olds witht theyre grandpa hubbys had parades? gg wp liquidlahara
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Seconded. WN fighting for "traditional families" and "traditional marriage" just like our almighty Lord and Savior intended.
Thirded. And who said our righteous religion is for love only? We can hate on other people just like everybody else.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Unless you're white and/or rich. Then you gotta pay.
I agree, life is really hard as a rich straight white man, it's so totally the same !
In my opinion this is just wrong. I am not homosexual myself but i believe it is a natural as it is even practiced among animal species, so why shouldn't we humans be allowed to be homosexual?
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive...
I would be MOST interested to hear your reasoning behind this.
well i thinnk people shouild just stop making a thing out of it at all. theres no straight parades where we rub our straightness into gay peoples faces... so they shouldnt go around habing gay parade which in my opinion not only serve the purpose of clebration but are alos intended to provoke as many gay people especially younger ones enjoy the breaking of a tabu or whatever.
And that is a problem that warrants banning them why ?
i neevr said it should be stopped. i personally dont see the use in them so i think people should stop doing these paardes especiall yif others get offended. celebrate your homosexuality in private. if they dont want to stop well then people wil just get offended and its just too bad. i never said anything about bannning the parades . l2r
liquidlahara
Homosexuals used to hide their sexuality.
People like you kept drafting their names on lists and publishing them in the newspaper so they would get fired.
Historic record shows that when homosexuals don't flaunt anything, they are still targetted.
lol people like me? way to go overboard :D. all i say is that since some people take offense hthey might wanna reconsider having parades celebrating their sexuality which people are either indifferent to or take offense at. i just dont see the point. i dont have a problem with homosexuals but i just dont see why they need gay paardes when i dont need a straight parade
But you're ignoring the positive things that come out of the parade. One of the major reasons for having it is to help other gay people come out and be proud of their orientation rather than live in shame from the social stigma associated with being gay in many countries, including first world countries. In general you should avoid offending people if possible, but what they're doing has very important positive consequences; it helps people escape from the psychological torment of suppressing their own sexuality. Clearly you shouldn't say that not offending extremely religious people is more important.
Secondly you have to draw the line at what should be considered offensive and what not...like what group of people do you want to respect and take seriously. Would you avoid offending neo-nazis by supporting democratic, non-racist policies? Would you avoid offending religious preachers by supporting the teaching of evolution in schools?
Now if you're talking specifically about Uganda, then you're offending a lot more people and that needs to be taken into account. In that case, just ask yourself objectively whether the striving towards a culture that accepts gays and teaches them that its okay to be whatever orientation they are is something which is more important than offending a group of hardcore Christians (and as pointed out in this thread, many of whom have been the target of ridiculous propaganda about the evilness of gays).
there is nothing about being gay ot take pride in just like i dont take pride in being hetero. either youre gay or youre not nothing to be proud of. its like saying ure proud to be a dude or poroud to be a girl
I am proud to be a man.. Many women are proud to be women. Women even have their own international day, the 8th of march. What's your point?
Gays are hardly the only "group" to celebrate having gained civil rights or recognition.
Actually yes. Almost every nation has it's independence day (or something like that).
Its just silly and sad how some people think about this. Like is has been said before in that thread, you cant choose who you are attracted to. And to those who claim that might comes because of all that gay parades and stuff, how do you explain that even ANIMALS are sometimes gay in nature? im pretty sure they didnt watch the last gay pride on tv.
Its really sad that in some countries the trend still goes worse and worse in that regards. i feel sorry to the people who live their, it has to be horrible for them to not being allowed to show who you are.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
While I completely do not agree with the entirety of this post, allow me to refute the boldened points. Mind you, I'm not gay, nor leftwinged, so please take them objectively.
1. There's loads of evidence of gay relationships in history, only since the major religions took sway during the medieval times had it become a radical concept. It's neither one that's "almost purely modern", but rather one cemented in antiquity, and only now once again slowly breaking free.
2. Do you realize what you're saying? What if my deep religious belief would be .. say fasting, does this give me the right to blame, ostracize and condemn others for not doing so? It's a ridiculous notion to use a religious belief as a weight to throw around to judge others peoples lives and how they should live them. I say, live and let live.
User was banned for being generally awful and having a mod history a mile long. This post was bad enough that I took a look to see if it was typical of him, as it turned out it was the final straw.
On November 23 2012 23:22 Zandar wrote: Only one who can and should fix this before the bill gets accepted is the Pope. And Christians could mail him to push him to do that.
Pretty ironic for some people to be making the argument that sovereignty excludes people from other countries to act on one country's legislation, while others argue that religious sovereignty transcends national sovereignty and is free to influence one country's politics. I thought we've gone past that point and now base whether or not a cause is just on reason and rationalism.
Nope. We're still a pretty horrible species when it comes to people that aren't intelligent and well off.
The main reason for pushing this far, is religion again:
Quote from wiki:
Fundamentalist Christianity
In 2009, many news sources reported on Jeff Sharlet's investigation regarding ties between Museveni and the American fundamentalist Christian organization The Fellowship (also known as "The Family").[58][59] Sharlet reports that Douglas Coe, leader of The Fellowship, identified Museveni as the organization's "key man in Africa."[59] Further international scrutiny accompanied the 2009 Ugandan efforts to institute the death penalty for homosexuality, with leaders from Canada, the UK, the US, and France expressing concerns for human rights.[60][61] British newspaper The Guardian reported that President Museveni "appeared to add his backing" to the legislative effort by, among other things, claiming "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.[62] The 2009 effort for harsher penalties for homosexual behavior further strengthens existing laws criminalizing homosexuality.
I want to throw up ... man I hate relig..... damn.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
I wonder if the south will enact some laws to chop off the left hands of people for whom it's dominant. Traditionally it's been viewed as the sign of the devil, right?
In 2009, many news sources reported on Jeff Sharlet's investigation regarding ties between Museveni and the American fundamentalist Christian organization The Fellowship (also known as "The Family").[58][59] Sharlet reports that Douglas Coe, leader of The Fellowship, identified Museveni as the organization's "key man in Africa."[59] Further international scrutiny accompanied the 2009 Ugandan efforts to institute the death penalty for homosexuality, with leaders from Canada, the UK, the US, and France expressing concerns for human rights.[60][61] British newspaper The Guardian reported that President Museveni "appeared to add his backing" to the legislative effort by, among other things, claiming "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.[62] The 2009 effort for harsher penalties for homosexual behavior further strengthens existing laws criminalizing homosexuality.
I want to throw up ... man I hate relig..... damn.
So you quote a snippet on FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity and that somehow equates with all religions? The glaring flaw in logic here ought to be easy to see, so I'm inclined to think you simply enjoy "hating" things. Have fun with that.
Regarding the discussion about gay parades, it's so easy for heterosexual people to dismiss homosexual people's needs when they have no benefits from them (same goes for any majority discriminating against the minority case). That being said, I do think gay parades should be made to look a bit less.. awkward. It kind of paints a bad image, so even many LGBT people find gay parades bad. The idea of visibility / spreading awareness is good, but the execution just disgusts a lot of people. But I'm not the one who's organizing them, so..
As for legal unacceptance of being LGBT, it's really sad that people are pretty much forced to move to more accepting countries to feel safe, and those who have no options of moving out, well, that's really terrible for them.
In 2009, many news sources reported on Jeff Sharlet's investigation regarding ties between Museveni and the American fundamentalist Christian organization The Fellowship (also known as "The Family").[58][59] Sharlet reports that Douglas Coe, leader of The Fellowship, identified Museveni as the organization's "key man in Africa."[59] Further international scrutiny accompanied the 2009 Ugandan efforts to institute the death penalty for homosexuality, with leaders from Canada, the UK, the US, and France expressing concerns for human rights.[60][61] British newspaper The Guardian reported that President Museveni "appeared to add his backing" to the legislative effort by, among other things, claiming "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.[62] The 2009 effort for harsher penalties for homosexual behavior further strengthens existing laws criminalizing homosexuality.
I want to throw up ... man I hate relig..... damn.
well well well... being gay is a choice and being fucking religious isn't? they better ask some gays whether they believe in satan or not before nuking the whole country to stop LGBT infestation
i always hated how people have to act out of religion and i always will and if they want to believe in god, they can. but they shouldn't think they have to transfer their believes on others
even if gays would choose to be gay... can't they?
On November 24 2012 04:33 Denda Reloaded wrote:even if gays would choose to be gay... can't they?
Amen, brother.
I never understood these people who argue for Gay Rights because "you don't choose who you are attracted to" or "even animals have gay sex" or anything along those lines.
In my opinion, the point that ought to be made is this :
Why should the "naturality" of homosexuality have any weight in the question?
People can fuck whoever they want, and I fail to see why anyone should have a say in this except the people involved. And I also fail to see why the fact that they have a choice or not in deciding/wanting to have same-sex relations matters.
(obviously, I refer here to people agreeing to have sex, not rape or child-abuse situations, just felt like clarifying to prevent trolling)
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
So essentially, you're saying that because people of one religion don't like TEH GAYZ, they should be allowed to force their beliefs onto everybody else and given the right to kill homosexuals that aren't even of their religion?.....
Also, in terms of history, you might want to look at the greeks....
This is so sad. Like I feel bad for them, Uganda and the gay people having to deal living in that country. But third world countries are plagued by christian cultural oppression the most, and this is one of the result (which is as bad as the anti condom campaign).
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
I can't remember reading anything more ignorant in a while...
Gays are fighting because they are still being murdered for being gay all over the planet. And in the countries where the lynch mobs have slightly cooled off, they are still being discriminated against on a daily basis.
I'm sure they'll "keep it out of your face" as soon as they are finally equal to the rest of mankind.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what is.
Dude, you obviously have an opinion.
Surely if I replaced homosexuality with religion in that paragraph and place the setting in the USSR you won't be going all superior with your "it is what it is".
To address your "other side of the coin" matter, a fundamental belief is never a justification to be considered, otherwise to the bad apples blowing up things in the name of jihad you'd also have to say :
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
Gays aren't shutting up about it because they are being tortured and killed, both legally and illegally, all over the world. Even worse, many areas that do that are filled to the brim with glue-sniffing retards, so there's this whole frenzy going on about finding out who's gay and who isn't that is comparable to all those witch trials we had back in the day. Also, human civilization has been hating on gays for pretty much as long as we knew about them (read: hundreds, maybe even thousands of years). Only recently have they actually ever gone out and done all these parades and such. In other words, gay hate precedes gay pride.
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
Ever heard of labour day? The day where workers celebrate the progress of gaining worker's rights through literally centuries if not millenias of struggles? Somehow I don't think anyone is complaining about that, regardless of whether or not the existence of worker's rights or unions actually impeaches on their interests, because they recognize that celebrating the achievement and continued existence of rights for a broad group of people who have fought for their rights is extremely important to the integrity of society. And if they do complain about it it becomes extremely obvious just what priorities that individual has. Now apply that to homosexuals or people fighting for sexual freedom / rights. I don't want to keep repeating myself but the gay pride parade isn't just about homosexuals, it's also about the ability to express and live with your given sexuality against societal pressures and norms, and emcompasses groups that are not only limited to homosexuals, including transexuals, bi-sexuals, people who are born with a genetic disorder in chromosomes exhibiting dual sex characteristics and so on.
This is the bill that Chik-fil-A was (indirectly) sponsoring. Everyone completely missed the point when they made the protest about free speech. It wasn't about free speech. It was literally about murder.
On November 24 2012 06:26 dAPhREAk wrote: it was only recently that the United States Supreme Court overturned such homosexuality laws. food for thought for the "africa is backcountry" crowd.
In 2009, many news sources reported on Jeff Sharlet's investigation regarding ties between Museveni and the American fundamentalist Christian organization The Fellowship (also known as "The Family").[58][59] Sharlet reports that Douglas Coe, leader of The Fellowship, identified Museveni as the organization's "key man in Africa."[59] Further international scrutiny accompanied the 2009 Ugandan efforts to institute the death penalty for homosexuality, with leaders from Canada, the UK, the US, and France expressing concerns for human rights.[60][61] British newspaper The Guardian reported that President Museveni "appeared to add his backing" to the legislative effort by, among other things, claiming "European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa", and saying gay relationships were against God's will.[62] The 2009 effort for harsher penalties for homosexual behavior further strengthens existing laws criminalizing homosexuality.
I want to throw up ... man I hate relig..... damn.
Yeah...being gay and religious myself, I am incredibly ashamed. Stuff like this confirms my belief that the best way for true Christianity to survive is if we burn down all Christian institutions. The Evangelicals are definitely outnumbers good people like Desmond Tutu.
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
What are you talking about, in countries where gays are open and "in your face" about it less and less people hate gays (correlation, not causation, but it proves you wrong anyway). In Uganda I doubt they are having pride parades or being open at all. They would be lynched on the streets. They are trying to survive out of sight.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Homosexuality is NOT a "modern" concept. It is largely society dependant, but by the looks of it, ancient Greeks and Romans had a much more "modern" view on it than many of today's most "modern" states.
On topic: I think such a thing is atrocious, but still, I think this issue might be just a minor thing among all that is wrong with Uganda.
On November 23 2012 22:43 agfoxGnom wrote: Totally support this, Africa is much more clever than white people world and we are calling them 3rd world countries. Maybe it is us who are really 3rd world countries and this world is not about money, but about morality?
If I ever doubt that I am on the right side of history, I need only listen to the other side to have my worries put to rest.
I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Homosexuality is NOT a "modern" concept. It is largely society dependant, but by the looks of it, ancient Greeks and Romans had a much more "modern" view on it than many of today's most "modern" states.
On topic: I think such a thing is atrocious, but still, I think this issue might be just a minor thing among all that is wrong with Uganda.
Glad to see those two examples being used, but when people only use Greece and Rome, it promotes the idea that homosexuality was only invented in the West.
China, Japan, Thailand, and the Americas also had quite a gay history.
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
Gays aren't shutting up about it because they are being tortured and killed, both legally and illegally, all over the world. Even worse, many areas that do that are filled to the brim with glue-sniffing retards, so there's this whole frenzy going on about finding out who's gay and who isn't that is comparable to all those witch trials we had back in the day. Also, human civilization has been hating on gays for pretty much as long as we knew about them (read: hundreds, maybe even thousands of years). Only recently have they actually ever gone out and done all these parades and such. In other words, gay hate precedes gay pride.
On November 24 2012 05:30 GTPGlitch wrote: Also, in terms of history, you might want to look at the greeks....
I see there's so much ignorance in this case. Homosexuality hasn't really been frowned upon in alot of historic cultures, it's pretty much only during the rise of the major religions that condemning homosexuality rose to inhumane levels.
As for an (incomplete) list of historic cultures that have been shown (by evidence) to have accepted homosexuality: Africa Ancient egypt (contested) - Shown in scriptures in the bible and various drawings by egyptians themselves. Various tribes such as Lesotho and Azande before European colonization - oral evidence from elders.
Americas Pretty much every indigenous people of the Americas, Mayans, Incas, Iroquois, etc. In fact they were often even revered as powerful shamans, more powerful than ordinary ones. - As shown in Spanish letters and oral evidence.
East Asia China (Qing, Ming, pretty much every dynasty) - Well documented, as nearly everything was in China. Ancient Japan - Not nearly as well documented, although various tales reference it and Emperors have been shown to have had same-sex lovers.
Europe Various Greek periods - Do I even need to? :> Rome - Nearly all emperors, although at the end of the roman empire it started to become unlawful in the empire due to Christian infuence. Renaissance in Italy (although authorities did not condone) - Tailored to Greek and Rome's example. France and possibly other countries (contested) - 'enbrotherment' was a legal category used for two men to share quarters and resources, effectively making it a marriage and living as a couple.
Middle East, South and Central Asia Never has really been allowed for the exception of Persia, although it was quite wide spread at times.
South Pacific Very prevalent, even integral part of life before introduction of Christianity by missionaries. The Etoro and Marind-anim (and possibly others) have even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead.
For more in-depth information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality and references on that page. If you search for specific ancient cultures I'm sure you can find even more than listed on this page and those that I listed by referencing Wikipedia and other sources.
@qwyn "Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief. " sooo... people now can't marry because some people BELIEVE (yeah, i mean the word "believe", not "know") that it is wrong? fuckin dipshit like srsly
I think it's a bit wrong that religious people view themselves in a position to pacify all gays over the world because their fuckin believe and those people can't be who they really are, not just "believe they are gay"
this shit is so silly i will travel str8 to the mars colony if it will be made before i die
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
Oh yeah. Cause allowing the law to murder you because you are gay is such a valid viewpoint. Let's all consider being dead for a while. Only appropriate to consider both sides.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Unless you're white and/or rich. Then you gotta pay.
I agree, life is really hard as a rich straight white man, it's so totally the same !
He was making a caricature through implication, so I did the same. The left expressing glee at the relative demographic decline of whites and the prospect of 'punishing' the rich is just as much a caricature as wanting certain people to be second class citizens is a caricature of the right.
Problems with Uganda -High levels of corruption -Poor economy -destructive policies -Child Trafficking -Illiteracy
These are just a few problems with Uganda I was able to find via a quick look at their wikipedia page. And to think they're wasting their time on banning homosexuality.
Freedom of religion is what they are using. They like religion, religion doesnt like gay people then its only natural for their society to then say being gay is illegal. Cant stop something majority in a society is against.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something.
And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Yes, I see no reason why not other than possible complications with genetics. However, marriage doesn't automatically mean babies, so I see no valid reason.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something.
And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
I don't agree with these laws being proposed by Uganda, but as you say yourself, no one is advocating an invasion of Uganda. We are welcome to disagree with these Ugandan laws, but if that's all we're doing... what's the point? Just to go "rabble rabble rabble!" online, and then go to sleep feeling good about yourself for being a progressive member of society? I have to agree with StarMoon to an extent. Sure I don't agree with what Uganda is doing, but what can we do about it?
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something.
And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
I don't agree with these laws being proposed by Uganda, but as you say yourself, no one is advocating an invasion of Uganda. We are welcome to disagree with these Ugandan laws, but if that's all we're doing... what's the point? Just to go "rabble rabble rabble!" online, and then go to sleep feeling good about yourself for being a progressive member of society? I have to agree with StarMoon to an extent. Sure I don't agree with what Uganda is doing, but what can we do about it?
Doing nothing is always worse than doing something, as miniscule as it may seem, the eventual effect is unknowable. Even if it doesn't change the situation in Uganda (which of course this thread will not), it may change or educate various other people reading this thread.
On November 24 2012 07:52 Coraz wrote: good for Uganda
homosexuality spreads AIDS
africa has enough aids problems already
ok this is officially the dumbest post I have read on TL in at least a month. It's not the homosexuality that spreads AIDS, it's the sex with infected people. So you propose to ban homosexuality so that they don't have sex? Why stop at homosexuals only? Lets ban sex between all people! AIDS problem will be solved as soon as all infected people die out.
On November 24 2012 01:26 Qwyn wrote: Well, it is certainly understandable why Uganda would do that. I don't have a personal opinion on the matter, except to say that:
It is what it is. For much of history to be gay was akin to witchcraft or heresy...it was simply inconceivable. The idea of socially accepted, open homo-sexuality on a large scale is a radical concept...one that is almost purely modern.
The reaction of many people is thus, understandable. Regardless of my personal views on the subject, tolerance of homosexuality is becoming far more widespread, perpetuated by the liberal media, technology, social services...
Too many people are not considering the opposite side of the coin before they state their opinions. They do not consider that many people have deep religious beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is considered an evil. Do you honestly expect that many of these religious believers would ACCEPT open, socially tolerated homosexuality? Of course not! It goes against a fundamental belief.
TL is largely populated by people with extremely left viewpoints. It gets almost sickening after awhile. Part of adopting a strong opinion on an issue is to consider all sides.
Which ultimately led me not to have a personal opinion.
Except to say that: it is what it is.
All these gosh-darn lefties with their beliefs that people should be equal! I demand that we consider treating certain segments of society as 2nd class citizens instead!
Unless you're white and/or rich. Then you gotta pay.
I agree, life is really hard as a rich straight white man, it's so totally the same !
He was making a caricature through implication, so I did the same. The left expressing glee at the relative demographic decline of whites and the prospect of 'punishing' the rich is just as much a caricature as wanting certain people to be second class citizens is a caricature of the right.
Problem is, he was caricaturing the poster he was responding to and not the right, whereas you completely out of nowhere , by some knee-jerk I assume, brought it into American politics territory. He was responding to someone who was bitching about lefties as the only people who could be against discrimination of gays, I have no idea where did you see the jab at the right. Unless you were just going completely on the non-related tangent.
He might have been caricaturing the right, but there is no way you can deduce it from his post and it is definitely not worded so, it more seems like too much time in US presidential election thread makes people see jabs where there are none
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Biologically, cousins are far enough removed that genetics are not an issue. Legally, most nations in the world allow it. Morally, there isn't any reason that wouldn't apply to childhood friends or children of close family friends.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something.
And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
I don't agree with these laws being proposed by Uganda, but as you say yourself, no one is advocating an invasion of Uganda. We are welcome to disagree with these Ugandan laws, but if that's all we're doing... what's the point? Just to go "rabble rabble rabble!" online, and then go to sleep feeling good about yourself for being a progressive member of society? I have to agree with StarMoon to an extent. Sure I don't agree with what Uganda is doing, but what can we do about it?
We can do things, not necessarily military. But which ones exactly is hard to decide. There are other ways to either put pressure on the oppressors or help the oppressed. As for why people discuss it, well evidently because people like to discuss things. As for me, I hope that someone will post something interesting that will enhance my own viewpoint. Not very likely in a thread with this topic, but it might happen.
On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote: 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.
That doesn't mean that people can't be right or wrong regarding questions of morality. Not every view point is equally valid on the subject of morality.
On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote: 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.
That doesn't mean that people can't be right or wrong regarding questions of morality. Not every view point is equally valid on the subject of morality.
Indeed, morality nowadays is largely based on rational and sane discussion. Thank go... science for that.
On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote: 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.
That doesn't mean that people can't be right or wrong regarding questions of morality. Not every view point is equally valid on the subject of morality.
And if you could make another nation agree with you, that would be peachy. But you can't.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Biologically, cousins are far enough removed that genetics are not an issue. Legally, most nations in the world allow it. Morally, there isn't any reason that wouldn't apply to childhood friends or children of close family friends.
But should we still give money and aid to Uganda if this is how they wish to help themselves? We can potentially use political sanctions, but should we reward them? I bet the red cross have some gay volunteers. They should leave the country for sure.
War is not the only way to put pressure on someone. If you do not condone their policies, at all, you can sanction them in many ways. For instance not trade with them.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
I get the idea that you are somewhat contradicting yourself. On one side you are praising personal freedom and on the other hand you are against it as you have no trouble with people who harm noone being jailed and discriminated by the state. Because the gays there won't be able to blow the others off, they will be jailed and lynched. Nice of you to be ok with that. Btw, most people here are not trying to say we should invade Uganda and force them to do something.
And to a larger point, there are no different moralities when it comes to people being made to suffer for harmless behaviour, there is the moral and ethical code and the evil and immoral one. No relativity here, no "their morality is as valid as ours". The proposed laws are evil, universally.
I don't agree with these laws being proposed by Uganda, but as you say yourself, no one is advocating an invasion of Uganda. We are welcome to disagree with these Ugandan laws, but if that's all we're doing... what's the point? Just to go "rabble rabble rabble!" online, and then go to sleep feeling good about yourself for being a progressive member of society? I have to agree with StarMoon to an extent. Sure I don't agree with what Uganda is doing, but what can we do about it?
Yes? This is an international forum. I live in a pretty homophobic country myself. Until I saw how vocal even straight people in developed countries are about defending the rights of minorities I was very hesitant of ever speaking my mind about homosexuality. Now when I see someone being retarded about homosexuals I step up to show how miserable they are (yes, it backfires quite often). I even bring it up myself sometimes to see how narrow-minded a person is. Since than quite a few people have come out to me (but not to other people, it's a secret) and I'm quite proud I earned their respect and trust. So the point is even in the internet defending the rights of minorities is totally worth it and can actually change things especially in less-developed countries.
On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote: 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.
That doesn't mean that people can't be right or wrong regarding questions of morality. Not every view point is equally valid on the subject of morality.
And if you could make another nation agree with you, that would be peachy. But you can't.
Funny how most of them agree on many things. For example, like all developed countries agree on this specific topic.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Biologically, cousins are far enough removed that genetics are not an issue. Legally, most nations in the world allow it. Morally, there isn't any reason that wouldn't apply to childhood friends or children of close family friends.
But should we still give money and aid to Uganda if this is how they wish to help themselves? We can potentially use political sanctions, but should we reward them? I bet the red cross have some gay volunteers. They should leave the country for sure.
War is not the only way to put pressure on someone. If you do not condone their policies, at all, you can sanction them in many ways. For instance not trade with them.
It is not that easy. What if sanctions and Red cross leaving leads to more suffering. Poverty often brings worst in people and they much more easily follow some genocidal maniacs. So stopping help might even worsen the whole problem. I am not saying we should just continue as before, but simple solutions rarely do not have bad side-effects.
On November 24 2012 06:09 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 24 2012 05:37 tMomiji wrote: -sigh-
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
Gays aren't shutting up about it because they are being tortured and killed, both legally and illegally, all over the world. Even worse, many areas that do that are filled to the brim with glue-sniffing retards, so there's this whole frenzy going on about finding out who's gay and who isn't that is comparable to all those witch trials we had back in the day. Also, human civilization has been hating on gays for pretty much as long as we knew about them (read: hundreds, maybe even thousands of years). Only recently have they actually ever gone out and done all these parades and such. In other words, gay hate precedes gay pride.
On November 24 2012 05:30 GTPGlitch wrote: Also, in terms of history, you might want to look at the greeks....
I see there's so much ignorance in this case. Homosexuality hasn't really been frowned upon in alot of historic cultures, it's pretty much only during the rise of the major religions that condemning homosexuality rose to inhumane levels.
As for an (incomplete) list of historic cultures that have been shown (by evidence) to have accepted homosexuality: Africa Ancient egypt (contested) - Shown in scriptures in the bible and various drawings by egyptians themselves. Various tribes such as Lesotho and Azande before European colonization - oral evidence from elders.
Americas Pretty much every indigenous people of the Americas, Mayans, Incas, Iroquois, etc. In fact they were often even revered as powerful shamans, more powerful than ordinary ones. - As shown in Spanish letters and oral evidence.
East Asia China (Qing, Ming, pretty much every dynasty) - Well documented, as nearly everything was in China. Ancient Japan - Not nearly as well documented, although various tales reference it and Emperors have been shown to have had same-sex lovers.
Europe Various Greek periods - Do I even need to? :> Rome - Nearly all emperors, although at the end of the roman empire it started to become unlawful in the empire due to Christian infuence. Renaissance in Italy (although authorities did not condone) - Tailored to Greek and Rome's example. France and possibly other countries (contested) - 'enbrotherment' was a legal category used for two men to share quarters and resources, effectively making it a marriage and living as a couple.
Middle East, South and Central Asia Never has really been allowed for the exception of Persia, although it was quite wide spread at times.
South Pacific Very prevalent, even integral part of life before introduction of Christianity by missionaries. The Etoro and Marind-anim (and possibly others) have even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead.
For more in-depth information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality and references on that page. If you search for specific ancient cultures I'm sure you can find even more than listed on this page and those that I listed by referencing Wikipedia and other sources.
edit: So ninja'd while I was writing this... :<
Heh, sorry greece was really the only one I was familiar with, ty for enlightenment :3
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Biologically, cousins are far enough removed that genetics are not an issue. Legally, most nations in the world allow it. Morally, there isn't any reason that wouldn't apply to childhood friends or children of close family friends.
But should we still give money and aid to Uganda if this is how they wish to help themselves? We can potentially use political sanctions, but should we reward them? I bet the red cross have some gay volunteers. They should leave the country for sure.
War is not the only way to put pressure on someone. If you do not condone their policies, at all, you can sanction them in many ways. For instance not trade with them.
Lot of questions here:
1) You can't force beliefs to change. You certainly can't threaten a nation (with military force or sanctions) to make them conform to your beliefs.
2) Why are you sending aid in the first place? If you're only providing help as long as you approve of their society, then essentially you just see "aid" as a means to mould another nation into yours.
3) What are you pressuring for? The end of the killing, the acceptance of homosexuals, the end of discrimination?
On November 24 2012 08:17 WolfintheSheep wrote: 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.
That doesn't mean that people can't be right or wrong regarding questions of morality. Not every view point is equally valid on the subject of morality.
And if you could make another nation agree with you, that would be peachy. But you can't.
Funny how most of them agree on many things. For example, like all developed countries agree on this specific topic.
Then I would suggest that bringing a nation to a 1st world economy is more effective than threats.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
On November 24 2012 08:01 Cheerio wrote: Ok for people thinking they've got a liberal point of view here is the question: should cousin (first, second, third) marriage be allowed?
Biologically, cousins are far enough removed that genetics are not an issue. Legally, most nations in the world allow it. Morally, there isn't any reason that wouldn't apply to childhood friends or children of close family friends.
But should we still give money and aid to Uganda if this is how they wish to help themselves? We can potentially use political sanctions, but should we reward them? I bet the red cross have some gay volunteers. They should leave the country for sure.
War is not the only way to put pressure on someone. If you do not condone their policies, at all, you can sanction them in many ways. For instance not trade with them.
It is not that easy. What if sanctions and Red cross leaving leads to more suffering. Poverty often brings worst in people and they much more easily follow some genocidal maniacs. So stopping help might even worsen the whole problem. I am not saying we should just continue as before, but simple solutions rarely do not have bad side-effects.
But seeing as this is what they themselves focus on, who are we to aid them when they do not focus on helping themselves and instead use resources on a witch hunt. It's already "impossible" to help a country that wants help. But helping one that doesn't want to help itself is backwards imo. Why should we attempt to prioritize for them, when they seem to care about something different entirely. Should we send them surveillance equipment so they can find and jail gays? Should we send them money when this is what they would potentially be doing with it?
Obviously it's not that simple. But I feel like this is the choice they made for themselves. Helping murderers isn't as simple as helping the "innocent". I think there will still be organizations doing relief work, but they should seriously start filtering out their gay volunteers and send them elsewhere.
Perhaps the threat of relief workers leaving the country, and political sanctions against trade with Uganda, will kill this law before it takes full effect. Might be worth considering.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
I think he'd say that he 'isn't against it'. He hasn't stated he is for it, but it is difficult to say that "not being against murder" is a neutral standpoint.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
It is entirely about morals. They certainly wouldn't be outlawing homosexuality because they think it's in style.
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
It is entirely about morals. They certainly wouldn't be outlawing homosexuality because they think it's in style.
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
It's not impossible to change someones beliefs, but it's much simpler forcing them to change their laws. The UN could probably do it in a few hours, seeing as they are all about human rights.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
It is entirely about morals. They certainly wouldn't be outlawing homosexuality because they think it's in style.
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
It's not impossible to change someones beliefs, but it's much simpler forcing them to change their laws. The UN could probably do it in a few hours, seeing as they are all about human rights.
Force them how? Tell them to accept homosexuality or you'll invade them? Accept it or you'll cripple their economy?
And then you'll have a nation that hates homosexuality in everything except law, and hate the western world for telling them what to think.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
It is entirely about morals. They certainly wouldn't be outlawing homosexuality because they think it's in style.
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
It's not impossible to change someones beliefs, but it's much simpler forcing them to change their laws. The UN could probably do it in a few hours, seeing as they are all about human rights.
Force them how? Tell them to accept homosexuality or you'll invade them? Accept it or you'll cripple their economy?
And then you'll have a nation that hates homosexuality in everything except law, and hate the western world for telling them what to think.
Political sanctions. Will likely work. Depends on how they prioritize. Why would we invade them -_-. Don't think we would have anything to do there.
The reason we aid them is because of we believe in human rights. Would make sense to pressure them into abiding by our set of human rights if we are to continue relief work in the name of human rights.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
P.S. Btw a post on the 1st page has this great video about the whole situation. I highly suggest everyone watches it to get an understanding of what is actually going on and why was this law initiative launched.
On November 23 2012 20:56 acidstormy wrote: There was a full documentary following this bill on youtube. It is an amazing one. Unfortunately, i think the channel that actually made it took it down, but here is part 1/5.
the original statement is just completely naive though. we don't have the power to force morality on to others but we can try when it comes to things like persecuting minorities.
There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues, and everyone tells him he's an idiot. Well played TL, well played.
On November 24 2012 09:39 forgotten0ne wrote: There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues
On November 24 2012 09:39 forgotten0ne wrote: There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues, and everyone tells him he's an idiot. Well played TL, well played.
And they should tell you that your an idiot as well. AIDs is almost completely spread through heterosexual sex and drug use in Africa. Try actually researching the issue.
On November 24 2012 09:39 forgotten0ne wrote: There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues, and everyone tells him he's an idiot. Well played TL, well played.
Very smart. So smart. executing people is the solution. how could we be so blind?
On November 24 2012 09:39 forgotten0ne wrote: There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues, and everyone tells him he's an idiot. Well played TL, well played.
Very smart. So smart. executing people is the solution. how could we be so blind?
Well it would have been a solution if they actually executed gay people with AIDS, as of now they plan to execute all gay people just in case. If they start fighting AIDS the same way among straight people there will be soon no people left to enjoy the beautiful country without AIDS
On November 24 2012 09:39 forgotten0ne wrote: There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues, and everyone tells him he's an idiot. Well played TL, well played.
Very smart. So smart. executing people is the solution. how could we be so blind?
Well it would have been a solution if they actually executed gay people with AIDS, as of now they plan to execute all gay people just in case.
Solution? Hardly.
Pregnant women with HIV/aids pass it on to their children at birth. etc, etc. (unmarried) Men infecting other (unmarried) men isn't a big problem.
On November 24 2012 09:39 forgotten0ne wrote: There is one man throughout the thread smart enough to point out the fact that Uganda is a country rampant with AIDS issues, and everyone tells him he's an idiot. Well played TL, well played.
Because he was wrong. Uganda is actually one of those rare African countries that instead of embracing denial or blaming the West or doing nothing set up a pro-active anti-Aids campaign. Which is why its AIDS prevalence rates are significantly lower than South Africas. Unfortunately, thanks to Christian evangelicals the government has now started back tracking on those programs, along with become active in anti-homosexual campaigns. The religious nut jobs think they are doing god's work, but all they've done is help to create an ideology that the current regime will try to use to maintain itself in perpetuity. Or at least the current dictator dies. Which is too bad, Uganda is a beautiful and rich country but the African Great Lakes Region must be one of the worst places to have been born in the last 50 years.
On November 24 2012 10:20 Monochromatic wrote: What is the problem here? The people have spoken, and they if they vote for it, then it passes. That is democracy.
You clearly have no understanding of the Ugandan government nor societal climate; otherwise, you would not be putting forth oversimple declarations of concepts like "democracy", which in this particular case are entirely useless.
On November 24 2012 10:20 Monochromatic wrote: What is the problem here? The people have spoken, and they if they vote for it, then it passes. That is democracy.
You clearly have no understanding of the Ugandan government nor societal climate; otherwise, you would not be putting forth oversimple declarations of concepts like "democracy", which in this particular case are entirely useless.
I don't know a thing about that Ugandan government. If it isn't democracy, so be it. It says that their is strong support for the bill. Again, if the people want it, then they should have it.
On November 24 2012 06:09 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 24 2012 05:37 tMomiji wrote: -sigh-
It's because of the people who don't shut up about it and now there's hatred of all gays because of these people. I don't care if you're gay. Please keep it out of my face. It gets annoying and old. Not to mention these people are hurting their own.
Gays aren't shutting up about it because they are being tortured and killed, both legally and illegally, all over the world. Even worse, many areas that do that are filled to the brim with glue-sniffing retards, so there's this whole frenzy going on about finding out who's gay and who isn't that is comparable to all those witch trials we had back in the day. Also, human civilization has been hating on gays for pretty much as long as we knew about them (read: hundreds, maybe even thousands of years). Only recently have they actually ever gone out and done all these parades and such. In other words, gay hate precedes gay pride.
On November 24 2012 05:30 GTPGlitch wrote: Also, in terms of history, you might want to look at the greeks....
I see there's so much ignorance in this case. Homosexuality hasn't really been frowned upon in alot of historic cultures, it's pretty much only during the rise of the major religions that condemning homosexuality rose to inhumane levels.
As for an (incomplete) list of historic cultures that have been shown (by evidence) to have accepted homosexuality: Africa Ancient egypt (contested) - Shown in scriptures in the bible and various drawings by egyptians themselves. Various tribes such as Lesotho and Azande before European colonization - oral evidence from elders.
Americas Pretty much every indigenous people of the Americas, Mayans, Incas, Iroquois, etc. In fact they were often even revered as powerful shamans, more powerful than ordinary ones. - As shown in Spanish letters and oral evidence.
East Asia China (Qing, Ming, pretty much every dynasty) - Well documented, as nearly everything was in China. Ancient Japan - Not nearly as well documented, although various tales reference it and Emperors have been shown to have had same-sex lovers.
Europe Various Greek periods - Do I even need to? :> Rome - Nearly all emperors, although at the end of the roman empire it started to become unlawful in the empire due to Christian infuence. Renaissance in Italy (although authorities did not condone) - Tailored to Greek and Rome's example. France and possibly other countries (contested) - 'enbrotherment' was a legal category used for two men to share quarters and resources, effectively making it a marriage and living as a couple.
Middle East, South and Central Asia Never has really been allowed for the exception of Persia, although it was quite wide spread at times.
South Pacific Very prevalent, even integral part of life before introduction of Christianity by missionaries. The Etoro and Marind-anim (and possibly others) have even viewed heterosexuality as sinful and celebrated homosexuality instead.
For more in-depth information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality and references on that page. If you search for specific ancient cultures I'm sure you can find even more than listed on this page and those that I listed by referencing Wikipedia and other sources.
edit: So ninja'd while I was writing this... :<
Well that's one hell of a knowledge bomb. Thanks for the info!
On November 24 2012 10:20 Monochromatic wrote: What is the problem here? The people have spoken, and they if they vote for it, then it passes. That is democracy.
You clearly have no understanding of the Ugandan government nor societal climate; otherwise, you would not be putting forth oversimple declarations of concepts like "democracy", which in this particular case are entirely useless.
I don't know a thing about that Ugandan government. If it isn't democracy, so be it. It says that their is strong support for the bill. Again, if the people want it, then they should have it.
By that reasoning you support the Nazis of WW2... Hive mentality does not mean that something is right or even that everyone truly wants something. If homosexuality was a choice then perhaps any of their reasoning could be supported but if you follow science then you can see that it is not.
On November 24 2012 10:20 Monochromatic wrote: What is the problem here? The people have spoken, and they if they vote for it, then it passes. That is democracy.
You clearly have no understanding of the Ugandan government nor societal climate; otherwise, you would not be putting forth oversimple declarations of concepts like "democracy", which in this particular case are entirely useless.
I don't know a thing about that Ugandan government. If it isn't democracy, so be it. It says that their is strong support for the bill. Again, if the people want it, then they should have it.
So you believe in the infallibility of the majority? Can you not see how that sort of idealism inevitably leaves a society open to committing immense atrocity in the name of consensus? We need only look to the past for ample reminder that the simplicity of popularity does not lend itself to the equitable distribution of justice and rights.
On November 24 2012 10:20 Monochromatic wrote: What is the problem here? The people have spoken, and they if they vote for it, then it passes. That is democracy.
On November 24 2012 10:20 Monochromatic wrote: What is the problem here? The people have spoken, and they if they vote for it, then it passes. That is democracy.
As someone pointed out, so German genocide of the Jews was also "just democracy" ?
I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I feel sorry for all the people over there that will be at risk with this new "ideology". Gays are a part of society and have been as far as mankind can remember. The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue. As for the AIDS issue that is a completely different subject/topic altogether. Though there have been studies showing that the majority of new AIDS cases are from homosexual men specifically. So with that all being said I hope this bill doesn't pass as I believe it violates their overall quality of life over there. Nobody should be shunned or jailed just because whom they choose to love.
On November 24 2012 07:41 Tewks44 wrote: Problems with Uganda -High levels of corruption -Poor economy -destructive policies -Child Trafficking -Illiteracy
These are just a few problems with Uganda I was able to find via a quick look at their wikipedia page. And to think they're wasting their time on banning homosexuality.
On the plus side they have their own space program.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: I feel sorry for all the people over there that will be at risk with this new "ideology". Gays are a part of society and have been as far as mankind can remember. The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue. As for the AIDS issue that is a completely different subject/topic altogether. Though there have been studies showing that the majority of new AIDS cases are from homosexual men specifically. So with that all being said I hope this bill doesn't pass as I believe it violates their overall quality of life over there. Nobody should be shunned or jailed just because whom they choose to love.
That's the case in developed countries. In africa however it's overshadowed by loads of other reasons, such as:
-Female circumcision, thus resulting in a higher chance of exchange of blood. -Denial by major African leaders of HIV -> AIDS link. -Refusal of the church to condone condom use. -Medical suspicion, thus less likelyhood of checking yourself out. -Likelyhood of resorting to sex related work due to poor economy, natural disasters and conflict. -Brain drain, the highly educated leave the worst stricken african countries towards more prosperous countries. -Corruption and infrastructure problems. -Contaminated needles. -Mother to unborn baby transfer.
And of course, plain heterosexual intercourse without a condom is the largest culprit.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: I feel sorry for all the people over there that will be at risk with this new "ideology". Gays are a part of society and have been as far as mankind can remember. The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue. As for the AIDS issue that is a completely different subject/topic altogether. Though there have been studies showing that the majority of new AIDS cases are from homosexual men specifically. So with that all being said I hope this bill doesn't pass as I believe it violates their overall quality of life over there. Nobody should be shunned or jailed just because whom they choose to love.
That's the case in developed countries. In africa however it's overshadowed by loads of other reasons, such as:
-Female circumcision, thus resulting in a higher chance of exchange of blood. -Denial by major African leaders of HIV -> AIDS link. -Refusal of the church to condone condom use. -Medical suspicion, thus less likelyhood of checking yourself out. -Likelyhood of resorting to sex related work due to poor economy, natural disasters and conflict. -Brain drain, the highly educated leave the worst stricken african countries towards more prosperous countries. -Corruption and infrastructure problems. -Contaminated needles. -Mother to unborn baby transfer.
And of course, plain heterosexual intercourse without a condom is the largest culprit.
Don't forgot to mention the virgin cure. Many men in Africa with HIV believe having sex with a virgin will cure them.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
A slippery slope argument followed by the idea that we should grandfather in bigotry. Your post contributed a lot to this thread.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
hahahaha
what??
It's ok to kill homosexuals, but not eat them? Glad to see you drawing a line.
Being free doesn't strike you as the more preferred option?
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
In light of all this hate, you fear homosexuals, why?
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
Homosexuality is nothing like any of the things you listed, it is not some cult or culture of indoctrination, and Hitler Youth? Are you serious? How you can compare power structures and belief based manipulations with being gay befuddles me to no end.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
So then teaching children not to hate boys that play with dolls or girls that play sports is indoctrinating them into homosexuality? wtf are you talking about?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
Not my argument, in my opinion all three are very different. But if you look into European history at least, all three were among the most serious breaches of moral conduct. You can't call people bigots, or use some even worse epithets we've already seen in this thread because they prefer to stick by their customs. Even when a certain standard feels a bit out of place or outdated, that doesn't mean that going by the opposite is some kind of ultimate enlightenment.
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
Homosexuality is nothing like any of the things you listed, it is not some cult or culture of indoctrination, and Hitler Youth? Are you serious? How you can compare power structures and belief based manipulations with being gay befuddles me to no end.
I am talking about a vocal minority in the homosexual community that IS cult like and jump on anyone or any organisation that disagrees with their views.Remember the chick-fil-a guy that said he supported traditional families and these people called him bigot and whatever else, there was a huge media storm over NOTHING.Other viewpoints in all topics should be allowed to be discussed without being shouted down, if people support traditional families they should be able to say so without being attacked.
Like i say go watch this doco and open your mind a little
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
Not my argument, in my opinion all three are very different. But if you look into European history at least, all three were among the most serious breaches of moral conduct. You can't call people bigots, or use some even worse epithets we've already seen in this thread because they prefer to stick by their customs. Even when a certain standard feels a bit out of place or outdated, that doesn't mean that going by the opposite is some kind of ultimate enlightenment.
Then this must apply to blacks and apartheid as well. Must it not? Slavery has long traditions. It's outdated and out of place. But anyone hating blacks or buying slaves can't be called bigots. They aren't necessarily unenlightened.
I'm questioning the validity of such an argument. How many years must pass before we can use the label "bigot"? What do you gain by avoiding this label?
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
Not my argument, in my opinion all three are very different. But if you look into European history at least, all three were among the most serious breaches of moral conduct. You can't call people bigots, or use some even worse epithets we've already seen in this thread because they prefer to stick by their customs. Even when a certain standard feels a bit out of place or outdated, that doesn't mean that going by the opposite is some kind of ultimate enlightenment.
No, part of being an enlightened person is accepting the fact that you do not have a right to tell someone how to live their life as long as it's within bounds agreed upon by law. People have human rights, and as long as those are trodden upon by people who do not agree with their way of life because of their belief, then yes, they're bigots. I'd prefer to use some other words, but I'll refrain.
Also, if you look into European history a bit further back you'll see that it's socially accepted. May I ask around which period it became a serious breach, and what relegion was in the uprise at that moment?
On November 24 2012 11:08 bK- wrote: The gay people are needed in society as a way to help curb the worlds overpopulation issue.
The economic collapse will 'solve' the worlds overpopulation issue.I wouldn't want to see kids 'educated' to think that becoming gay is somehow better for the earth than not, if kids discover they are homosexual through their own free will that is fine with me but this whole agenda in the classrooms is disturbing.
To be frank, that you even think that there is an "agenda" seems far more disturbing. If you think homosexuality is something that can be subversively "taught" than you don't have a clue in regards to that which you are describing.
Kids can be indoctrinated into pretty much anything.Examples : Hitler youth, Westboro baptist church type hate groups. I just finished watching a documentary called 'Indoctrinate U' - full version is on youtube, have you seen it? It might open your mind.
Homosexuality is nothing like any of the things you listed, it is not some cult or culture of indoctrination, and Hitler Youth? Are you serious? How you can compare power structures and belief based manipulations with being gay befuddles me to no end.
I am talking about a vocal minority in the homosexual community that IS cult like and jump on anyone or any organisation that disagrees with their views.Remember the chick-fil-a guy that said he supported traditional families and these people called him bigot and whatever else, there was a huge media storm over NOTHING.Other viewpoints in all topics should be allowed to be discussed without being shouted down, if people support traditional families they should be able to say so without being attacked.
I wonder why you bring in traditional families, when confronted with the statement that tolerance is more forward than the discussed topic which is about killing or imprisoning gays.
Would you not say the indoctrination is actually occurring in Uganda?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
I'm not religious but please..... there are FAR more Islamic nations where homosexuality is illegal (some where it is punishable by death) than christian nations where it is likewise.And in my opinion they are fine to make whatever laws they want in their own country so long as they don't try to bring that ideology to the west.We are already starting to see that creeping in with a sharia law party in Belgium winning two seats in the recent elections which should be a big concern for the far left since sharia law is not compatible with their own views on homosexuality.
Anyway just wondering if there are any supporters of affirmative action here and can you explain why affirmative action is not racist as it seems to advantage or disadvantage people based on their skin colour which is my book is the definition of racism?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?! How the hell do you even come up with nonsense like this? And your claims about Democrats in Detroit have literally nothing to do with the rest of the argument.
What is this weird idea some people have that all "traditional" beliefs are shielded from criticism?
We should all be challenged on our beliefs. We should not exist in some faux-relativist world where, "Oh, well, if that's what you believe, who are we to tell you otherwise?" Well it depends what it is you believe. If you believe that homosexuality warrants prison time, prepare to be "attacked." If you believe in infanticide, prepare your defenses. If you believe in tax increases, tax breaks, are pro-life, are pro-choice, athiest, Christian, prepare to defend your position. We should all be able to logically defend our positions. Those who cannot are exposed as "agenda-oriented," indoctrinated, fearful, hateful, or simply uninformed on all sides.
The word "attacked" is also amusing. It victimizes the oppressors. "I think it's wrong for you to say that traditional families are the only acceptable family unit." "STOP ATTACKING MEEEEE"
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
As already said, that's a slippery slope argument. Though, to add onto it. There's pretty much no argument to make against condoning homosexuality other than those stemming from religion or personal.. well.. bigotry. However, there's loads of arguments to make against condoning cannibals and pedophiles. I think your argument (if we can call it that) is in really poor taste as homosexuality shouldn't even be linked to either of the two.
Not my argument, in my opinion all three are very different. But if you look into European history at least, all three were among the most serious breaches of moral conduct. You can't call people bigots, or use some even worse epithets we've already seen in this thread because they prefer to stick by their customs. Even when a certain standard feels a bit out of place or outdated, that doesn't mean that going by the opposite is some kind of ultimate enlightenment.
You really have no idea how bigotry works do you? Tradition for tradition's sake is moronic. People do not have a right to hate others. And no one is claiming that tolerance is ultimate enlightenment. They're claiming it's decent behavior.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
Are you honestly trying to defend the murdering of people for being attracted to the same gender?
Who are we to judge? We are people who understand human rights and should not allow something like this to exist in 2012.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?!
Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics?
Here's another tidbit for you, a large number of people hold these views even if they don't fully disclose them in public like the writers of the above article.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?!
Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics?
Because in a way they are right, have you read the entire paper?
In the end however, it's just morally deplorable and will never get through, nor will the entire group you blamed agree with it.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
Are you honestly trying to defend the murdering of people for being attracted to the same gender?
Who are we to judge? We are people who understand human rights and should not allow something like this to exist in 2012.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
I'm sure your country has a ton of laws that would seem outrageous to the people you've just called ignorant and uneducated, but they don't demand you to change them.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
Are you honestly trying to defend the murdering of people for being attracted to the same gender?
Who are we to judge? We are people who understand human rights and should not allow something like this to exist in 2012.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
I'm sure your country has a ton of laws that would seem outrageous to the people you've just called ignorant and uneducated, but they don't demand you to change them.
... Read the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It may help you in this discussion, as it's got nothing to do with superiority complex.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
People who aren't ignorant and who don't abuse their right to self-determination. That's who we are to judge.
There is no right to self-determination for the purpose of committing crimes against humanity or war crimes, there is no right to sovereignty to do the same. That is the biggest change in international relations since the Peace of Westphalia, and it happened directly as a result of the Holocaust, although the idea was birthed several generations before that.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
Our standards are superior. You want to call it a superiority complex, fine. You want to say that actions taken because of that belief of superiority have caused suffering, they certainly have. But they are worth fighting for. Fighting causes suffering, it is unavoidable. But it is worth it if what you're fighting for is less suffering in the future.
There is a gap in your reasoning; why would our human rights "house of cards" collapse if we consider behavior caused by inferior standards to be so unacceptable that we must intervene?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities.
True enough, didn't mean to say it was the only reason. But yes, those do seem more logical and primary.
-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.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities.
True enough, didn't mean to say it was the only reason. But yes, those do seem more logical and primary.
Yours is certainly a big part of it too, the condemnatory nature of Christian antipathy to homosexuality is more Old Testament in its character than New Testament. Personally I've always that thought that if God doesn't like homosexuals, that's between homosexuals and God, and if God exists, He can and will deal with it Himself when their souls reach the pearly gates. So to me, Christians who are all about messing with the gays are acting more like the Jews of the Old Testament times (God's tools on earth to enforce God's laws) than Christians of the New (spreaders of the Word of Jesus).
In my view our only recourse is to economically sanction them until they forsake such a position. The simple fact is that the need for aid exceeds the supply. I do not know how we could support mass murder, even if it is voted into law. There must be suffering in places where they dont kill people for being in love or lust.
On a side note, there are a lot of tangent ideas in this thread that are basically just people being frustrated with the ubiquitous nature of the gay civil rights movement. I just hope that as you all go back through this thread and read the many posts filled with varying levels of condemnation that you understand why the gay community is still in fight mode. Vent your frustration online about gay pride parades and overzealous activists but I hope in your real lives you rest assured that even if they are not tasteful by your standards, they serve a very real life saving function.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
Because christianity is the largest religion in the developed world, one would expect certain christian beliefs to have eroded by now in a modern environment for such a long time in comparison to other religions.
I think it is more because of two reasons: first, Christianity in the West has evolved to the point where Christians don't go out and murder people for criticizing Christianity. Second, Christianity is the dominant religion in the developed world and has shaped most of the developed world's culture, so it is familiar and an institution that people feel they can actually do something about in their own communities.
On November 24 2012 11:12 Saltydizzle wrote: Good for Uganda, let the people vote and decide.
I don't think it should necessarily work that way in a country full of clearly ignorant and uneducated people.
Ah, so you've got other ideas how their government should work right, because they are clearly ignorant and have no right for self-determination. Lucky for you, you do because you're that much better than them. Who are we to judge?
People who aren't ignorant and who don't abuse their right to self-determination. That's who we are to judge.
There is no right to self-determination for the purpose of committing crimes against humanity or war crimes, there is no right to sovereignty to do the same. That is the biggest change in international relations since the Peace of Westphalia, and it happened directly as a result of the Holocaust, although the idea was birthed several generations before that.
By your standards of course. Your understanding of human rights has caused suffering for millions aswell. But you refuse to understand that because you have a superiority complex. You cannot comprehend that different regions have different values and if you consider one inferior to the other to the point that you must intervene, then your own human rights house of cards collapses.
Our standards are superior. You want to call it a superiority complex, fine. You want to say that actions taken because of that belief of superiority have caused suffering, they certainly have. But they are worth fighting for. Fighting causes suffering, it is unavoidable. But it is worth it if what you're fighting for is less suffering in the future.
There is a gap in your reasoning; why would our human rights "house of cards" collapse if we consider behavior caused by inferior standards to be so unacceptable that we must intervene?
Because that's called imperialism, not fighting for human rights. It's only been rebranded after 1945. There are only a handful of states that prioritise human right above their own interests, and those states don't launch wars.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
Stating that newborn babies ‘aren’t people’ and it is therefore acceptable to kill them, two ‘ethicists’ writing for the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics are now calling for after-birth abortions. The writers, who worked with Australian universities in the construction of their paper, say that newborn babies simply do not have a “moral right to life.” Furthermore, the paper goes on to state that the babies have no right to live as they do not offer “at least basic value” that would represent a loss.
Back to Uganda, if what they are doing is so abhorrent why no sanctions against them from the UN? I know Iran has sanctions against it but these are mostly due to the nuclear power issue and not to do with homosexuality being punishable by death in Iran correct? Any sanctions against Saudi Arabia? if not why not.
What exactly are you saying?
Up until the part where you ask that since Muslims kill homosexuals, why can't Christians, I really don't understand one bit.
My point is why does the left go on so much about christian opposition to homosexuality when muslims are far more conservative than christians could ever hope to be.I made a post about it page 2....
I'm not religious but please..... there are FAR more Islamic nations where homosexuality is illegal (some where it is punishable by death) than christian nations where it is likewise.And in my opinion they are fine to make whatever laws they want in their own country so long as they don't try to bring that ideology to the west.We are already starting to see that creeping in with a sharia law party in Belgium winning two seats in the recent elections which should be a big concern for the far left since sharia law is not compatible with their own views on homosexuality.
Anyway just wondering if there are any supporters of affirmative action here and can you explain why affirmative action is not racist as it seems to advantage or disadvantage people based on their skin colour which is my book is the definition of racism?
I think personally I expect more from Christians than Muslims when it comes to respecting the living, and not kill. (Turn the other cheek etc).
Many Christians try to mix Christianity with state (law), which is why political parties, in some countries, have to take a stand against against "Christians" on certain topics. I think most "leftist" would prefer to not having the Bible as part of a political debate or standpoint. At least where I am from, the Bible and Christianity (or religion in general) rarely enter the playing field of politics (if ever). If you have certain religious views you "have" to make yourself understood outside of simply quoting the Bible, and more, to actually not rely on the Bible at all. It is typically the Christians who bring the Bible and religion (Christianity) to the table when discussing "gay politics". Therefore it is also open to "attacks" from the opposing side. Had everybody just kept the Bible off limits, and kept their views understood without using, quoting or mentioning the Bible, there would be no mention of religion in politics.
It is widely understood that Muslims let religion dictate law. But it is my belief that Christianity should not. It is expected that Christians are able to put religion aside when matters of state and humanity are in question. So this is what we expect of (most) Christians. Not of Muslims. The issues with Muslim law are far removed, although it would make sense for Belgium (at least) to look into whether or not they want to allow religion (and Islam) to enter the political scene. Religion is more personal to Christians, and not "all-encompassing" in enforcing your entire country to live exactly as you do. Hence the "free world".
I'm sure you understand; but anyone practicing Christianity should understand this and be expected to follow similar guidelines and to accept "human rights" as important within a state. And even if they can't achieve this, they should not spend resources on going against "human rights" and still expect help from organizations and the UN. IMO. And Uganda are overstepping even the "gray area" and the UN has responded on occasions.
On a more global level the UN aren't really able to enforce "human rights" all over the globe, nor would it actually be possible. With Uganda it would be feasible in this instance since they rely on us more than we rely on them. With the Arab countries there is oil (and more) to consider. And so political sanctions are more opposed and is, AFAIK, used against warring countries rather than trying to change their very old laws and customs.
It's a bit like picking your battles. No one on the "Christian" or western side 'should' want Uganda or any African country to move closer towards Islamism. I doubt race is of question.
The UN has more influence over Africa than over the middle east.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean with affirmative action and racism (where does skin colour enter?)
World politics is hypocritical, but the "leftists" can't do much more than affecting their home country, and the UN can only do so much in "enforcing" their human rights. Muslims in the western world aren't taken seriously (i.e serious opposition) if they have Muslim political views. And even tho attempts are made (including the invasion of Iraq), no one really expects the Muslim world to change, and the European democracies are very passive and won't risk conflict any time soon. So. Pick your battles.
Sorry if my response didn't exactly answer you. I feel it's better to ask "what can be done".
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?!
Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics?
Here's another tidbit for you, a large number of people hold these views even if they don't fully disclose them in public like the writers of the above article. *insert random stupid video*
Do you even understand how a peer-reviewed journal works? The journal you're talking about, the Journal of Medical Ethics, notably "seeks to promote ethical reflection". The views expressed by the two authors don't have to be shared by any of their peers to be published, as long as they offer a reflection on a medical & ethical topic. In this case, the views in question are very clearly not held by almost anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose. To suggest that people who believe a woman should have a right to choose believe that this should apply to newborns is not only false, it is extremely dishonest. It's as if I was to claim that anyone who doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose believes that a woman's sole function in society should be to make babies so that her companion(s) can have a progeny.
Because that's called imperialism, not fighting for human rights. It's only been rebranded after 1945.
There are only a handful of states that prioritise human right above their own interests, and those states don't launch wars.
No. Protecting human rights was not considered as an acceptable reason to go to war before 1939 precisely because protecting human rights in some other country wasn't seen as being particularly valuable to a country's interests. The realization, after the invasion of Poland, that Hitler really did mean everything he wrote in Mein Kampf and was intent on making it happen, changed the equation.
Intervention and war are not synonyms, and war is not the exclusive option of intervention. And what happened in 1945 and has been strengthened since is the realization that a country that brutalizes its own citizens will, sooner or later, inevitably, try to brutalize the countries around it.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
I'm always scared by these forward thinkers. Will cannibals and pedophiles become part of the plan some time aswell? The line must be drawn somewhere, and for the last several centuries people took a stand against open homosexuality. That does not make them evil, uneducated or backwards thinking.
The 'forward thinkers' who support abortion now actually now claim that 2 year old babies are not 'people' and should be allowed to be aborted also.The sad fact is many on the far left spectrum are simply eugenicists, 54% of black babies are aborted but now they clamour for abortions up to age 2.... Meanwhile in Detroit which has been under democrat council control since 1964 the situation continues to deteriorate and we are still fed this lie that the left will make things better for minorities? please..... pass the sick bag.
This is probably one of the most intellectually dishonest posts I've read in the last few weeks. Because two people wrote an article suggesting that abortion should be "extended" to newborns, it means that the hundreds of millions (at least) of people that support a woman's right to choose agree with them?!
Uhh these two "people" are highly regarded academics writing for a PEER REVIEWED journal, these are the sort of people who shape the debate - they are the "forward thinkers".If the ideas were so abhorrent why did they get published in the peer reviewed journal of medical ethics?
Here's another tidbit for you, a large number of people hold these views even if they don't fully disclose them in public like the writers of the above article. *insert random stupid video*
Do you even understand how a peer-reviewed journal works? The journal you're talking about, the Journal of Medical Ethics, notably "seeks to promote ethical reflection". The views expressed by the two authors don't have to be shared by any of their peers to be published, as long as they offer a reflection on a medical & ethical topic. In this case, the views in question are very clearly not held by almost anyone who believes in a woman's right to choose. To suggest that people who believe a woman should have a right to choose believe that this should apply to newborn is not only false, it is extremely dishonest. It's as if I was to claim that anyone who doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose believes that a woman's sole function in society should be to make babies so that her companion(s) can have a progeny.
Yeah-- you can be assured that most most most people are appalled by the idea of murdering infant children, even tho they may be pro-choice for a first trimester abortion. Ethical debate has many factors to consider. With different people presenting different views and theories. Doesn't mean they are applicable, simply that with different premises and "logics", you end up with different conclusions.
In a way, the view expressed by the paper doesn't even have to be the view of the authors. Simply their version of "truth" if the premise given is to be accepted. And so they may have "dis-proven" certain premises upon which people have attempted to build ethics. (Not that I know the specifics of this exact paper, but even (or especially) papers ask questions or partake in a debate rather than simply wanting to provide the latest findings and present them as the absolute truth.)
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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" (maybe even police, but, well...) 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)
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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)
To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
On November 24 2012 13:22 tokicheese wrote: To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
On November 24 2012 13:22 tokicheese wrote: To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
I'm not sure where you get the idea marriage is from religion but it predates pretty much any known religions by a very very long time. Pretty much all of your assumptions are based on your ignorance to the subject so I'm not even going to waste my time addressing the rest.
On November 24 2012 13:22 tokicheese wrote: To be quite honest I do find the sexual aspects of homosexuality repulsive. Obviously they don't "eat da poopoo" but I just find it gross. As far as I'm concerned you shouldn't give a fuck what I think and love who you love and it's a fundamental right to be able to do so.
I do have a question though and this seems like a good thread to ask. I never understood why gays were so bent on getting "marriage". I don't understand why they would want to be a part of a religion that hated them, persecuted them for centuries and still treats them like shit. It's akin to Jewish people campaigning for admittance into Neo-Nazi groups imo.
Why not just let the religious have their meaningless title and allow homosexuals to get joined for life with all the benefits of marriage under a different legal name.
Gay pride parades are meh. I think they re-enforce negative stereotypes of the flaming homosexual. If you are allowed to hold a gay pride parade in the first place you obviously are not afraid of the repercussion of being persecuted in your community.
Anyways OT
I find it ironic how people foam at the mouth for homosexual rights in Africa in countries often have governments who can barely enforce anything.
Homosexuals are already persecuted in these countries and by somehow forcing the government to get rid of the laws the people will still hate homosexuals and will now hate the west for interfering.
Cutting aid to the country would just lead to shitloads of deaths from starvation/disease.
While I cannot speak for gays, nor do I have the specifics on this subject. However I know for a fact that there's alot of countries with specific benefits for married couples. While there's alternatives to marriage in some countries, most often even that comes short of marriage on the benefits department.
May also just be a, "fuck you", towards those that hated them. Well, and probably also the capability of humans of being incredibly weird in their reasoning.
Edit: Ah, and what was said above, which is often forgotten.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite?
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
Tolerance and acceptance of those different from ones' self and clan is an important aspect of the colloquial concept of "forward thinking" and your attempt at clarification is really nothing more than a practice in pedantics.
Since when does being tolerant of one thing make you "forward thinking", essentially justifying your entire world view?
They tend to go together in the way popular media uses the term, but having one viewpoint doesn't automatically define your entire value system. "Forward thinking" is not even descriptive of any one particular set of views. I consider myself forward thinking, but I bet someone out there would consider me bass-ackwards.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite?
Well now you are just projecting.
Does it really matter to begin with? I'd argue one would have a wish to control love ("only between so and so"). The other would realize that you cannot control love, only how you treat others. Doesn't matter in what 'direction' you think. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and don't hide behind technicalities.
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?)
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.]
Huh? I do not see where you are going with that last statement, nor does it reflect better knowing. Actually the last statement doesnt reflect the state of the world at all.
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.]
Huh? I do not see where you are going with that last statement, nor does it reflect better knowing. Actually the last statement doesnt reflect the state of the world at all.
I put it in brackets cause it was originally in this guys post, but then he removed it so I bracketed it. Maybe it's confusing, sorry. Oh, you did see it as his post. Well. He did remove it for a reason I guess ^^.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite?
Well now you are just projecting.
Does it really matter to begin with? I'd argue one would have a wish to control love ("only between so and so"). The other would realize that you cannot control love, only how you treat others. Doesn't matter in what 'direction' you think. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and don't hide behind technicalities.
I don't believe in categorizing people. Being for gay rights should be a description in isolation. But unfortunately, the way popular media works, any one viewpoint essentially gets a bunch of other viewpoints dumped on you too.
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.
This is indescribably evil. Furthermore, the presence of so many homophobia apologists in this thread is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling the mass murder of innocents.
On November 24 2012 10:43 sambo400 wrote: I have a problem with the OP. Being "gay friendly" does not make a person "forward thinking". It just means they aren't homophobic. There is a difference.
While it's somewhat of a tenuous statement to make, I don't think it's entirely unjustified. Which of the two is more likely to be a forward thinking person? The one that's "gay friendly", or the opposite?
Well now you are just projecting.
Does it really matter to begin with? I'd argue one would have a wish to control love ("only between so and so"). The other would realize that you cannot control love, only how you treat others. Doesn't matter in what 'direction' you think. Decide what kind of person you want to be, and don't hide behind technicalities.
I don't believe in categorizing people. Being for gay rights should be a description in isolation. But unfortunately, the way popular media works, any one viewpoint essentially gets a bunch of other viewpoints dumped on you too.
How is sexuality not about love though? I don't think it's unfortunate or unrelated. If people would not get married for love then it wouldn't have mattered. But here we are. Marrying for love. But I can agree that "rights are rights", regardless.
But the argument was made about being "gay friendly". and should you be gay "un-friendly" I'd argue that you would rather have your way and not want gays to love. That was what I wanted to say. Regardless of your views on individual rights.
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".
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.
On November 24 2012 14:32 Selendis wrote: This is indescribably evil. Furthermore, the presence of so many homophobia apologists in this thread is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling the mass murder of innocents.
Yes because what someone says on an internetforum will obviously enable the mass murder of innocents in a country in Africa - oh wait - no.
And before you jump the gun here, I have nothing against gay rights, I see absolutely nothing wrong with man/man or woman/woman, whatever floats your boat. But I would really urge people to take a step back from condemning people who do not agree with them as ironically it makes you no better than those you are so eager to judge.
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. I don't want that for my country.
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.
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.
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?)
When did people who are for gay marriage become "opponents of a traditional marriage"? I have yet to here a single person claim that they think that a heterosexual marriage should be illegal. That would be opposing a traditional marriage.
Also, that was not what this was about. It is a lot easier to argue that homosexual marriage should not be allowed then it is to argue directly against homosexuality. I have yet to see a single argument that shows that homosexuality is bad and should be illegal. Which is what we are talking about here. Not gay marriage, but being gay. And if so many arguments exist why it is bad, it should not be hard to find one. Preferably a rational argument, not one based on "The bible says so" "I find it disgusting" or "It's unnatural". An rational ethical argument should be based on a very generic set of rules that are easily accepted, and then explain why something breaks those rules, and why the proposed solution breaks the rules less then the starting argument. I think most people would say that a good rational basic ethical rule is based around that harm being done to people is bad, and stuff that does no harm is not bad. If you want to propose a different rule, you are free to do so, of course.
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.
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.
Being bad at exams is something most people can change.
Being gay isn't something most, if any, homosexuals can change.
Can you see why that would make the stigma of being a homosexual worse for a homosexual?
As to your cultural comment about freedom, we don't have total freedom in the West, it isn't an anarchy over here. We feel that you're too far away from the edge of chaos and that some day being less free will hurt you worse than being more free will ever hurt us.
Maybe they're just homophobic. It doesn't have to be religion. The law is pointless anyway. The culture itself doesn't accept gays. As do many African nations. We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Some say it's a matter of lack of education. Really? Even here in the west having an education doesn't make you more tolerate.
From what I read in the OP, they're not killing them there imprisoning them. But like a I said if the culture doesn't accept it, then even your average citizen is dangerous if you're homosexual.
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.
I literally can't stop liking guys. Sorry. I also can't stop liking women...
Dammit! If only I had your willpower!
Maybe I can also convince myself to like tomatoes, and stop liking candy so much, then I would lose weight..
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
Hasn't imposing morals on people (or at least trying your best to enforce fair and "correct ones") been the basis for human societies.. Forever?
Like.. Agreeing that killing people is bad, and raping people is bad.
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.
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
Hasn't imposing morals on people (or at least trying your best to enforce fair and "correct ones") been the basis for human societies.. Forever?
Like.. Agreeing that killing people is bad, and raping people is bad.
Yeah, but you see, most posters on TL were entering puberty at some point when George W. Bush was president, so George W. Bush ruined the idea of imposing things on other countries in these posters' minds (even if those other countries deserve some imposing).
George W. Bush ruined a lot of things. If it wasn't for him, the man who is currently president wouldn't be president. Yeah, I blame Bush for that too.
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
Hasn't imposing morals on people (or at least trying your best to enforce fair and "correct ones") been the basis for human societies.. Forever?
Like.. Agreeing that killing people is bad, and raping people is bad.
Yeah, but you see, most posters on TL were entering puberty at some point when George W. Bush was president, so George W. Bush ruined the idea of imposing things on other countries in these posters' minds (even if those other countries deserve some imposing).
George W. Bush ruined a lot of things. If it wasn't for him, the man who is currently president wouldn't be president. Yeah, I blame Bush for that too.
I think you can believe in a moral imperative to intervene while at the same time believing that the circumstances in Iraq did not qualify as such.
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
Hasn't imposing morals on people (or at least trying your best to enforce fair and "correct ones") been the basis for human societies.. Forever?
Like.. Agreeing that killing people is bad, and raping people is bad.
Yeah, but you see, most posters on TL were entering puberty at some point when George W. Bush was president, so George W. Bush ruined the idea of imposing things on other countries in these posters' minds (even if those other countries deserve some imposing).
George W. Bush ruined a lot of things. If it wasn't for him, the man who is currently president wouldn't be president. Yeah, I blame Bush for that too.
I think you can believe in a moral imperative to intervene while at the same time believing that the circumstances in Iraq did not qualify as such.
I didn't mean to imply that Iraq deserved it with my parenthetical comment. It was meant to be read as thanks to him fucking up Iraq, the very passionate negative attitude generally towards intervention and also the "we can't impose our morals on others" are both far, far more popular than they would be otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marriage wasn't initiated by religious groups, in fact there is plenty of evidence for it's existence over many cultures without religion having any part.
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.
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.
Marriage wasn't initiated by religious groups, in fact there is plenty of evidence for it's existence over many cultures without religion having any part.
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.
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.
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.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"?
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.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"?
Same reason people say " I have black friends ".
I'm not gay and I don't really get why people think it's wrong or that gay people shouldn't have the same privileges as heterosexuals. There's always the "im not religious" or "i have gay friends" thrown in there and really the only reason I could understand is the religious standpoint. Saying "it's against nature" is bullshit and you're just lying to yourself about why you think gays should be treated as second class citizens.
We can not impose our morals on others. Plain and simple.
Lots of Nazis and Commies are really disappointed that they got started too early. If they'd waited until the post-George Bush era, the isolationists would have been a much bigger nuisance to the free world.
Hasn't imposing morals on people (or at least trying your best to enforce fair and "correct ones") been the basis for human societies.. Forever?
Like.. Agreeing that killing people is bad, and raping people is bad.
Yeah, but you see, most posters on TL were entering puberty at some point when George W. Bush was president, so George W. Bush ruined the idea of imposing things on other countries in these posters' minds (even if those other countries deserve some imposing).
George W. Bush ruined a lot of things. If it wasn't for him, the man who is currently president wouldn't be president. Yeah, I blame Bush for that too.
I think you can believe in a moral imperative to intervene while at the same time believing that the circumstances in Iraq did not qualify as such.
I didn't mean to imply that Iraq deserved it with my parenthetical comment. It was meant to be read as thanks to him fucking up Iraq, the very passionate negative attitude generally towards intervention and also the "we can't impose our morals on others" are both far, far more popular than they would be otherwise.
Ah, then I see your point. Although America has historically always had a strongly non-interventionist wing which is a pity given the good the US has and can continue to do on the global stage. They're probably at least somewhat offset by the fact that the same generation was also heavily impacted by 9/11.
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.
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.
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.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"?
it's a way of trying to explain that you're views aren't based on a hatred of people who belong to that particular group. it's not the most useful thing to say, but it is more in response to the knee-jerk reaction that is given whenever someone says something against the popular opinion about a protected class than an actual attempt to prove that you aren't hateful. basically, if people would stop assuming that everyone who has a contrary opinion was necessarily basing that opinion off of mouth-frothing hatred then the "I have [insert class here] friends" would go away.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What you believe is both intellectually hollow and transparently homophobic. I don't doubt your sincerity though, I'm sure you really do believe it. As for your birds example, that just shows how utterly foolish the nature argument is. It's natural for birds to make nests because birds make nests, in nature. Likewise it's natural for gay men to meet up in public toilets and jack off each other because that's what they do, in nature. They do it therefore it is natural except when they do it but I don't like it at which point it becomes unnatural.
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.
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?
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.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"?
people like me?
More so to point out that I am not homophobic, a lot of arguments revolving around this topic is you're just homophobic get over it.
You almost certainly are. The vast majority of arguments, such as the against nature one you used, are things that the anti-gay individual does not ideologically subscribe to, rather they make an exception just for opposing homosexuality. When you take one stance on a single issue and then a completely contradictory stance on the same situation regarding every other issue you encounter then you're simply engaging in a hypocritical doublethink to allow you to rationalise your irrational bias against that issue. In this case your argument that it is against nature is contradicted by your lifestyle unless you add the addendum "it's only wrong to go against nature if the way you go against nature is being gay" at which point it's all pretty transparent. Sorry but you are homophobic.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
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.
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 really are. You hold gays, and only gays, to an absurd made up standard of natural behaviour so you can condemn them when they fail while pretending the same standard doesn't exist for anyone else and then you fall back on "it's just my opinion" when the intellectual dishonesty behind it is pointed out.
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.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
Also, I'm not sure why you feel homosexuality is something that's akin to being handicapped by genetics and... treated as such? What?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias.
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.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example:
On November 24 2012 14:32 Selendis wrote: This is indescribably evil. Furthermore, the presence of so many homophobia apologists in this thread is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling the mass murder of innocents.
Yes because what someone says on an internetforum will obviously enable the mass murder of innocents in a country in Africa - oh wait - no.
Standing around doing nothing is enabling these murders to take place. Discussing this on the internet is enabling these murders to take place. And defending homophobia is spreading toxic beliefs and attitudes. What does help is being practive. At the very least, just sign one of the many petitions going round that oppose this bill from getting passed.
And before you jump the gun here, I have nothing against gay rights, I see absolutely nothing wrong with man/man or woman/woman, whatever floats your boat. But I would really urge people to take a step back from condemning people who do not agree with them as ironically it makes you no better than those you are so eager to judge.
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.
Saying that you are not homophobic then saying that homosexuality is something that has to be "fixed"....uh yeah sure okay.
Oh gosh. That video is so dumb. I couldn't stop laughing at the end. "Is this what barrack obama want to bring to africa? To make a human right to eat the poopoo of our children?!?!"
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.
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.
Uhh you say you have no problem and your friends with gays and all that, but im fairly sure your a troll, given you actually said you dont have a positive view even towards them expressing their homosexuality. Which can range from flamboyant and effeminate displays to the simply statement of "I am gay". You look down on the FREEDOM itself not even how its used. CLEARLY you are homophobic.
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.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
I am aware it's not a phobia in the medical sense, just an irrational hatred that emerges in a series of nonsensical opinions. It is the term used for people who hate gays in common parlance and I'm using it working on the assumption that nobody is misunderstanding me. I would be happy to use a less vague term if anyone is concerned that I am implying that homophobes are sick, my intent was only to imply that they are hateful and irrational. One thing I would like to note though is just as someone who suffers from myrmecophobia might explain how he is terrified that ants might crawl under his skin a homophobe's arguments need no more basis in rationality. The irrational fear comes first, the opinions (such as ants are trying to crawl under my skin) come second.
Also a note on sincerity. One thing I see repeated a lot is how sincere homophobes are being when they want to condemn other people as if this somehow makes it better. Nobody anywhere is doubting their sincerity, we all know they're sincere, that's the problem. Imagine if an Islamic terrorist group said "behead all Americans" and then started executing random civilians but after a couple of hundred suddenly announced that it was all a setup for an elaborate 'Americans need to lose a few pounds' pun, you wouldn't be pissed off at the lack of sincerity, you'd be pissed off at all the beheading. Whether you sincerely want to deny homosexuals the same rights as everyone else in society or just like to impose homophobic policies for insincere reasons, it's still wrong. Nobody cares how sincere you are, stop doing it. Likewise on opinions, saying "it's just my opinion" doesn't make it any better, it makes it worse. If you were to end a homophobic rant with "it's not my opinion, in fact it's not anyone's opinion, it's the kind of ignorant medieval bullshit that we've all moved past" then nobody would be upset. The issue is that it is your opinion, if it wasn't then there would be no disagreement. When I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation the people I am opposing are the people whose opinion is that it is intrinsically wrong and bad to be homosexual, the people who aren't of that opinion aren't an issue.
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.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example:
Regardless of whether they're in the ICD-10 and DSM-4 (which are both up for revision by the way), it's no clear basis on the subject of whether it's a phobia or not. I can give you countless literature that show the definition of phobia in the DSM is the exact same as what has been ascribed to homophobes.
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote: So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers.
If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom.
Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it.
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing.
This going against nature thing is absurd. You don't have laser eyes and yet you eat your meat cooked. You don't have fur and yet you wear clothes. It's the kind of nonsensical doublethink that people bring out whenever they want something to bash the gays with and then put it back before they ever take a look at the implications of it.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
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.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example:
Regardless of whether they're in the ICD-10 and DSM-4 (which are both up for revision by the way), is no clear basis on the subject of whether it's a phobia or not. I can give you countless literature that show the definition of phobia in the DSM is the exact same as what has been ascribed to homophobes.
While I agree that the term homophobia is thrown around too soon, to say it doesn't exist is another matter entirely.
P.S. How do you know what is included in the DSM-5 or not?
I think you should go back and reread what I initially wrote, because it seems quite clear that you did not understand that my opposition to the word was with its usage in this thread, these kinds of discussions and in the general society. Because it seems necessary, let me reiterate: At no point did I claim the concept of homophobia does not exist - I claimed that people have been and are using it wrongly and as such it has lost its original meaning and become a stupid term which should be abandoned all together, especially as it in its current use alludes to an underlying disease of some sorts on the basis of people disagreeing with you.
Also, let me recommend to you to actually read the articles you reference because they do not talk about homophobia in the way you want to portray its existence (or if they do I am unsure why in the world you would ever debate my initial statement):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02 <--- Describes homophobia as the phenomenon of internalizing societies pressure to not be gay - which is very different from being used to describe a person opposed to gay rights.
P.S.: I thought it was common knowledge amongst anyone with a smidgen of interest or knowledge of psychopathology that the proposed revisions of DSM-V are published regularly?
On November 24 2012 14:32 Selendis wrote: This is indescribably evil. Furthermore, the presence of so many homophobia apologists in this thread is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself for enabling the mass murder of innocents.
Yes because what someone says on an internetforum will obviously enable the mass murder of innocents in a country in Africa - oh wait - no.
Standing around doing nothing is enabling these murders to take place. Discussing this on the internet is enabling these murders to take place. And defending homophobia is spreading toxic beliefs and attitudes. What does help is being practive. At the very least, just sign one of the many petitions going round that oppose this bill from getting passed.
And before you jump the gun here, I have nothing against gay rights, I see absolutely nothing wrong with man/man or woman/woman, whatever floats your boat. But I would really urge people to take a step back from condemning people who do not agree with them as ironically it makes you no better than those you are so eager to judge.
Condemning people for murder is not hypocritical.
Oh I already signed a petition, I just do not think that people who are opposed to gay rights should be directly lumped together with murderers as was what I (perhaps erroneously?) gathered from your initial post. I really do not think I have read a single response in this thread (or well, I think I did read one, but there is always the village idiot) saying that gays should be murdered due to their sexuality. You are effectively arguing that people should not be allowed to have certain thoughts and that is not only hypocritical when you at the same time argue people should practice whatever sexuality they have, but also the start of a slippery slope towards an Orwellian society with its thought-police. What I am essentially getting at is that if you want to argue freedom for all to practice what they believe in, you have to tolerate those who disagree with you and just be happy that they are a rapidly (although still too slowly) declining part of the population.
EDIT: Sorry for the double post, but it was too very different discussions.
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote: So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers.
If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom.
Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it.
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing.
This going against nature thing is absurd. You don't have laser eyes and yet you eat your meat cooked. You don't have fur and yet you wear clothes. It's the kind of nonsensical doublethink that people bring out whenever they want something to bash the gays with and then put it back before they ever take a look at the implications of it.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
So you think that anyone that doesn't want to have children has a mental disorder? Really..?
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.
I think you need to research what the word proves means. If only one of my male ancestors was attracted to a different woman then I wouldn't be here today either.
On November 24 2012 16:13 Glurkenspurk wrote: [quote]
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"?
people like me?
More so to point out that I am not homophobic, a lot of arguments revolving around this topic is you're just homophobic get over it.
You almost certainly are. The vast majority of arguments, such as the against nature one you used, are things that the anti-gay individual does not ideologically subscribe to, rather they make an exception just for opposing homosexuality. When you take one stance on a single issue and then a completely contradictory stance on the same situation regarding every other issue you encounter then you're simply engaging in a hypocritical doublethink to allow you to rationalise your irrational bias against that issue. In this case your argument that it is against nature is contradicted by your lifestyle unless you add the addendum "it's only wrong to go against nature if the way you go against nature is being gay" at which point it's all pretty transparent. Sorry but you are homophobic.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example:
Regardless of whether they're in the ICD-10 and DSM-4 (which are both up for revision by the way), is no clear basis on the subject of whether it's a phobia or not. I can give you countless literature that show the definition of phobia in the DSM is the exact same as what has been ascribed to homophobes.
While I agree that the term homophobia is thrown around too soon, to say it doesn't exist is another matter entirely.
P.S. How do you know what is included in the DSM-5 or not?
I think you should go back and reread what I initially wrote, because it seems quite clear that you did not understand that my opposition to the word was with its usage in this thread, these kinds of discussions and in the general society. Because it seems necessary, let me reiterate: At no point did I claim the concept of homophobia does not exist - I claimed that people have been and are using it wrongly and as such it has lost its original meaning and become a stupid term which should be abandoned all together, especially as it in its current use alludes to an underlying disease of some sorts on the basis of people disagreeing with you.
Also, let me recommend to you to actually read the articles you reference because they do not talk about homophobia in the way you want to portray its existence (or if they do I am unsure why in the world you would ever debate my initial statement):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02 <--- Describes homophobia as the phenomenon of internalizing societies pressure to not be gay - which is very different from being used to describe a person opposed to gay rights.
P.S.: I thought it was common knowledge amongst anyone with a smidgen of interest or knowledge of psychopathology that the proposed revisions of DSM-V are published regularly?
On November 24 2012 16:37 Ghostcom wrote: I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies.
Oh, are you certain you did not imply it didn't exist? If you did not imply such, you definately weren't coherent in explaining that position.
First of all, I provided the links to show professionals in the sector use homophobia as a valid term describing certain dispositions that are alike of descriptions of phobia used in DSM. I did not provide it to somehow disprove an argument you misconstrued earlier, resulting in my misunderstanding of your opinion on the subject.
As to the first link, isn't a person opposed to gay rights in a way of speaking internalizing societies pressure to not be gay? He expresses his opinion that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, thus condoning and actively arguing for the internalization of societies pressure.
Second link, I suppose you should read the entire article, or maybe the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the excerpt?
I'm starting to wonder if you yourself have actually read it, or just the excerpt.
P.S. Yes, to which I again ask you, how do you know? Since it's not released yet and still under revision despite whatever proposals they've so far released.
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote: So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers.
If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom.
Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it.
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing.
This going against nature thing is absurd. You don't have laser eyes and yet you eat your meat cooked. You don't have fur and yet you wear clothes. It's the kind of nonsensical doublethink that people bring out whenever they want something to bash the gays with and then put it back before they ever take a look at the implications of it.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
It is. In no way have I been refering to civilized living. There's so much more that has been vital to the survival of our species that's hardwired into our being than simply reproduce. I'm not sure where you're going with whether the 'gay gene' worked well or not due to eventual emergence of castrating men and such... I hope you do realize that it may have been effective in the beginning stages of our species and is pretty much useless now, as many things we are born with are nowadays.
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
How come people like you always preface their remarks with "I have gay friends"?
people like me?
More so to point out that I am not homophobic, a lot of arguments revolving around this topic is you're just homophobic get over it.
You almost certainly are. The vast majority of arguments, such as the against nature one you used, are things that the anti-gay individual does not ideologically subscribe to, rather they make an exception just for opposing homosexuality. When you take one stance on a single issue and then a completely contradictory stance on the same situation regarding every other issue you encounter then you're simply engaging in a hypocritical doublethink to allow you to rationalise your irrational bias against that issue. In this case your argument that it is against nature is contradicted by your lifestyle unless you add the addendum "it's only wrong to go against nature if the way you go against nature is being gay" at which point it's all pretty transparent. Sorry but you are homophobic.
I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies. They simply have a different opinion, however irrational that opinion is. It is a stupid term and discussions like these would be a lot better if both sides could acknowledge that neither side is suffering from some sort of illness.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is a valid mental disorder described in various literature on the subject of phobias.
Sorry to intervene, but homophobia is not accepted as a disease in neither the ICD-10, nor the DSM-4 (nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5). Furthermore applying the term to a person simply because he opposes gay rights showcases a lack of understanding of the definition of what an "irrational fear" is. I doubt anyone here is afraid of gays which homophobia quite literally means. The literature you are talking about is actually doing the cause a disservice for this exact reason which I am by no means the first to point out - for example:
Regardless of whether they're in the ICD-10 and DSM-4 (which are both up for revision by the way), is no clear basis on the subject of whether it's a phobia or not. I can give you countless literature that show the definition of phobia in the DSM is the exact same as what has been ascribed to homophobes.
While I agree that the term homophobia is thrown around too soon, to say it doesn't exist is another matter entirely.
P.S. How do you know what is included in the DSM-5 or not?
I think you should go back and reread what I initially wrote, because it seems quite clear that you did not understand that my opposition to the word was with its usage in this thread, these kinds of discussions and in the general society. Because it seems necessary, let me reiterate: At no point did I claim the concept of homophobia does not exist - I claimed that people have been and are using it wrongly and as such it has lost its original meaning and become a stupid term which should be abandoned all together, especially as it in its current use alludes to an underlying disease of some sorts on the basis of people disagreeing with you.
Also, let me recommend to you to actually read the articles you reference because they do not talk about homophobia in the way you want to portray its existence (or if they do I am unsure why in the world you would ever debate my initial statement):
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J236v03n03_02 <--- Describes homophobia as the phenomenon of internalizing societies pressure to not be gay - which is very different from being used to describe a person opposed to gay rights.
P.S.: I thought it was common knowledge amongst anyone with a smidgen of interest or knowledge of psychopathology that the proposed revisions of DSM-V are published regularly?
On November 24 2012 16:37 Ghostcom wrote: I am sorry to intervene, but honestly, could we stop using the word "homophobic"? It is not a phobia, nor are those who have those beliefs sick which the word inherently implies.
Oh, are you certain you did not imply it didn't exist? If you did not imply such, you definately weren't coherent in explaining that position.
First of all, I provided the links to show professionals in the sector use homophobia as a valid term describing certain dispositions that are alike of descriptions of phobia used in DSM. I did not provide it to somehow disprove an argument you misconstrued earlier, resulting in my misunderstanding of your opinion on the subject.
As to the first link, isn't a person opposed to gay rights in a way of speaking internalizing societies pressure to not be gay? He expresses his opinion that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals, thus condoning and actively arguing for the internalization of societies pressure.
Second link, I suppose you should read the entire article, or maybe the 2nd and 3rd sentence of the excerpt?
I'm starting to wonder if you yourself have actually read it, or just the excerpt.
P.S. Yes, to which I again ask you, how do you know? Since it's not released yet and still under revision despite whatever proposals they've so far released.
Are you being obtuse for the purpose of it now? When I wrote the snippet about it not being phobia it was quite obviously in the sense it was being used in the thread so far. I even linked you to an editorial discussion in which it was explained in detail why the usage in this conjunction does not make any sense when you challenged me. I fail to see how the obvious conclusion then is to jump to arguing that we should continue to use the word wrongly because it is being used to describe a completely different phenomenon by a few health professionals (a phenomenon which is not a phobia in itself either).
The second article exactly argued that it was not a phobia in the traditional sense, but should rather be treated as a disorder of its own (a hostile personality), once again supporting my initial statement and the editorial article I linked, that being opposed to gay rights is not a phobia and thus "homophobia" is a wrong term to apply. I have yet to see a single of the articles you linked provided backup for you claim that it is in fact a phobia in accordance to the DSM-4 guidelines, meaning that it is (very condensed) an irrational fear (and an irrational belief is not a fear) of which the sufferer is itself aware of the irrationality of.
P.S.: Have you read any of the proposals they have released? None of them have mentioned homophobia, nor has it been mentioned in any of the suggested new diagnosis. The deadline is in may 2013. I think it is pretty obvious that a wording of "nor does it appear to be included in DSM-5" is appropriate. Also, why are we even discussing this if you do not think it important what is included in DSM and ICD (which coincidently is what the majority of the medical society agrees upon should be considered diseases/disorders) but will rather list independent articles as proof for the reasoning behind calling this a phobia?
EDIT: I honestly do not see where we are heading with this discussion and doubt it will have any meaningful conclusion, so I will go to bed, it is after all 2 am here in the states. Goodnight.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
You are effectively arguing that people should not be allowed to have certain thoughts and that is not only hypocritical when you at the same time argue people should practice whatever sexuality they have, but also the start of a slippery slope towards an Orwellian society with its thought-police. What I am essentially getting at is that if you want to argue freedom for all to practice what they believe in, you have to tolerate those who disagree with you and just be happy that they are a rapidly (although still too slowly) declining part of the population.
I am tolerating those who disagree with me, and I certainly don't advocate for a totalitarian society.
It's quite simple really, Everyone has the right to free speech. And I have the right to free speech too, which I happen to be using to call them out on their bullshit.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote: To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others -That a definition is more important that the happiness of others -That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote -That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ.
This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?)
"Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group.
Well nowadays maybe. But in Europe and elsewhere, it would be definitely a departure from the past. And we'll see what that means for the traditional family (or maybe mean nothing) and other cultural results. As for it not changing anything or infringe on anything, it does change plenty. I don't think dismissing the changes does any good for gay marriage proponents. Kids learn earlier that Katy has two dads or Mike has 2 moms and a dad (let's say gay adoption). Who's to say some kid given up for adoption with two parents that are straight will grow up just fine with gay parents? And please, don't generalize this to just some other minority group. We didn't enslave the gays for many years and make them run plantations. We've never deprived them of voting rights. We've never prevented them from marrying (haha, lighten up a little, gay men and women are able to marry the opposite sex still). Marriage has been around for millenia and changing it substantially is something to talk about separate from the ability to marry someone of different race, economic class, or country.
You know, balls to the majority of you self-entitled, self-satisfied, first world privileged types. I honestly expected less of an intellectual wank. Take this from someone who is 'African' whatever the **** that means - when shit goes down in Africa, shit goes down. They published names of the 'leading gays' in a Ugandan newspaper a few months back - some of them were subsequently murdered, and their deaths went unremarked. Do any of you have the balls to say you are OK with that?! It is going to get shit loads worse, and no-one is even going to notice. TIA - This Is Africa. We have more murders per day in South Africa then most of you assholes have per annum, YOU CAN BE UPSET ABOUT THIS. Drop your f*cking philosophy major act and start GIVING A SHIT. I have a family of frigging Zimbabwean refugees living in my back yard, 6 of them sharing one loo, living from hand to mouth because its BETTER than where they came from.
If you honestly don't care about it, don't waste your time writing a Wikipedia referenced post on f*cking Teamliquid. This isn't about the many intricate, legal details you would like to hash out, this is about normal, good people being cut down where they stand for no reason at all.
Over it.
P.S. an update on the Avaaz site says the death penalty clause may have been removed, though jail sentences are still in.
On November 24 2012 20:40 EvilLiBraRian wrote: You know, balls to the majority of you self-entitled, self-satisfied, first world privileged types. I honestly expected less of an intellectual wank. Take this from someone who is 'African' whatever the **** that means - when shit goes down in Africa, shit goes down. They published names of the 'leading gays' in a Ugandan newspaper a few months back - some of them were subsequently murdered, and their deaths went unremarked. Do any of you have the balls to say you are OK with that?! It is going to get shit loads worse, and no-one is even going to notice. TIA - This Is Africa. We have more murders per day in South Africa then most of you assholes have per annum, YOU CAN BE UPSET ABOUT THIS. Drop your f*cking philosophy major act and start GIVING A SHIT. I have a family of frigging Zimbabwean refugees living in my back yard, 6 of them sharing one loo, living from hand to mouth because its BETTER than where they came from.
If you honestly don't care about it, don't waste your time writing a Wikipedia referenced post on f*cking Teamliquid. This isn't about the many intricate, legal details you would like to hash out, this is about normal, good people being cut down where they stand for no reason at all.
Over it.
P.S. an update on the Avaaz site says the death penalty clause may have been removed, though jail sentences are still in.
You act like we don't have our own problems that we have to deal with. How about the people of Africa deal with their own problems? While authoritarianism is lamentable anywhere, it is always on the march everywhere. In other words, it is up to the people in their own lands to fix the problems of their own lands. I fight for my own liberties - I don't have the time to fight for everyone else in the world - nor would I want to. It is enough a burden as is to beat back the psychopaths in my own area.
Never mind the fact that advocating foreign adventurism in the name of humanitarianism produces authoritarianism in the home country. I don't want a standing army - regardless of the reason.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you
Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved.
You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion.
Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote: To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others -That a definition is more important that the happiness of others -That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote -That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ.
This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?)
"Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group.
Kids learn earlier that Katy has two dads or Mike has 2 moms and a dad (let's say gay adoption). Who's to say some kid given up for adoption with two parents that are straight will grow up just fine with gay parents?
A) Science is to say. The research as to whether homosexual parents make a difference is back, they don't. It's all very well to engage in this rhetoric about "maybe it's bad, we just don't know" but it's complete bullshit, it's just that you don't know. B) Who is to say they won't grow up just fine? If you want to deny shit to people while having it yourself then you need to make an active case for it, saying "who is to say" is not a good argument for denying shit. C) If you're denying people children based on random "who is to say" rhetoric then who is to say that two men or two women is worse than one man or one woman. It's bizarre that you would go after homosexual couples before single parents. D) Who is to say a bunch of other factors don't also mess up children. Highlighting homosexual parents and saying that it is the one criteria in which you intervene is absurd, children generally end up with some kind of issue whatever their parents are. You for example probably had heterosexual parents but you've ended up hating gays, who's to say that would have happened to you with homosexual parents.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you
Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved.
You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion.
Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral.
On November 24 2012 20:40 EvilLiBraRian wrote: You know, balls to the majority of you self-entitled, self-satisfied, first world privileged types. I honestly expected less of an intellectual wank. Take this from someone who is 'African' whatever the **** that means - when shit goes down in Africa, shit goes down. They published names of the 'leading gays' in a Ugandan newspaper a few months back - some of them were subsequently murdered, and their deaths went unremarked. Do any of you have the balls to say you are OK with that?! It is going to get shit loads worse, and no-one is even going to notice. TIA - This Is Africa. We have more murders per day in South Africa then most of you assholes have per annum, YOU CAN BE UPSET ABOUT THIS. Drop your f*cking philosophy major act and start GIVING A SHIT. I have a family of frigging Zimbabwean refugees living in my back yard, 6 of them sharing one loo, living from hand to mouth because its BETTER than where they came from.
If you honestly don't care about it, don't waste your time writing a Wikipedia referenced post on f*cking Teamliquid. This isn't about the many intricate, legal details you would like to hash out, this is about normal, good people being cut down where they stand for no reason at all.
Over it.
P.S. an update on the Avaaz site says the death penalty clause may have been removed, though jail sentences are still in.
You act like we don't have our own problems that we have to deal with. How about the people of Africa deal with their own problems? While authoritarianism is lamentable anywhere, it is always on the march everywhere. In other words, it is up to the people in their own lands to fix the problems of their own lands. I fight for my own liberties - I don't have the time to fight for everyone else in the world - nor would I want to. It is enough a burden as is to beat back the psychopaths in my own area.
Never mind the fact that advocating foreign adventurism in the name of humanitarianism produces authoritarianism in the home country. I don't want a standing army - regardless of the reason.
You're doing it again. If you don't care, don't post. If you have an issue in your country that you would like to make me aware of, let me know. If I think it's relevant, I'll do what I can. This is because I value human life wherever it exists, as tough and unrealistic as that can be at time.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc.
Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!".
Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you.
And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes".
But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote: So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers.
If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom.
Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it.
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
Again it's not something I hate, just something I think we should be focusing on fixing instead of endorsing.
This going against nature thing is absurd. You don't have laser eyes and yet you eat your meat cooked. You don't have fur and yet you wear clothes. It's the kind of nonsensical doublethink that people bring out whenever they want something to bash the gays with and then put it back before they ever take a look at the implications of it.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Your inference is wrong. Just because someone cannot have offspring does not mean (biologically) that it is a disorder. Or are you going to claim that worker bees also have disorder ? SO it might be disorder, but you have absolutely no evidence that it is. And if it is, there is absolutely no reason to persecute them as unlike some other sexual behaviours like pedophilia (that also should be prosecuted only for actual act not preemptively) there is no harm done.
On November 24 2012 12:51 Praetorial wrote: To all those who think that
-Homosexuality is wrong because of your beliefs, and that you have a right to impose them on others -That a definition is more important that the happiness of others -That it's okay for the government to strip away the basic rights of the people on a majority vote -That a single act damns a person to death
You're all complete idiots. I hope that you burn in flames of the hell you believe the people you persecute are going to, because you're neither loving nor forgiving, but imposing upon people the decision when they were granted choice by Christ.
This would be exactly how opponents of a traditional marriage frame the debate. That, first of all, it's a basic right, and second of all, that it unduly denies the happiness of others, and third of all, that its religious people imposing their beliefs on everybody else. Taking the very populous country of the United States as an example, it's the believe that 42-49% of the population have their heads up their collective arses. When the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the constitution, 52% of California voted in Prop. 8 in 2008 to overturn that ruling, putting it back to defined between a man and a woman. In the state that has San Francisco and Los Angeles, a majority found that it just wasn't a good idea. So maybe there's an opposition to this definition that isn't blindly pushing religion, or killjoys of happiness, or hating basic rights. I'm not ready to dismiss around half the country I live in on the basis of your arguments for it (i.e. how could anyone be against it?)
"Only" in the US would such a view be classified as "opponent of traditional marriage", though. Presenting it like it would somehow oppose or infringe/transgress on current marriages. Which isn't true. It's simply a law, where people ask for it to include a minority group.
Well nowadays maybe. But in Europe and elsewhere, it would be definitely a departure from the past. And we'll see what that means for the traditional family (or maybe mean nothing) and other cultural results. As for it not changing anything or infringe on anything, it does change plenty. I don't think dismissing the changes does any good for gay marriage proponents. Kids learn earlier that Katy has two dads or Mike has 2 moms and a dad (let's say gay adoption). Who's to say some kid given up for adoption with two parents that are straight will grow up just fine with gay parents? And please, don't generalize this to just some other minority group. We didn't enslave the gays for many years and make them run plantations. We've never deprived them of voting rights. We've never prevented them from marrying (haha, lighten up a little, gay men and women are able to marry the opposite sex still). Marriage has been around for millenia and changing it substantially is something to talk about separate from the ability to marry someone of different race, economic class, or country.
In Europe nobody really cares except few catholic countries.
On November 23 2012 21:14 EtherealBlade wrote: So if there's strong support for it throughout the country what's your deal with it? Let them make their own laws, they aren't a colony. There are other moral standards than Western.
The disgusting consequences of relativistic morality. Thanks, you vile excuse for a human being. --- Hopefully this bill doesnt pass, but people, dont blame Christianity. Africa is stuck, in every sense of the word, quite a bit in the past. They have little to no respect for individual rights or the modern world as a whole, and religions got nothing to do with that.
Just because they don't support being gay doesn't mean that they are "stuck in the past". You have such an aggressive stance towards this topic, it looks like the majority are voting against it and the majority winning is the way most people can live in peace. This is also how america works. Personally I don't mind gay people however I could see either side and if the country wants to vote against it well then so be it. If they don't then they don't. Take your stance for what you believe in and hope your side wins, no reason to take out pitchforks and scream death to the non believers.
If my country voted to kill me I'd sure as hell be screaming and getting my pitchfork, right before they killed me of course. Wtf is your "could seee either side". What does that mean? Whats the other side that you could see besides allowing freedom.
Well my view on homosexuality isn't positive, not even for the freedom to express it.
Why?
Let me start off by saying that I have plenty of gay friends, I don't have a problem with them and hang out with them very frequently, one of them is in fact my best friend.
A lot of people claim it's a choice, a lot claim it isn't either. From my understanding of everything on this planet our goal is to reproduce and survive through means of procreation. That is how species keep going and so forth yada much more detail could be put here.
Homosexual animals exist, therefore I don't really know what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that because our goal is to procreate, homosexuality by definition is a choice? That's wrong because of the aforementioned animals. And not only that, even if every man and woman on earth were homosexual, we could still reproduce. Also, what about asexual people, are they chosing to be asexual as well?
If people can be born mentally impaired, without arms, without eyes, without hearing, with autism, with dislexia, then why can't they be born a woman in a man's body, or a man being sexually attracted to other men?
So if it is a choice, you are intentionally going against nature? This is something I'm against. I would chalk this up in few words, a psychological issue.
It's not a choice. Why in god's name do people think its a choice. That gay kid that got bullied so hard he did suicide? Did he choose that? Dear lord, what a load of rubbish.
If it isn't a choice... A genetic issue really. Kind of like being handicapped in some form and it should be treated as such.
What do you mean by treated? Treated as in trying to cure it or treated as in how we as people treat them? In the first case, why fix something that does no harm and the people who 'have it' don't even want to be fixed. If you meant the second, do you also advocate that we should treat people with only one arm differently? Or deaf people? Blind people? Are they lesser human beings because they're different?
I may offend a lot of people however this is how I perceive it. I have no hatred for it though, my friends make jokes all the time and I am very comfortable. They know how I feel, I know how they feel. We get past it despite that if it ever came down to a vote I would vote against them.
So, for no other reasons than your own misguided thoughts you would vote against something other people enjoy, even if the thing they enjoy does not affect you in the slightest, nor does it harm anyone?
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
You still haven't answered the question. No problem I'll repeat it for you. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you
Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved.
You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion.
Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral.
they're obviously connected to some degree, but okay, let's take a purist stance and call them independent
my question is, so what? morality is subjective, i.e. an opinion. in itself it is worthless because it means nothing.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc.
Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!".
Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you.
And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes".
But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
Next time, do not skip the biology clases.
The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight.
Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you
Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved.
You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion.
Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral.
they're obviously connected to some degree, but okay, let's take a purist stance and call them independent
my question is, so what? morality is subjective, i.e. an opinion. in itself it is worthless because it means nothing.
Yes they are connected, which is the reason why you are wrong. Morality is not an opinion, otherwise societies would not exist. Unless you are a psychopath, if you say what you said you are contradicting yourself as you very well know what is wrong and what is not and surprise, your core moral values are in pretty much perfect agreement with other people. Is it not kind of strange coincidence if morality is such an subjective opinion ?
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.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
Why should he, when it is. Just so you stop, there are no free tribes that you describe. They have tax, it is just in the form of socially enforced shared "property". In small tribes this can work, in big societies we live in it cannot, thus taxes. And I want to pay taxes, the gays don't want to be persecuted.
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?
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
Why should he, when it is. Just so you stop, there are no free tribes that you describe. They have tax, it is just in the form of socially enforced shared "property". In small tribes this can work, in big societies we live in it cannot, thus taxes. And I want to pay taxes, the gays don't want to be persecuted.
No it is not. In fact, it is just a Western world cultural superiority BS.
Society can live without taxes and property rights. Think a little outside of your box.
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. As for your second question, what are you referring to, it makes no sense in context of what I 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?
How is being gay in any way comparable to child molestation?
We protect animals, children and mentally retarded persons - as you out of all people should know - but we don't need to protect anyone from gays, so there aren't any similarities between the criminal offenses you just mentioned and homosexuality.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
Why should he, when it is. Just so you stop, there are no free tribes that you describe. They have tax, it is just in the form of socially enforced shared "property". In small tribes this can work, in big societies we live in it cannot, thus taxes. And I want to pay taxes, the gays don't want to be persecuted.
No it is not. In fact, it is just a Western world cultural superiority BS.
Society can live without taxes and property rights. Think a little outside of your box.
No it si not western cultural bullshit, morality I was talking about is shared by every society on Earth. The only thing West differs in is that in the west wealth and education allowed us to extend that morality to wider group of people.
No big enough society can live without taxes and not be a complete failure. If you have example, show it otherwise you are just talking about imaginary societies. Or you can try to argue how such society would work, but that would belong to a different thread.
As for small societies, show me one that has no property rights.
EDIT: And I mean NO property rights, I am not talking about codified ones only.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc.
Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!".
Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you.
And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes".
But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
Next time, do not skip the biology clases.
The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight.
Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education.
This is all hypothetical, but I don't agree with your intepretation. If the genes are recessive, you get a situation where functionally the genes are lethal recessive (no offspring reproduction) in a situation where homosexuals are allowed to be gay. In societies where homosexuality is opressed, the genes carry no functional fitness loss (or maybe a marginal one), and become functionally almost neutral. The prevalence of the "genotype" is going to be a helluva lot higher in one of those scenarios than the other.
And it's probably quantitative. Just sayin'.
Try to refrain from insulting me, too. If you want to get into technical specifics about how genes are transmitted, we can discuss that, but for the sake of a random internet post it doesn't make much sense to go on a technical lecture on evolution.
But my point still stands. A societal makeup where homosexual genotypes are masked into being heterosexual (and so are functionally neutral or near-neutral) is a lot more likely to have a higher prevalence of those genotypes than a society in which it's "lethal" in the evolutionary sense (where homosexuals feel no pressure to procreate).
And remember, selection still acts on recessive genes. Heterosexuals carrying a recessive lethal would still have lower overall fitness relative to those not carrying it, so you would expect over time the prevalence of the genotype to decrease.
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?
There we go, the classic "But how long until sex with children and animals!".
You realise that two homosexuals being together is a result of their mutual agreement to be together, right? Children do not have the mental capability to consent to such an agreement and animals are unable to consent.
Now stop using that flawed and ridiculous argument.
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.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
On November 24 2012 21:56 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc.
Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!".
Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you.
And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes".
But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
Next time, do not skip the biology clases.
The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight.
Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education.
This is all hypothetical, but I don't agree with your intepretation. If the genes are recessive, you get a situation where functionally the genes are lethal recessive (no offspring reproduction) in a situation where homosexuals are allowed to be gay. In societies where homosexuality is opressed, the genes carry no functional fitness loss (or maybe a marginal one), and become functionally almost neutral. The prevalence of the "genotype" is going to be a helluva lot higher in one of those scenarios than the other.
And it's probably quantitative. Just sayin'.
Try to refrain from insulting me, too. If you want to get into technical specifics about how genes are transmitted, we can discuss that, but for the sake of a random internet post it doesn't make much sense to go on a technical lecture on evolution.
But my point still stands. A societal makeup where homosexual genotypes are masked into being heterosexual (and so are functionally neutral or near-neutral) is a lot more likely to have a higher prevalence of those genotypes than a society in which it's "lethal" in the evolutionary sense (where homosexuals feel no pressure to procreate).
And remember, selection still acts on recessive genes. Heterosexuals carrying a recessive lethal would still have lower overall fitness relative to those not carrying it, so you would expect over time the prevalence of the genotype to decrease.
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.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
Let me guess, you live in a country where society opreses you to pay taxes? How about the free tribal people come and tell you crappy is the society that denies you the right to pay no taxes?
Stop acting like morality is universal for all humans.
On November 24 2012 21:56 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On November 24 2012 18:11 EtherealBlade wrote:
If only one of your ancestors were homosexual, then you wouldn't be here, posting on this forum. This fact alone proves that it is a disorder. By your logic I am a homophobe. But then I'd be hating on all infertile people as well because they cannot reproduce? I don't hate anyone. They can live a complete life and be valuable members of humanity, but they have a slight condition that requires no treatment. There is no defeat in accepting that.
Err... reproduce and survive through means of procreation is such an oversimplification of what we are. We're also wired to protect the herd as it were, to look out for 'your' group and help them. There's been arguments as to gays possibly being important in stone age civilizations. There's valid reasoning as to why a 'gay gene' exists evolutionary, it's even very prevalent in some species. So to say their choice (which it most often isn't, they're pretty much born that way) goes against nature is way too simple and I dare say wrong.
It's not an oversimplification, if you put aside philosophy and civilized living, it all comes down to that. I also don't think that this 'gay gene' worked very well, otherwise there would not have been so many important eunuchs produced by history. The 'need' for an outsider 'gender' was met by castrating men, not looking up gay men.
Honestly, I laugh my ass off at arguments like that. Here's the real irony of it. If there`s a genetic component to being gay (I think there is), you homophobes (note that I used the word) should actually be encouraging gay marriage and gay people to express their orientation. It`ll lead to them not procreating, levels of genes decreasing, lower overall expression over time, etc.
Because here`s the irony: When you opress gay people, they have a very, very strong self-interest to mask the fact that they're gay. Including marrying (unhappily) a woman, and fathering children (unhappily) on her, passing on their genes. If you threaten a gay man with death, of course the vast, vast majority of them are going to throw up their hands and say "Hey, uhhhh, I`m not gay, look here, I`ve got me a wife and kids!".
Long story short: Forcing gay men to act straight due to negative societal pressure towards being gay ends up passing on their genes. I fucking GUARANTEE that you have had LOTS of homosexual ancestors, but they were forced to pass on their genes due to societal pressure. From a genetics standpoint, when you go back far enough, everyone's pretty much related to everyone else. You've had gay men and women in your family tree, hate to break it to you.
And the irony of that is that due to societal pressures, they reproduced, you were created, and now in some small way you probably carry "dem gay genes".
But who cares? It's all besides the point anyways. If people are doing stuff that makes them happy and doesn't harm you in any way, how the hell can you be against it..?
Next time, do not skip the biology clases.
The genes can be dominating and not dominating. The fact that there are gay people in no way implies that that a combination of heterosecsual people`s genes doesn`t produce gay people. In fact, most probably, considering the % of gays in the population, it is suposed to be trigered by a combination of 2 or more different cromosome couples, that can independently be carried by anyone, and without full set, the person would be straight.
Sure, some gay people did reproduce. But to imply that gay people can only be born to gays is just plain bigoty and lack of education.
This is all hypothetical, but I don't agree with your intepretation. If the genes are recessive, you get a situation where functionally the genes are lethal recessive (no offspring reproduction) in a situation where homosexuals are allowed to be gay. In societies where homosexuality is opressed, the genes carry no functional fitness loss (or maybe a marginal one), and become functionally almost neutral. The prevalence of the "genotype" is going to be a helluva lot higher in one of those scenarios than the other.
And it's probably quantitative. Just sayin'.
Try to refrain from insulting me, too. If you want to get into technical specifics about how genes are transmitted, we can discuss that, but for the sake of a random internet post it doesn't make much sense to go on a technical lecture on evolution.
But my point still stands. A societal makeup where homosexual genotypes are masked into being heterosexual (and so are functionally neutral or near-neutral) is a lot more likely to have a higher prevalence of those genotypes than a society in which it's "lethal" in the evolutionary sense (where homosexuals feel no pressure to procreate).
And remember, selection still acts on recessive genes. Heterosexuals carrying a recessive lethal would still have lower overall fitness relative to those not carrying it, so you would expect over time the prevalence of the genotype to decrease.
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.
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.
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).
Nothing? If the discrimination that you felt was nothing why is it even an issue? Or you are assuming that all kinds of discrimination are the same and of the same magnitude under all the circumstances?
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.
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.
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 apesfish 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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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".
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 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 16:10 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 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 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 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 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?
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 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.
On November 24 2012 18:59 Sinedd wrote: they have the right to do whatever they want.. its their fucking country T_T
stop whining..
You apply the idea of freedom to a nation which is purely a concept but deny that same right to an individual, a living breathing person just like yourself. You're a very strange individual to have achieved such a high level of doublethink that the freedom of a nation to govern itself can be sacrosanct while the freedom of a man to put his dick where he likes is worthless.
It's worthless if most people are against it, that's society for you
Democracy means the people decide which government (and by extension, laws) they want. it doesn't automatically grant these laws moral superiority - in fact, it could be flat out detrimental to the health of society as a whole - but the integrity of the system is theoretically preserved.
You can't cherry pick controversial laws and say, I refuse to abide by this and my reasoning is sound! That's an opinion. What other people may or may not find offensive does not have to be justified in a rational way. That's also their opinion.
Personally I would like to not pay taxes, and I can come up with all sorts of strong arguments why, but at the end of the day I still pay taxes.
Morality exists independently of legality. You've confused the two. I'm not denying the existence of a law, I'm saying a law can be immoral.
they're obviously connected to some degree, but okay, let's take a purist stance and call them independent
my question is, so what? morality is subjective, i.e. an opinion. in itself it is worthless because it means nothing.
Ethics are not entirely subjective. Your state and mine are built around them. Our democracies are built on them. When Uganda "lacks" a developed ethics (in whatever direction they want), it doesn't mean their democracy has as solid a foundation as ours.
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.
The way I see it, your design is based on fear. Fear of the slippery slope, for instance.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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.
Note that I haven't said a word about how I personally feel about anti-homosexual laws. His analogy of this to the holocaust highlights my argument perfectly - you can't change the mentality and the beliefs of a nation unless you're willing to go to the absolute extreme, and essentially force an entire population into your point of view.
The original poster was entirely correct, if not quite clear. Nations wagging their fingers at one another over their cultural and societal beliefs is completely fruitless, and does more to divide your cultures than fix issues. Even if you forced Uganda to not pass this law, it does nothing to actual change the anti-homosexual attitudes of the nation.
Much as it might suck to watch bad things happen around the world, issues like this won't stop happening until their society develops further, which won't happen because of economic/trade sanctions and scolding.
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.
The way I see it, your design is based on fear. Fear of the slippery slope, for instance.
It's also, if I may be frank, based on ignorance. While we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality because of the moral wrongness we attribute them the same as some people see homosexuality, there also a clear violation of another law - consent. Children and animals can't consent, thus arguing the slippery slope that once we allows gays to marry than there's no reason not to allow the rest is just stupid unless gay marriage somehow changes consent laws.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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.
Much as it might suck to watch bad things happen around the world, issues like this won't stop happening until their society develops further, which won't happen because of economic/trade sanctions and scolding.
So you agree that a thing being discussed is a "bad thing", but we should not speak against it (that is all we do in this thread) because we can't influence it in any way?
On November 25 2012 02:37 Myles wrote: It's also, if I may be frank, based on ignorance. While we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality because of the moral wrongness we attribute them the same as some people see homosexuality, there also a clear violation of another law - consent. Children and animals can't consent, thus arguing the slippery slope that once we allows gays to marry than there's no reason not to allow the rest is just stupid unless gay marriage somehow changes consent laws.
Bestiality and pedophilia may one day be considered normal however as well. When you say children can't consent, you're talking about pre-verbal children. The vast majority ages say 5 - 16 are fully capable of what someone trying to take advantage of them would call 'consent'. The reason we say they cannot, is because we believe they are to ignorant to fully consent. The same could be said of many adults though, quite frankly. There are in fact legal political parties in some modern nations that support those sexual deviations.
The poster above who said forcing a nation to change its laws will do nothing, is right. How many times have we seen that in the last 10 years? At least a dozen? Trying to force women's rights, women as people, equal rights for minorities, protection for certain ethnic groups in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. Doesn't work unless the people want it. I mean think about it, there is enough public support for forbidding girls from attending school and marrying them off at age 12-13 and the Taliban was able to successfully endorse this for years.
On November 24 2012 07:05 StarMoon wrote: I am a Canadian, and I like my country. It has a lot of positive elements about it.
If people in Uganda or Uganda officially were to try to tell us Canadians how to do things, I wouldn't give a flying shit, and I'd sincerely hope my government wouldn't either. Heck, when we get a whiff that the US is influencing things unduely there's generally some outcry about it.
So, likewise, Uganda has the right to not have us Canadians play World Police and tell them what morals they should have and how to run their country, as long as their country is peaceful and not harming Canadians (or our allies/friends) in any way; and to my knowledge they are not.
Its just like personal freedom: I should be allowed to do as I wish, as long as it does not harm others or society, and -group- can express how they disagree with .... lets say how much I watch Starcraft, but I have the right to blow them off.
I feel I didn't express myself as clearly as I would've liked, but hopefully people get the idea.
yeah I got your idea just fine: as long as you, your fellow Canadians, and their allies/friends are not hurt, you are perfectly fine with Ugandians doing all kinds of atrocities to the minorities among their own people.
This is a pretty pathetic straw man.
Morality in every single nation is vastly different and the development of society and culture is not the same across the globe, and, most importantly, every nation believes in their own society in one way or another.
Just because you believe your own moral system is the correct one, and just because you have the power and strength to impose those beliefs on other nations, does not mean you should be forcibly trying to change the views of an entire society to adhere to yours. Even more than that, there simply isn't a way to force a nation to follow your own moral code.
This is not the morals we are talking about this is the law initiative that causes outrage. Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for homosexual people in Uganda? Yes/No/It's their own business?
And it's their own business. I believe I explicitly stated it's impossible to forcibly change their beliefs.
Do you support imprisonment and even death sentence for Jews in Germany in WW2? Yes/No/It was their own (the Germans) business?
Oh, cute, Godwin's Law. Let's go through a few things to show how idiotic this kind of thinking:
1) The situations are in no way analogous. Germany rounded up Jewish people en masse, shipped them to death camps where they murdered millions. Uganda is trying to make homosexuality illegal. I would not recommend trying to equate the two.
2) What stopped the holocaust? Complete occupation of Germany and the absolute collapse of their leadership structure through military destruction, plus the death camps never actually ceased operations until allied forces liberated each one.
3) Anti-Semitic belief was taken to that level because Jewish people were scapegoated for losing WW1, for the economic collapse, for the corruption of the government, etc. Ugandan society believes homosexuality is wrong (which was a view shared by most 1st world nations only a few decades ago).
4) What eliminated Anti-Semitic views in Germany (aside from fringe groups)? Decades of occupation, where it was driven into the population that Germany did horrific things, and that the entire nation was wrong to let it happen. That was followed by decades of education teaching the new generations about exactly what happened and how wrong it was.
And for the person who stated that the Holocaust was democratically decided...Hitler was never elected. He was appointed by a democratically elected government, seized more power, assumed total control, and then created a widespread campaign to push his own agenda.
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.
Note that I haven't said a word about how I personally feel about anti-homosexual laws. His analogy of this to the holocaust highlights my argument perfectly - you can't change the mentality and the beliefs of a nation unless you're willing to go to the absolute extreme, and essentially force an entire population into your point of view.
The original poster was entirely correct, if not quite clear. Nations wagging their fingers at one another over their cultural and societal beliefs is completely fruitless, and does more to divide your cultures than fix issues. Even if you forced Uganda to not pass this law, it does nothing to actual change the anti-homosexual attitudes of the nation.
Much as it might suck to watch bad things happen around the world, issues like this won't stop happening until their society develops further, which won't happen because of economic/trade sanctions and scolding.
His analogy in no way "highlights [your] argument perfectly". There are plenty of examples of international pressure having a positive impact on social domestic issues. The impact may not be an immediate change in culture, but rather a change in policy which down the road is accompanied by a change in culture. The international pressure on South Africa, for example, contributed to end the apartheid.
On November 25 2012 02:37 Myles wrote: It's also, if I may be frank, based on ignorance. While we outlaw pedophilia and bestiality because of the moral wrongness we attribute them the same as some people see homosexuality, there also a clear violation of another law - consent. Children and animals can't consent, thus arguing the slippery slope that once we allows gays to marry than there's no reason not to allow the rest is just stupid unless gay marriage somehow changes consent laws.
Bestiality and pedophilia may one day be considered normal however as well. When you say children can't consent, you're talking about pre-verbal children. The vast majority ages say 5 - 16 are fully capable of what someone trying to take advantage of them would call 'consent'. The reason we say they cannot, is because we believe they are to ignorant to fully consent. The same could be said of many adults though, quite frankly. There are in fact legal political parties in some modern nations that support those sexual deviations.
The poster above who said forcing a nation to change its laws will do nothing, is right. How many times have we seen that in the last 10 years? At least a dozen? Trying to force women's rights, women as people, equal rights for minorities, protection for certain ethnic groups in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, etc. Doesn't work unless the people want it. I mean think about it, there is enough public support for forbidding girls from attending school and marrying them off at age 12-13 and the Taliban was able to successfully endorse this for years.
This is utterly wrong and not recognized by any legal structure in any modern nation. The predator's idea of "consent" is not important; the legal definition and precedent are. Your slippery slope doesn't even slide.
Children may know, or think they know, what they want at the moment. However looking back I realize that back then I REALLY didn't understand anything. I remember thinking at age 14 that maybe I would be okay with having sex. I'm 21 now and thanking heaven that I didn't.
This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
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 is a genuine question. Why would we even answer to such ignorance? Why do we even choose to debate someone who clearly hasn't even given this a moment of true contemplation to see for himself why everything he spouts is crap. I really applaud people who do. I can't fucking do it.
On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote: This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote: This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears.
I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure.
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote: No wonder its a third world country..
The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda.
First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote: This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears.
I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure.
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote: No wonder its a third world country..
The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda.
First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
Perhaps the majority of people whom you associate with are homophobes, but that does not mean that the majority of the first world hates homosexuals.
Fwiw, my opinion is that the reason that this is happening in Uganda is due to lack of education. My opinion is that our social values have advanced because our education systems did.
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote: No wonder its a third world country..
The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda.
First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
That's not the case for every first world country, all north-west european countries are very accepting with quite a few other european countries quite accepting.
I'm not sure how the acceptance rates are in other first world countries, but I suspect Canada and Australia are around the same numbers as Netherlands/Sweden/Denmark. The USA will be alot less, around the same as Greece/Turkey. As for Asian countries such as Japan and S-Korea I have no clue, probably somewhere between Greece and Turkey. (Japan and USA are refered to in one of the tables)
On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote: This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears.
I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure.
On November 25 2012 04:51 Recognizable wrote: This thread makes me lose all faith in humanity. Especially because some of these people actually seem educated, yet apply it in such a way to confirm to their irrational fear and hate. Disgusting.
Well, everyone has irrational fears...still it's wrong to hurt other people because of said fears.
Is it survival? I mean, animals will attack you (or flee) when scared. I was just thinking this the other day (unrelated to this topic), that perhaps we're forgetting how to survive since we never have to 'fight', not in the survival of the fittest sense. But is this one form of the instinct of survival? To attack our fears.
I'm usually not one to condemn instincts. Nor emotions. They can both change morality (if not complete 180 degrees, they affect your actions and morals, and can change them rapidly). Typically I'd argue they (instincts and emotions) are not inherently wrong. But when hurting others you should know why you hurt them and why it is "the only way". And depending on the severity you better be DAMN sure.
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote: No wonder its a third world country..
The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda.
First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
But then again, in first world countries people don't pass laws enforcing prison sentences just because you happen to be a homosexual. If that happened in America there would be an uproar, and I can imagine the same thing happening in all first world countries. That's a pretty big difference you should probably take into consideration.
Even if you are right that there are more people who hate homosexuals (which you haven't linked any evidence in support of), at least they have the "first world" quality of respecting their right to live how they want.
On November 23 2012 21:28 Robinsa wrote: No wonder its a third world country..
The fact that you're getting emotional and throwing out irrelevant personal attacks like "no wonder its a third world country xDDDD" is a sign that you're no "better" than the people pushing this bill in Uganda.
First world countries have more people who hate homosexuals than those who don't. Did you know that? Oh look your logic just got destroyed.
That is pretty much nonsense, anything to back that up ?
Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
I think the incest laws came about because children born from incest are much more prone to genetic defects, and bestiality is more because animals don't have a legal standing. Can't comment on indecent exposure though.
It sounds a little contradictory when you say "I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you" and then in the very next sentence say "But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage"...but I, at least, get what you mean. I'm just nitpicking here saying it could be worded better.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Aaah, you beat me to it!
But why hate on him just because he's uncomfortable? He's not saying that society should change just because he's uncomfortable. I for instance am uncomfortable when I see someone wearing fur but I don't DEMAND that nobody wear fur just so I can feel comfortable...and he is not demanding that gays be pushed away.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
Edit: @tMomiji: Just like I won't recognize a human-animal couple as a marriage, even though I feel someone that wants to marry an animal should be treated fairly, and I won't recognize a father-daughter couple as a marriage, even though I feel that their wants should be respected, I won't recognize a gay couple as a marriage, even though I feel they should be treated like with respect. Hope that clarified.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
I edit in incest because it deals with humans. I think we can agree on genetic defects that happen with incestual offspring? Birth control can not be completely controlled by the government and we know what incest can do, hence it brings harm to offspring for incestual couples to procreate. Also birth control isn't perfect anyway.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
We should really stop discussing beastiality, since that is kind of a different topic. It is also quite complicated, in my opinion it is about as morally acceptable as animal husbandry in general. If you are allowed to keep animals just to slaughter them for food, i don't really see why you should not be allowed to keep an animal to fuck it.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
That's such cheap rhetoric. Essentially it amounts to "we have a definition and I think it's the right one and therefore it's the right one."
The fact that I think marriage should be between 2 people of any may be as arbitrary as saying you should be allowed to marry to a tree, that doesn't make it any less of an opinion. I mean hell, our current conception isn't any less arbitrary - the rules were set based on tradition. Marriage isn't inherent to nature after all, it's a human construct. But in reality, there are tangible reasons behind wanting homosexuals to be able to marry, even though you choose to outright deny those reasons.
Additionally, you call it "fair" that homosexuals are allowed to marry, even though it's people that they don't truly love. That's the pinnacle of a cheap argument, and shows how disingenuous you really are. Make an effort to be reasonable in the future.
Societey developing backwards is just painful to see and I especially don't get why it seems to happen so often in the last years. Humanity sucks so hard, kinda unbelievable.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
That's such cheap rhetoric. Essentially it amounts to "we have a definition and I think it's the right one and therefore it's the right one."
The fact that I think marriage should be between 2 people of any may be as arbitrary as saying you should be allowed to marry to a tree, that doesn't make it any less of an opinion. I mean hell, our current conception isn't any less arbitrary - the rules were set based on tradition. Marriage isn't inherent to nature after all, it's a human construct. But in reality, there are tangible reasons behind wanting homosexuals to be able to marry, even though you choose to outright deny those reasons.
Additionally, you call it "fair" that homosexuals are allowed to marry, even though it's people that they don't truly love. That's the pinnacle of a cheap argument, and shows how disingenuous you really are. Make an effort to be reasonable in the future.
I never say it's the right one. I never said there is a right one. There is no right one. It's arbitrary. Hence all my examples for all the past posts, including incest and bestiality.
The fact that I think marriage should be between 2 people of any may be as arbitrary as saying you should be allowed to marry to a tree, that doesn't make it any less of an opinion
So basically you're agreeing your opinion is arbitrary. So your opinion has no more weight than mine. So your decision to not recognize certain marriages is just as legitimate as my decision not to recognize gay marriage.
And as for
... But in reality, there are tangible reasons behind wanting homosexuals to be able to marry, even though you choose to outright deny those reasons.
First off, I never said there aren't tangible reasons; not sure why you keep misquoting me. Second of all, there are tangible benefits to a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we need laws recognizing and rewarding them. Should I get a tax deduction if I'm not overweight?
Additionally, you call it "fair" that homosexuals are allowed to marry, even though it's people that they don't truly love. That's the pinnacle of a cheap argument, and shows how disingenuous you really are. Make an effort to be reasonable in the future.
As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Yea the only logical argument against gay marriage is a semantic one which denies the evolution of the meaning of words and concepts. Thats all they really have;its like i insist that decimate means to reduce by 1/10th and not to destroy because my dictionary is from a previous century. Logically valid, completely impractical.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the right one, why is that? Because it's the only one we have? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
What specific point are you replying to...?
The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect).
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the right one, why is that? Because it's the only one we have? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
Semantics, semantics...
How is it semantics? Because there needs to be a definition? We can reduce everything to semantics if that is your conclusion or please elaborate.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the right one, why is that? Because it's the only one we have? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
Semantics, semantics...
Here's a tip, as it appears you've recently learned the definition of the word "semantics". If you'd like to indict a statement or declaration as overly concerned with connotative signification, you need to be specific and point out where the mealy mouthing takes place, especially when someone takes the time to write out a lengthy response; otherwise, you look like an intellectually dishonest fool.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
What specific point are you replying to...?
The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect).
You throw arbitrary around like you know shit.
Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying.
And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits.
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
What specific point are you replying to...?
The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect).
You throw arbitrary around like you know shit.
Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying.
And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits.
Describe the steps to make a non-arbitrary moral judgment, soon.Cloak: I'll watch you trip over your own foot as you wander in limbo.
Don’t you dare respond to anything else until you’ve figured that out, because like I said, your entire rhetoric seems to float on the idea that these topics should be handled with hard evidence and truths, hence your aversion to this word, "Arbitrary" – a word that you toss in full caps all over the place. But if you dig into it, you’ll notice that any moral judgment that doesn’t seem arbitrary to you only seems objective because you agree with it so strongly, or because it’s in line with other human constructs that you consider to be true. Hell we can push even farther and say that moral judgments can be based on arbitrarily selected reasons that are good or bad based on other arbitrary reasons – and so on so forth.
You pick a bunch of different definitions of marriage and assume they’re all equal because you think you’re a robot and that’s what you ought to be. But this isn’t science and shouldn’t be treated as such. At best, science provides us with data upon which we can base subjective opinions. Until you get out of that little phase where you pretend to be Objectivotron, your input is as useless as my understanding of Quantum Physics.
That being said, I want to say that your position isn't that objective because of its very nature which ignores morality. It's pretty paradoxal, and that's why science doesn't meddle with morality or religion: it can't. Your definition of "consistency" is based on ignorance, may it be willful ignorance or plain old ignorance, you dismiss moral arguments because you refuse to process anything arbitrary.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Living in a state that was the first in the US to defeat an amendment to the state constitution which would codify gay marriage as illegal (technically still illegal, but we're working on it), I've heard my fair share of arguments about this topic over the course of this election year. Our definitions evolve with us as a society. In my opinion, arguing that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman because it has traditionally been so is tantamount to reading literally into the phrase, "all men are created equal..."
The definition of men, while the letter hasn't changed, has shifted from white, land owning to every citizen under US law; To argue other wise is either political or social suicide or both. So will the definition of other words including marriage. If we must define marriage, I like the definition that it is between two consenting persons. We can sort what comes along later, hyperbole as pertains to, "what about beastiality?" have far less bearing if any as to basic human dignity and rights.
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
What specific point are you replying to...?
The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect).
You throw arbitrary around like you know shit.
Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying.
And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits.
Describe the steps to make a non-arbitrary moral judgment, soon.Cloak: I'll watch you trip over your own foot as you wander in limbo.
Don’t you dare respond to anything else until you’ve figured that out, because like I said, your entire rhetoric seems to float on the idea that these topics should be handled with hard evidence and truths, hence your aversion to this word, "Arbitrary" – a word that you toss in full caps all over the place. But if you dig into it, you’ll notice that any moral judgment that doesn’t seem arbitrary to you only seems objective because you agree with it so strongly, or because it’s in line with other human constructs that you consider to be true. Hell we can push even farther and say that moral judgments can be based on arbitrarily selected reasons that are good or bad based on other arbitrary reasons – and so on so forth.
You pick a bunch of different definitions of marriage and assume they’re all equal because you think you’re a robot and that’s what you ought to be. But this isn’t science and shouldn’t be treated as such. At best, science provides us with data upon which we can base subjective opinions. Until you get out of that little phase where you pretend to be Objectivotron, your input is as useless as my understanding of Quantum Physics.
That being said, I want to say that your position isn't that objective because of its very nature which ignores morality. It's pretty paradoxal, and that's why science doesn't meddle with morality or religion: it can't. Your definition of "consistency" is based on ignorance, may it be willful ignorance or plain old ignorance, you dismiss moral arguments because you refuse to process anything arbitrary.
Um, I don't believe in a non-arbitrary moral judgement... ... Were you just trying to get me to admit that?
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want?
I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage.
I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary?
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want?
I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage.
I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary?
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote: [quote]
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want?
I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage.
I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary?
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Your definition may be based off of God, but it is still YOUR definition and is therefore subject to the additional considerations of subjective moral implication. You cannot escape the fallibility of your own viewpoint.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it.
Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one?
And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want?
I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage.
I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary?
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Your definition may be based off of God, but it is still YOUR definition and is therefore subject to the additional considerations of subjective moral implication. You cannot escape the fallibility of your own viewpoint.
It's not "based" off of God's view. It is God's view. And God has decided that God is the decided or morality. Where did my definition come into that?
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
Anything in the middle is inconsistent? Incorrect. The idea that heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, bestiality, and incest are of the same ethical weight is the view which is inconsistent.
Marriage in its current state is a legal contract it a contract between two persons of opposite genders marriage requires informed consent Marriage cannot be between relatives of a certain closeness
Underlined is the part which gay people wish to change Bolded is the part that the bestiality camp wants to change Italicized is the part that the incest camp wishes to change
Now, unless my logic fails me, you can change any one of these without changing the other ones. I assume your point is that there is an ethical imperative to accomplish all of these things if one also wishes to implement gay marriage. This is false.
Lets weight the ethical problems of changing each of these things.
Gay marriage - Population: 3% of total - Problems: This would require a removal of the gender requirements for marriage. I cannot think of any externalities which this could create. - Detriments: Degradation of religious moral values (alleged)
Bestial marriage and intercourse -Population: Let's be generous: .1% of all people in the united states want to marry an animal -Problems: This would require a removal of the consent stipulation, which is a basis of most human law. -Problems: This would require a removal of the personhood requirement for marriage. This is also a big deal. -Detriments: Many sexually transmitted diseases await discovery! (See AIDS)
Incest -Population: Again lets be generous: 1% of all people in the United States want to marry closer than their second cousin. -Problems: Parent child marriages are a shaky ethical area because the parent has the ability to bypass informed consent because they have 18 years to limit the information that their child receives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_for_Wives) -Problems: There is no clear solution for the aforementioned problem. As long as the parent is a power figure (guardianship laws) the ability of their child to give informed consent is lessened. Any attempt to legalize incest parent-child incest would have to sort out this gray area. -Detriments: Repeated inbreeding can cause severe birth defects
First off, you can say that by simple population alone, gay marriage is far more important. I made up the numbers for incestuous marriage and bestiality. That being said, I am fairly certain they are overestimates, which would mean that gay marriage has a greater weight by population. Second, it takes a lot less to make gay marriage legal. You only have to remove the gender requirement. You don't have to change the consent, personhood, or guardianship laws. Third, the legalization of gay marriage is the least detrimental from a utilitarian point of view.
So no, you don't have to put them all in the same boat. In fact, it is erroneous to do so.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want?
I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage.
I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary?
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Your definition may be based off of God, but it is still YOUR definition and is therefore subject to the additional considerations of subjective moral implication. You cannot escape the fallibility of your own viewpoint.
It's not "based" off of God's view. It is God's view. And God has decided that God is the decided or morality. Where did my definition come into that?
Because you are the speaker, you are the one telling us you've somehow received intelligible communication from a higher being and are setting forth a standard based on that. Consider it this way. Since you are not "God", you cannot assuredly make an utterance in his name. Therefore, you must use your own subjective agency as a conscious human being to interpret or analyze purported utterances of "God", complete with according recognition of the possibility of flaw, miscommunication, or inherent antiquated belligerence.
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
What specific point are you replying to...?
The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect).
You throw arbitrary around like you know shit.
Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying.
And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits.
Describe the steps to make a non-arbitrary moral judgment, soon.Cloak: I'll watch you trip over your own foot as you wander in limbo.
Don’t you dare respond to anything else until you’ve figured that out, because like I said, your entire rhetoric seems to float on the idea that these topics should be handled with hard evidence and truths, hence your aversion to this word, "Arbitrary" – a word that you toss in full caps all over the place. But if you dig into it, you’ll notice that any moral judgment that doesn’t seem arbitrary to you only seems objective because you agree with it so strongly, or because it’s in line with other human constructs that you consider to be true. Hell we can push even farther and say that moral judgments can be based on arbitrarily selected reasons that are good or bad based on other arbitrary reasons – and so on so forth.
You pick a bunch of different definitions of marriage and assume they’re all equal because you think you’re a robot and that’s what you ought to be. But this isn’t science and shouldn’t be treated as such. At best, science provides us with data upon which we can base subjective opinions. Until you get out of that little phase where you pretend to be Objectivotron, your input is as useless as my understanding of Quantum Physics.
That being said, I want to say that your position isn't that objective because of its very nature which ignores morality. It's pretty paradoxal, and that's why science doesn't meddle with morality or religion: it can't. Your definition of "consistency" is based on ignorance, may it be willful ignorance or plain old ignorance, you dismiss moral arguments because you refuse to process anything arbitrary.
Um, I don't believe in a non-arbitrary moral judgement... ... Were you just trying to get me to admit that?
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it.
Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one?
And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing. Actions speak louder than words and in your everyday life and by your inner ethical code you are either proving that objective morality exists by observing its rules (as 95+% percent of the world does), or you are a psychopath.
As for the rest you still miss the point. Definitions are arbitrary, meaning is not. You do not get to choose your own meaning of the words. You can choose your definition. But even though definitions are arbitrary, they have different value. There are useless definitions and useful ones. If your definition of the word does not conform to the meaning of the word it is useless. Also note I never said a word about marriage not being heterosexual. I said it requires informed consent. Which it does. If your definition of marriage does not require consent, than you go contrary to the meaning of the word and your definition is useless. Notice I did not say wrong, as definitions cannot be wrong and cannot be right, they can be useful or useless.
As for you point about torture, you completely missed the point. You asked what is torture. That is nonsensical nitpick unless you are writing document on torture.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
Anything in the middle is inconsistent? Incorrect. The idea that heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, bestiality, and incest are of the same ethical weight is the view which is inconsistent.
Marriage in its current state is a legal contract it a contract between two persons of opposite genders marriage requires informed consent Marriage cannot be between relatives of a certain closeness
Underlined is the part which gay people wish to change Bolded is the part that the bestiality camp wants to change Italicized is the part that the incest camp wishes to change
Now, unless my logic fails me, you can change any one of these without changing the other ones. I assume your point is that there is an ethical imperative to accomplish all of these things if one also wishes to implement gay marriage. This is false.
Lets weight the ethical problems of changing each of these things.
Gay marriage - Population: 3% of total - Problems: This would require a removal of the gender requirements for marriage. I cannot think of any externalities which this could create. - Detriments: Degradation of religious moral values (alleged)
Bestial marriage and intercourse -Population: Let's be generous: .1% of all people in the united states want to marry an animal -Problems: This would require a removal of the consent stipulation, which is a basis of most human law. -Problems: This would require a removal of the personhood requirement for marriage. This is also a big deal. -Detriments: Many sexually transmitted diseases await discovery! (See AIDS)
Incest -Population: Again lets be generous: 1% of all people in the United States want to marry closer than their second cousin. -Problems: Parent child marriages are a shaky ethical area because the parent has the ability to bypass informed consent because they have 18 years to limit the information that their child receives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_for_Wives) -Problems: There is no clear solution for the aforementioned problem. As long as the parent is a power figure (guardianship laws) the ability of their child to give informed consent is lessened. Any attempt to legalize incest parent-child incest would have to sort out this gray area. -Detriments: Repeated inbreeding can cause severe birth defects
First off, you can say that by simple population alone, gay marriage is far more important. I made up the numbers for incestuous marriage and bestiality. That being said, I am fairly certain they are overestimates, which would mean that gay marriage has a greater weight by population. Second, it takes a lot less to make gay marriage legal. You only have to remove the gender requirement. You don't have to change the consent, personhood, or guardianship laws. Third, the legalization of gay marriage is the least detrimental from a utilitarian point of view.
So no, you don't have to put them all in the same boat. In fact, it is erroneous to do so.
Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
On November 25 2012 08:51 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
I don't think the government has any better idea of what marriage is than we do. My point is that people are fighting over what the government should and shouldn't recognize. All I'm saying is that we should be consistent, and deciding that gay and heterosexual marriage is okay, while bestiality and incest is not, is arbitrary. So if you want the government to recognize any "union", fine. If you want the government to recognizer no union, fine. But don't tell the government to recognize some unions.
I don't agree with your definition of marriage, so your second paragraph is irrelevant.
For that last part, that's fine, that's consistent. Then you get to the second half of my first post, where I say that I don't have to be comfortable around incestual/gay couples. even if I feel they have a right to what they do. Do you agree to that too? (Feel free to leave this part for later, so that this whole debate doesn't get too confusing)
You're saying all definitions are arbitrary though at this point just because a human can want otherwise. This is an argument but it is not one we're going after. We have drifted off from the main topic. You have purposely gone to the point where any definition will be cast away because someone doesn't want it. What is there to argue at this point when you can create any definition you want?
I want to go back to the part where you called gay marriages "untrue". You never bring that up again, you argue about everything being arbitrary but one of your first statements was a value judgment on gay marriage.
I told you how I felt about incest and I stated beastiality is a seperate issue under my definition. If we go back to the fact that right now, only humans can get married and more importantly, only heterosexual marriages are allowed, then I want to ask again, why can't there be gay marriages? You say this is arbitrary but that's just throwing the topic into another area completely. I just want to know why you think gay individuals can be denied that right while heterosexual individuals are allowed it. Is there a valid reason for this not being allowed other than it doesn't matter, it's all arbitrary?
Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Your definition may be based off of God, but it is still YOUR definition and is therefore subject to the additional considerations of subjective moral implication. You cannot escape the fallibility of your own viewpoint.
It's not "based" off of God's view. It is God's view. And God has decided that God is the decided or morality. Where did my definition come into that?
Because you are the speaker, you are the one telling us you've somehow received intelligible communication from a higher being and are setting forth a standard based on that. Consider it this way. Since you are not "God", you cannot assuredly make an utterance in his name. Therefore, you must use your own subjective agency as a conscious human being to interpret or analyze purported utterances of "God", complete with according recognition of the possibility of flaw, miscommunication, or inherent antiquated belligerence.
That's not arbitrary at all. That's a historical argument. What's the historical legitimacy of the Bible? I bring points, you bring points, we have a lovely debate. But we each bring things that objectively support our side. You bring timelines, I bring timelines. You bring comparison works, I bring comparison works. That's completely different than "Well, I feel marriage is this way because I feel marriage is this way".
I can't claim that I am definitely correct, but I can claim that facts support me, not just opinions.
On November 25 2012 09:38 Djzapz wrote: That's to screw around with semantics, it can easily be abused to put a position above another without ever passing your own judgment. Stating that you're fine with the status quo is not very interesting.
What specific point are you replying to...?
The premise of your entire rhetoric. Your theme is broken because it seems to assume that judgments are arbitrary if you don't personally agree with the arguments that support those judgments. Those arguments don't need to be universally true to have value either, even though you're trying to be objective about a subjective topic (and I would argue that you aren't doing too well, given that your personal subjective opinion is obvious even though you're trying to hide it by defending the status quo, may it be indirect).
You throw arbitrary around like you know shit.
Tell me what arguments you're referring to, if you can. I still don't know exactly what you're saying.
And I'm not defending the status quo. Check out my first post, where I said it's consistent to support gay and heterosexual marriage benefits, if you also support bestiality and incest marriage benefits.
Describe the steps to make a non-arbitrary moral judgment, soon.Cloak: I'll watch you trip over your own foot as you wander in limbo.
Don’t you dare respond to anything else until you’ve figured that out, because like I said, your entire rhetoric seems to float on the idea that these topics should be handled with hard evidence and truths, hence your aversion to this word, "Arbitrary" – a word that you toss in full caps all over the place. But if you dig into it, you’ll notice that any moral judgment that doesn’t seem arbitrary to you only seems objective because you agree with it so strongly, or because it’s in line with other human constructs that you consider to be true. Hell we can push even farther and say that moral judgments can be based on arbitrarily selected reasons that are good or bad based on other arbitrary reasons – and so on so forth.
You pick a bunch of different definitions of marriage and assume they’re all equal because you think you’re a robot and that’s what you ought to be. But this isn’t science and shouldn’t be treated as such. At best, science provides us with data upon which we can base subjective opinions. Until you get out of that little phase where you pretend to be Objectivotron, your input is as useless as my understanding of Quantum Physics.
That being said, I want to say that your position isn't that objective because of its very nature which ignores morality. It's pretty paradoxal, and that's why science doesn't meddle with morality or religion: it can't. Your definition of "consistency" is based on ignorance, may it be willful ignorance or plain old ignorance, you dismiss moral arguments because you refuse to process anything arbitrary.
Um, I don't believe in a non-arbitrary moral judgement... ... Were you just trying to get me to admit that?
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
I don't need to prove that the statement is illogical with your substitution. No matter what you substitute, it still states that the issues are independent. Furthermore, to address your 'arbitrary' charge, I must ask that you be realistic. To expect law to be morally objective is naive, even in this day and age. Human government cannot have an objective morality because morality is a subjective concept created by subjective humans. There is no moral absolute. It is however, the job of government to be as objective as possible in its attempts to deal with shifting ideas of morality. We didn't need to give black people the right to ride next to a white man on the bus. We didn't need to let women vote. Both of these incidents were as arbitrary as any other law. They are important because they were a logical moral progression in achieving human equality on a social scale.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
I don't need to prove that the statement is illogical with your substitution. No matter what you substitute, it still states that the issues are independent. Furthermore, to address your 'arbitrary' charge, I must ask that you be realistic. To expect law to be morally objective is naive, even in this day and age. Human government cannot have an objective morality because morality is a subjective concept created by subjective humans. There is no moral absolute. It is however, the job of government to be as objective as possible in its attempts to deal with shifting ideas of morality. We didn't need to give black people the right to ride next to a white man on the bus. We didn't need to let women vote. Both of these incidents were as arbitrary as any other law. They are important because they were a logical moral progression in achieving human equality on a social scale.
If you agree that there is no moral absolute, then on a moral level, there's nothing wrong with bestiality and incest. That's the sum total of what I was trying to argue (in my first point).
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
On November 25 2012 09:34 soon.Cloak wrote: As I keep saying, these laws are arbitrary. The government doesn't owe anyone the benefits of marriage. That's why the argument of "I want to marry an animal/computer/table, recognize the marriage" isn't a good argument. So the government decided to give this benefit to heterosexual couples. Fine. Either argue that there shouldn't be benefits for anyone, or there should be benefits for everyone, including people that want to marry animals. Anything in the middle is inconsistent.
No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
On November 25 2012 10:11 mcc wrote: [quote] No it is not. It is black and white fallacy that you commit. Government provides benefits for married couples to achieve some goal. If giving those benefits to homosexual couples furthers that goal, but giving it to couples from your examples does not further that goal it is perfectly consistent to stay in the middle. Problem is you are mixing apples and oranges. In case of marriage benefits the line is drawn by the state based on the goals of those incentives.
In case of couple's rights (visiting in hospital,...) the line is drawn based on ethics. That is a different issue and it is pretty clear there that homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual ones. Most of those rights make absolutely no sense in case of bestiality. Case of incest is more complicated, but also completely irrelevant to this thread, as is the whole marriage thing as in Uganda it is not about marriage, but about punishing victimless crimes.
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it.
Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one?
And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing.
On November 25 2012 10:28 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
Interesting point, but a few things:
First, that argument doesn't apply to incest. So you think that incest should be legalized?
Second, you talk about the governments definition of marriage, as it relates to governments benefits. Thus, you seem to be saying that you have no issue recognizing bestiality on a moral/ethical level, just not on a monetary/government level. Don't want to misquote you, but is that your position?
And it is relevant to Uganda, as bestiality and incest is also a victimless crime, yet it's punished in the USA.
I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective.
This isn't about marriage. This is about innocent people being slaughtered for being attracted to the same gender.
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective.
This isn't about marriage. This is about innocent people being slaughtered for being attracted to the same gender.
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective.
This isn't about marriage. This is about innocent people being slaughtered for being attracted to the same gender.
Which I personally, and most well educated and open minded people believe to be completely wrong.
I was responding to the tangent on the previous page.
Specifically, we feel they are innocent, but they are guilty in the eyes of some. It's opinion vs opinion, there's no absolute truth.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Bestiality - You are deciding that marriage is based off of consent of marriage. I say that I love my dog, and my dog loves me, so we should be allowed to get married. You say that the dog is lacking consent, and that marriage is between humans. I say that's your opinion, but it's not any better than mine. - I do not want to get rid of consent; I'm pointing out that no such concept exists in human/animal relationships. That's why you are allowed to own an animal, even if it hates you. - Interesting about HIV, good to know. Thanks.
Incest - I understand your point. I'm not campaigning to legalize it either. I'm just saying that to be consistent, you should agree to it in principle.
I agree that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal, for lack of caring. But in terms of incest and bestiality (and I can also throw in polygamy, which probably has arguments similar to incest), it's illegal not just because people don't care for it; it's illegal because people think it's wrong. Or, to put it another way, why was it ever made illegal in the first place? Because people think there's something wrong with it. Thus, I'm not calling anybody hypocritical for fighting for gay rights, but not fighting for these other rights. I'm calling them hypocritical for believing in gay rights, but not believing in these other right.
1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus.
Legal consensus often doesn't recognize gay rights either. You can't argue against the legal consensus, and then defend your position with legal consensus.
(On a completely different point, how were you able to quote each of my points individually, while still having the "At ....soon.Cloak said.... tag on top? Did you just copy and paste it? Makes this stuff easier to follow)
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
On November 45 2099 27:53 soon.Cloak wrote: (On a completely different point, how were you able to quote each of my points individually, while still having the "At ....soon.Cloak said.... tag on top? Did you just copy and paste it? Makes this stuff easier to follow) I like to sleep with a teddy bear at night :3
Yes you can just copy paste it, and also edit if you so desire to change any part of it, as you may observe by the futuristic and personal nature of your post.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
Wow, kind of spooky but on the forum you've made a double post with [/quote] in the wrong place etc, but when I quoted your post (I promise I haven't edited it, and from my first example I don't blame you if you don't believe me lol) it's all there and done correctly O_O
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
Humans employ discrimination as a means of selection (perhaps natural selection...?). . You can educate others, and hopefully change the mindset of the public, but you can't get rid of bias. Societal pressures shape our lives; without them, it would be difficult to forge a common identity. Therefore it's fallacious to objectively say that discrimination is wrong.
As to whether something is morally acceptable or unacceptable, that's merely the opinion of a majority.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
On November 45 2099 27:53 soon.Cloak wrote: (On a completely different point, how were you able to quote each of my points individually, while still having the "At ....soon.Cloak said.... tag on top? Did you just copy and paste it? Makes this stuff easier to follow) I like to sleep with a teddy bear at night :3
Yes you can just copy paste it, and also edit if you so desire to change any part of it, as you may observe by the futuristic and personal nature of your post.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Animals do not, can not, consent to ownership, slavery and being farmed. We do all of these things because they suit our own purposes without the blink of an eye. Why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
The direct comparison between gay marriage and bestiality is indeed idiotic, as one involves two consenting parties and the other does not, however this seperate issue is not a simple one nor entirely unrelated when discussing morality.
You say you support incest as long as consent can clearly be established. I admire your judgement and agree for the same reasons that gay marriage should be allowed.
There we have established that backing from legal consensus is irrelevant when discussing morality and considering the topic of this thread that should already be abundantly clear.
The problem with the order of magnitude argument is that it proposes you need only act appropriately when a large enough number of people are concerned, which is a fallacy.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
I know you weren't responding to me, but as I have made like 20 posts, and I understand if you haven't read them all, I just want to mention two things I had said earlier.
1- I compared bestiality to gay marriage just in terms of showing how the definition of marriage is arbitrary. I also, multiple times, compared bestiality to a heterosexual marriage, in terms of defining marriage. I am not, by any means, trying to call them synonymous. 2-"The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic." As I agreed to in my first post (last part)
Wow, kind of spooky but on the forum you've made a double post with
in the wrong place etc, but when I quoted your post (I promise I haven't edited it, and from my first example I don't blame you if you don't believe me lol) it's all there and done correctly O_O [/QUOTE]
How did you know about my teddy bear
And the magic of TL/R1CH, pops up when you least expect it :D.
Edit: LOL I think I'm just gonna start dropping [/quote]'s in my posts just to mess with people.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
The torture, mistreatment or discrimination of a single individual is unnacceptable and to argue otherwise is frankly, also idiotic.
Humans employ discrimination as a means of selection (perhaps natural selection...?). . You can educate others, and hopefully change the mindset of the public, but you can't get rid of bias. Societal pressures shape our lives; without them, it would be difficult to forge a common identity. Therefore it's fallacious to objectively say that discrimination is wrong.
As to whether something is morally acceptable or unacceptable, that's merely the opinion of a majority.
It's fallacious to *objectively* say anything is wrong, because right and wrong are moral concepts thus inherently subjective.
In terms of legal consensus, your final statement holds true. However, as a simple example, it can clearly be argued that incest is morally acceptable despite the fact that the present day majority may disagree.
I could go back in time to when people thought practices now accepted today were immoral, and that wouldn't change whether they are morally acceptable or not. Either I subjectively deem them to be morally right or morally wrong, the opinion of the temporary majority is irrelevant.
On November 25 2012 13:29 shadymmj wrote: When misinformed, discrimination is probably a bad thing (gays cause AIDS!!! etc.) But when informed, it's probably positive.
On November 25 2012 13:29 shadymmj wrote: When misinformed, discrimination is probably a bad thing (gays cause AIDS!!! etc.) But when informed, it's probably positive.
I see where you are coming from, but I must highlight the difference between discernment and discrimination.
Discernment - The ability to judge well. Discrimination - The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Unjust - Not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair. Prejudicial - An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
Discrimination is, by definition, morally wrong. To argue otherwise is simply a confused position. It is a negative term.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
Yes, and if you decide that any word means exactly and only whatever you think it means at any particular time, you can simply declare that you win any argument.
That doesn't mean you actually won of course. You can simply declare that you did and stick fingers into your ears when people say otherwise.
Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract. You can believe that it is whatever you want, but the law says that it is a contract. And since marriage is a legal matter, we'll be dealing with it the way the law says to.
Contracts have a series of laws built around them deciding when they are and are not valid. Contracts made between unwilling parties are not valid; a signature is generally how this is determined, but if duress can later be proven, then the contract is void (ie: you cannot literally have a shotgun wedding).
Of one of the parties cannot sign their name or demonstrate that they understand the contract, then there is no contract. Such a party cannot enter into a legally binding contract. And since, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract, animals cannot enter into marriage.
Marriage must have consent. You can believe otherwise all you like, but that just means that you're denying reality. The law defines what marriage is, and the law says that marriage is a contract. And contracts require consent.
So the question is, who should be allowed to enter into a legally-binding marriage contract? The basic definition of marriage is more or less what we as a society choose for it to be. Not what you want it to be, but what we choose for it to be.
The only reasonable question is this: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract?
If you want to move it to incest, fine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons who are closely related from entering into a marriage contract?
Well, there are significant downsides to incest, particularly parent/child incest. The parent/child relationship has a vast difference in power between the two parties. Children are raised from infancy to obey their parents, on the presumption that their parents are not assholes. Obviously some children adhere to this more than others, but parents have an ability to groom their children with values and beliefs. They can smother a child to the point where they wouldn't even think of disobeying them. It is very possible for a parent to groom a child to the point where they would willing agree to marry the parent when they reach legal age.
In short, it is very difficult to ensure consent in parent/child incest. The amount of coercion, whether subtle or gross, that a parent can inflict on a child, even an older one, is... substantial. Just look at incidents of parent/child incest when the child is below legal marrying age. It's not a happy thing.
And if you can't ensure consent, then you've cast doubt on whether the contract is valid at all. Considering that the downsides of coerced marriage in these cases are severe, it's probably best to ban the practice altogether. There are solid psychological reasons to avoid the whole idea.
So I answered your question by showing that the question of consent in incestuous relationships can be tenuous. So answer mine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of consent? Are you saying that it would cause some psychological dysfunction to allow it?
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Bestiality - You are deciding that marriage is based off of consent of marriage. I say that I love my dog, and my dog loves me, so we should be allowed to get married. You say that the dog is lacking consent, and that marriage is between humans. I say that's your opinion, but it's not any better than mine.
The law says that consent requires a human being. It doesn't matter what you think; a dog cannot give legal consent.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
On November 25 2012 08:16 soon.Cloak wrote: Okay, I think I disagree with most people in this thread.
Let's look at some other laws, shall we? I'm going to use the model of the USA just for ease, but there's probably a lot of similarity in Europe.
Incest between consenting adults: In many states, you can be imprisoned for 10 years, 14 years, 20 years, 25 years, or for life. In some, you are put on the Sex Offenders List for life. Source
Bestiality: Illegal in approximately thirty states. In many of these states, bestiality is a felony. Source
Indecent Exposure: Illegal to some extent in most states, though the definition of "indecent" varies. Punishments can include fines, imprisonment, or being registered on the Sex Offenders List. Source
Now, what are these? These are laws that express some sort of morality in our society. Our society, as a whole, and as represented through our government, has decided that some things are simply inappropriate. Obviously, marriage is not recognized in cases where it's illegal. The issue is that these laws are almost completely subjective, and therefore almost completely arbitrary. Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to marry my mother? There's no objective reason. It's based on what society feels is correct and incorrect.
So my first point is that any discussion related to morality/marriage rights is probably arbitrary. If you want to allow gay marriage, but are also comfortable with incest, bestiality, and indecent exposure, I may consider you strange, but I can't call you inconsistent. If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours.
But there's one more point. Even if you do feel that all those things should be allowed, that doesn't mean that they won't make you feel uncomfortable. Even if you think people should have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't harm others, you may feel...uncomfortable watching a man marry his daughter, or watching a woman marry a cow, or watching people walk around naked. And that's perfectly okay. If you grow up with a certain standard of what's marriage and of what's not, of what's okay and what's not, of what's "normal" and what's not, there's no reason to feel any pressure to change that. It's NOT okay to be discriminatory, to be rude or hurtful. But if I can think you're strange because you wear funny clothes, or because you speak in a weird voice, or because you have a ridiculous layup in basketball, why can't I feel uncomfortable with incest, bestiality, indecent exposure, or gay couples?
So to the gay members of this wonderful community; I respect you, I respect your feelings, and I demand that you be given fair treatment by everyone around you. But I don't recognize a gay marriage as a true marriage, and I am uncomfortable around gay couples. And I don't feel guilty about that at all.
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
I had edited in the incest part afterwards. You do know you're quoted as calling gay marriages "untrue"? From that, I assumed you only call male-female marriages as being "true". You're the one that needs to prove that gay marriages are "untrue". We haven't even equalized human rights for gay individuals since they cannot be married yet you claim to treat them fairly?
But even so, I shall answer about other species; another species cannot consent to marriage, hence of course it won't be recognized. If an alien species were to drop down and have intelligence relative to ours or greater and could consent, I would call to recognize such a relationship.
Even if you edited it, you still have to address the incest part. According to your argument, incest should be recognized as a legit marriage. Which is fine. But just recognize that that's your position.
And it is fair. Nobody is owed the right to the the benefits of marriage, as long as everybody is given the right to marriage. So what that the animal has no idea what's going on? Why can't somebody demand that their union to the animal be recognized a marriage? Because according to YOUR definition of marriage, it's between two consenting humans? Who cares what you think? I demand that my right to marry a tree be recognized. That my right to marry a table be recognized. That my right to marry my computer be recognized. But of course that's ridiculous. Our government has, for whatever reason, given us the present of the benefits of marriage, as long as you get married by what they define marriage to be. Gays have that right- THAT'S WHY IT'S FAIR. And the law doesn't give gays those benefits to a gay marriage? So what? Who owes it in the first place?
I think we should state a definition of marriage, in my definition of marriage, it includes consent AND a specific type of relationship between the individuals. I'm pretty sure most definitions or marriage ceremonies have a part of it that needs consent. You state the definition by the government is the one to be followed, why is that? Because it's the one we must follow? Firstly, we(the government) owe it because we have to say why we recognize male/female marriages and not gay ones or else we have a question of inequality. You say there isn't any inequality but if you believe that homosexuality is not a choice, then you are not giving the equal choice between individuals. The government does actually have to answer for why it treats others differently. Now we're getting into a debate about the government's responsibility but I believe the govt does have to answer for giving rights only to some and not others. Also, since there is going to be multiple definition of marriages, I would agree that a christian ceremony of marriage would not need to accept homosexual marriages. I do believe there needs to be some type of marriage between gay individuals though.
You still have dodged your first statement of your own beliefs. After a long rant of "arbitary concepts" from you, you go on to state that gay marriages are "untrue". I recognize that an individual can have a special relationship with a tree or a dog or whatever, but I don't think that goes under the definition of marriage if we agree on the definition above. Again, they could have a certain TYPE of relationship though. I'm sure you will go why don't we just keep it at that for gay individuals then? Because we have set upon a certain amount of rights for humans and have excluded gay people from that group. Consent is there and the the love or whatever you want to call it can be there as well. I hold that religion is against certain types of bonds but that doesn't mean the govt should hold that as well.
Also, yes, I do believe a non-sexual incestual marriage is acceptable. I say non-sexual because who could control sexual behaviour completely, that's why I argued it's illegal in the first place though. Procreation in incestual couples can lead to future harm of the children, I think we agree on that.
(This paragraph is for arguments sake only, please don't take this literally) And in MY definition of marriage, you don't need consent if it's an animal. In MY definition of marriage, all you need is a person to commit to living with something. According to my definition, you can marry anything. Can you prove that I'm wrong? No.
Yes, and if you decide that any word means exactly and only whatever you think it means at any particular time, you can simply declare that you win any argument.
That doesn't mean you actually won of course. You can simply declare that you did and stick fingers into your ears when people say otherwise.
Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract. You can believe that it is whatever you want, but the law says that it is a contract. And since marriage is a legal matter, we'll be dealing with it the way the law says to.
Contracts have a series of laws built around them deciding when they are and are not valid. Contracts made between unwilling parties are not valid; a signature is generally how this is determined, but if duress can later be proven, then the contract is void (ie: you cannot literally have a shotgun wedding).
Of one of the parties cannot sign their name or demonstrate that they understand the contract, then there is no contract. Such a party cannot enter into a legally binding contract. And since, as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a contract, animals cannot enter into marriage.
Marriage must have consent. You can believe otherwise all you like, but that just means that you're denying reality. The law defines what marriage is, and the law says that marriage is a contract. And contracts require consent.
So the question is, who should be allowed to enter into a legally-binding marriage contract? The basic definition of marriage is more or less what we as a society choose for it to be. Not what you want it to be, but what we choose for it to be.
The only reasonable question is this: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract?
If you want to move it to incest, fine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons who are closely related from entering into a marriage contract?
Well, there are significant downsides to incest, particularly parent/child incest. The parent/child relationship has a vast difference in power between the two parties. Children are raised from infancy to obey their parents, on the presumption that their parents are not assholes. Obviously some children adhere to this more than others, but parents have an ability to groom their children with values and beliefs. They can smother a child to the point where they wouldn't even think of disobeying them. It is very possible for a parent to groom a child to the point where they would willing agree to marry the parent when they reach legal age.
In short, it is very difficult to ensure consent in parent/child incest. The amount of coercion, whether subtle or gross, that a parent can inflict on a child, even an older one, is... substantial. Just look at incidents of parent/child incest when the child is below legal marrying age. It's not a happy thing.
And if you can't ensure consent, then you've cast doubt on whether the contract is valid at all. Considering that the downsides of coerced marriage in these cases are severe, it's probably best to ban the practice altogether. There are solid psychological reasons to avoid the whole idea.
So I answered your question by showing that the question of consent in incestuous relationships can be tenuous. So answer mine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of consent? Are you saying that it would cause some psychological dysfunction to allow it?
"The law says it is a contract" "Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract" "Marriage must have consent" "The law defines what marriage is, and the law says that marriage is a contract"
And then suddenly you go into changing the law to permit homosexual marriage. Good for you. But you're just deciding that you don't like some of the laws that we have, and want to change some of them. Well I want to change others. How are you arguing with me by saying 4 times that my definition is against the law, and then turn around and say you want to change the law?
Your point about incest only works with parent/child relationships, not with any other.
So I answered your question by showing that the question of consent in incestuous relationships can be tenuous. So answer mine: why should we, as a society, choose to prohibit two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage contract? Are you saying that homosexuals are incapable of consent? Are you saying that it would cause some psychological dysfunction to allow it?
No, I'm saying we should be consistent. I'm saying we should either, on principle, say that all types of marriage, including bestiality, polygamy, and incest should be legal, or we shouldn't recognize marriage at all.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with?
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Let's go through each point one by one
Bestial: - We don't have any human/animal laws that require consent. You can own an animal, you can ride an animal, you can slaughter an animal...why can't you marry an animal? - Why is removing the personhood requirement a big deal? You want to say because then we'll lose the benefits of marriage. Fine. But then your arguing that your willing to recognize bestial marriage in principle, if not in the legal sense.\ - If I know my history (which I do not, honestly), AIDs spread through homosexuals. Where does bestiality come into that?
- Because marriage is a human - human law. The concept of marriage is intended to benefit humans. Humans are also the only ones who understand what marriage is. Consent is important. If you want to disagree about the importance of consent in a legal framework, you are not qualified to even use the words ethical and objectivity in the same sentence. - Removing the personhood ideal contradicts the idea of consent, because humans are the only ones who can consent. - You don't. HIV was originally contracted by blood from monkeys. It spread heavily in Africa largely due to the success of anti-prophylactic propaganda(Popey Pope Pope) in Africa. AIDS is easier spread by men (women are most likely to get infected by men and men are more likely to get infected by men).
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Incest: - So you can permit non-parent incestual relationships, or those among children aged 30 or over, when they are already mature. But at least you seem to agree that if it's not parent-child, it should be allowed. - Again, just a technicality. Then if people got tested for specific STD's before marriage, it would be okay? And it's not illegal for non-relatives with genes leading to STD's to marry.
-Yes I definitely agree on both those points. However I would also like to stress the importance of mitigating the effects of any other familial power roles. I am not currently campaigning actively to end the oppression of people in same family relationships for three reasons: --1. There's little point in it. Society just recently accepted the consensus that incest causes genetic defects. This is unlikely to go away for a generation or two, even though the current scientific consensus differs from majority opinion. Majority opinion is only going to be swayed by time and education. --2. I don't know any people who currently want to marry their kin and are unable to do so. Therefore I have no personal investment --3. I don't have the personal interest to come up with a logical framework for incestuous marriage that produces an ethically neutral or positive result, if such a thing is possible. This can also be attributed to --2.
On November 25 2012 11:06 soon.Cloak wrote: Your three points just talk about the ease of making gay marriage legal, but they don't address the fact that nobody wants to make incest or bestiality legal. It's not just a practical issue; it's simply not recognized as okay.
But focus on Uganda. They want to punish homosexuals, because they feel it's immoral. That sounds like the ethical equivilant of punishing bestial or incestual relationships, because they're immoral. If you really want, you can turn the argument around, and punish heterosexuals, because they define all sexual contact as immoral. In terms of that, they're all equal.
You talk about the benefits of making incest and bestiality legal, but you don't address the fact that nobody wants to make human-mountain relations legal.
The reason people are less concerned with human - rock formation marriages than with bestiality and incest is because laws on human-mountain relations only affect a fraction of the people that incest and bestiality laws would affect. In case you don't understand, I'm pointing out that there is an order of magnitude in terms of who is actually affected by relationship laws, in terms of population. I.E. Heterosexual is affected far > than Homosexual, which is affected far > than Incest > than Bestiality > than Human-mountain relations > than Artificial intelligence -> solar system relations
Should gay people be concerned about intelligent computers and their erotic galactic desires? The answer is no, in case you're wondering.
To summarize I do not support bestiality, and it is idiotic to compare gay marriage and bestiality. I will put it in the simplest terms I know how: 1. I believe that sex requires consent. This is reflected by legal consensus. 2. I believe that animals are unable to consent. This is reflected by scientific and legal consensus. 3. Thus I believe that sex with animals is equivalent to sex without consent. This is equivalent to rape. 4. Rape is morally wrong in my world view. This is reflected by legal consensus.
I support incest, as long as consent can be clearly established. This means that the unequal power distribution of the family unit should be considered.
I support gay marriage, which affects gay people.
Bestiality - You are deciding that marriage is based off of consent of marriage. I say that I love my dog, and my dog loves me, so we should be allowed to get married. You say that the dog is lacking consent, and that marriage is between humans. I say that's your opinion, but it's not any better than mine.
The law says that consent requires a human being. It doesn't matter what you think; a dog cannot give legal consent.
The law in Uganda says that homosexuality is illegal. It doesn't matter what you think.
Also, to repeat myself, why should sexual relations with an animal be any different than keeping one as a pet, using it as a slave for manual labour or rearing it inside a cage with the intention of slaughtering and devouring it at a later date?
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with?
Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you.
I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong,
May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it?
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
On November 25 2012 14:54 Reason wrote: Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs.
I'm not, that's pretty much one of the few things that's consistent in the bible. What I'm trying to convey that going by the bible is illogical since it's inconsistent as a whole. One should use reason, not simply quoting written word and live by it.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with?
Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you.
I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong,
May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it?
What do you think about nieces, is that incest?
First of all, you only mention incest, not heterosexuality.
Second of all, nobody said the Bible was a simple book. It's extraordinarily complex. The Talmud, for example, will make deductions based off the inclusion or exclusion of letters. The Bible without any kind of commentary is effectively impossible to read. But commentators exist that "clean up" the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.
And what are the commentaries based off of? Well, according to Judaism, there is an Oral Law that is still considered (according to some) authoritative. I do not know much about Christianity, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have some sort of oral tradition. So now we get into a historical debate about the veracity of the oral tradition. But it's still something from God.
If you are curious what one scholar says, check out Rashi's commentary on those verses. He explicitly addresses the different verses.
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical.
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
I'd vote against gay marriage. It's just something I don't want in society. Yes I know that's unfair, yes I know I don't have any valid reason for it, but... that doesn't change my mind.
In my experience, God's will is something people rely upon as an excuse when they don't have a real reason behind why they believe in something, but aren't brave enough to admit it.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with?
Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you.
I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong,
May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it?
What do you think about nieces, is that incest?
First of all, you only mention incest, not heterosexuality.
Second of all, nobody said the Bible was a simple book. It's extraordinarily complex. The Talmud, for example, will make deductions based off the inclusion or exclusion of letters. The Bible without any kind of commentary is effectively impossible to read. But commentators exist that "clean up" the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.
And what are the commentaries based off of? Well, according to Judaism, there is an Oral Law that is still considered (according to some) authoritative. I do not know much about Christianity, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have some sort of oral tradition. So now we get into a historical debate about the veracity of the oral tradition. But it's still something from God.
If you are curious what one scholar says, check out Rashi's commentary on those verses. He explicitly addresses the different verses.
Agreed, it was one example to show that the bible is inconsistent and thus cannot be used as a literal word of god. (Since who are we to say which of the verses is his?)
Like I said above, the bible is quite consistent on heterosexuality, however when the bible is inconsistent as a whole, we cannot say that even something that's consistent within the bible is therefore true. Would you say such a thing about a school textbook that's proven inconsistent on most subjects, but one subject of it wasn't?
Isn't it quite an oversight from god to make the Bible complex though?
On November 25 2012 15:10 Cyber_Cheese wrote: I'd vote against gay marriage. It's just something I don't want in society. Yes I know that's unfair, yes I know I don't have any valid reason for it, but... that doesn't change my mind.
In my experience, God's will is something people rely upon as an excuse when they don't have a real reason behind why they believe in something, but aren't brave enough to admit it.
Er...once you feel that God wills something, it's kind've unnecessary to think of any other reason to justify that thing. But this is getting more off topic than necessary.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
Care to quote the specific verses in Deuteronomy you have issue with?
Edit: Sorry, meant to quote Shival, not you.
I don't have a problem with a specific verse, I have a problem with the inconsistency between the three. Deuteronomy only notes that the parent's daughter, father's wife and mother-in-law is wrong. However, Leviticus 18 mentions a few more, such as parent's sister, father's brother's wife, stepdaughter, daughter-in-law, wife's child's daughter, and a couple more. Then Leviticus 20 disagrees and suddenly doesn't note that mother, mother-in-law, half-sister, sister, sister-in-law, granddaughter is wrong,
May I add that none of them notes anything about grandmother or wife's daughter? So the bible doesn't say anything about your half daughter, what are we to assume then if god hasn't said anything about it?
What do you think about nieces, is that incest?
First of all, you only mention incest, not heterosexuality.
Second of all, nobody said the Bible was a simple book. It's extraordinarily complex. The Talmud, for example, will make deductions based off the inclusion or exclusion of letters. The Bible without any kind of commentary is effectively impossible to read. But commentators exist that "clean up" the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.
And what are the commentaries based off of? Well, according to Judaism, there is an Oral Law that is still considered (according to some) authoritative. I do not know much about Christianity, but to the best of my knowledge, they also have some sort of oral tradition. So now we get into a historical debate about the veracity of the oral tradition. But it's still something from God.
If you are curious what one scholar says, check out Rashi's commentary on those verses. He explicitly addresses the different verses.
Agreed, it was one example to show that the bible is inconsistent and thus cannot be used as a literal word of god. (Since who are we to say which of the verses is his?)
Like I said above, the bible is quite consistent on heterosexuality, however when the bible is inconsistent as a whole, we cannot say that even something that's consistent within the bible is therefore true. Would you say such a thing about a school textbook that's proven inconsistent on most subjects, but one subject of it wasn't?
Isn't it quite an oversight from god to make the Bible complex though?
So if you want, we can have (in a different thread) a whole discussion about the legitimacy of religion. You think the Bible is fraudulent, I think it's the work of God. It doesn't matter. I'm not trying to convert you.
My point is the argument against most people in this thread. I'll quote it again: And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical.
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
My belief is that marriage is entirely a human invention anyway. Can't we just say that it's simply two persons, animals or object living together? Therefore there is no inconsistency, I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
As for the subject of objective morality, I'm ok with going into that discussion in PM if you want, because it would require nearly a complete paper to prove and would go too far off-topic if you ask me. (We're already very close to going off-topic.) However, I'm not sure if there's any value in it for me to do so, as it's pretty much impossible to reason with a religious person about objective morality. (no offence intended)
On November 25 2012 14:54 Reason wrote: Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs.
I'm not, that's pretty much one of the few things that's consistent in the bible. What I'm trying to convey that going by the bible is illogical since it's inconsistent as a whole. One should use reason, not simply quoting written word and live by it.
You believe your opinions are more important formed using logic and reason.
..other people believe faith is more important.
It's your opinion versus theirs.
I repeat : Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
I've used logic and reason to form my opinions too, and if that's the only level you are willing to debate on, fine. Debate the points instead of trying to undermine the source of his beliefs.
On November 25 2012 15:18 Shival wrote: I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
???? Homosexual marriage is outside the law in Uganda, thus the whole topic.
Think of the futility of such statements before you post them with such finality
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical.
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
My belief is that marriage is entirely a human invention anyway. Can't we just say that it's simply two persons, animals or object living together? Therefore there is no inconsistency, I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
As for the subject of objective morality, I'm ok with going into that discussion in PM if you want, because it would require nearly a complete paper to prove and would go too far off-topic if you ask me. (We're already very close to going off-topic.) However, I'm not sure if there's any value in it for me to do so, as it's pretty much impossible to reason with a religious person about objective morality. (no offence intended)
In that same first paragraph, you say that you would recognize all those different types of marriages, if not for their being a lack of consent, and therefore "out of the law". But who cares about the law? We can change the law. Again, at least on principle, they should be allowed.
Feel free to PM me, or not, if you feel I won't be open to your side (no offense taken, but you may be surprised ) Thanks for the discussion, in any event.
On November 25 2012 14:54 Reason wrote: Shival are you trying to claim that the Bible actually supports gay marriage and all this fuss is for nothing?
Somebody better tell the Ugandans there's been a horrible mix up...
Nit picking inconsistencies in the Bible isn't going to validate your own personal beliefs.
I'm not, that's pretty much one of the few things that's consistent in the bible. What I'm trying to convey that going by the bible is illogical since it's inconsistent as a whole. One should use reason, not simply quoting written word and live by it.
You believe your opinions are more important formed using logic and reason.
..other people believe faith is more important.
It's your opinion versus theirs.
I repeat : Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
I've used logic and reason to form my opinions too, and if that's the only level you are willing to debate on, fine. Debate the points instead of trying to undermine the source of his beliefs.
Ok then, let me give you an example. I can reason with logic that it's fine to work on sunday because it's just a man made day without any relevance to what we can do on it. It's entirely a man made construct.
That opinion can be argued for and against, thus we can eventually come to an agreement. (expected eventual value)
One can belief one shouldn't work on sunday, but that opinion doesn't hold any substance other than his belief.
That opinion cannot be argued for or against, because in and of itself it has no substance provided. A belief is also impossible to come to terms with if there's two conflicting. (no expected eventual value)
On November 25 2012 15:18 Shival wrote: I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
???? Homosexual marriage is outside the law in Uganda, thus the whole topic.
Think of the futility of such statements before you post them with such finality
Indeed, maybe you should read it a bit better before you post thinking you got me.
"Illegal for various reasons". Homosexuality... is illigal why?
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical.
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
My belief is that marriage is entirely a human invention anyway. Can't we just say that it's simply two persons, animals or object living together? Therefore there is no inconsistency, I would also say that an incestual relation could become a marriage, however incest and bestiality in and of itself is illegal for various reasons, therefore even if they (It's hard to say there's individual consent between the two, especially so in bestiality) would want to become married, they're outside the law, thus impossible.
As for the subject of objective morality, I'm ok with going into that discussion in PM if you want, because it would require nearly a complete paper to prove and would go too far off-topic if you ask me. (We're already very close to going off-topic.) However, I'm not sure if there's any value in it for me to do so, as it's pretty much impossible to reason with a religious person about objective morality. (no offence intended)
In that same first paragraph, you say that you would recognize all those different types of marriages, if not for their being a lack of consent, and therefore "out of the law". But who cares about the law? We can change the law. Again, at least on principle, they should be allowed.
Feel free to PM me, or not, if you feel I won't be open to your side (no offense taken, but you may be surprised ) Thanks for the discussion, in any event.
Are you suggesting changing the law to acknowledge marriage between non-consenting partners? In fact, change the law to accept any form of non-consenting partnership, irregardless of whether it should be called marriage?
edit: I may PM you some time later today, kind of busy at the moment to take the time for it though. Glad we can have a civilized discussion anyway.
Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts.
The important points made by soon.Cloak were not his own subjective opinions against that of gay marriage, soundly or unsoundly based on faith as they may or may not be. In his effort to be open, honest and discuss the topic fully the discussion has been derailed into essentially science vs religion. I implore you to forget this and move on, as we both know and I have attempted to express specifically and repeatedly this will accomplish nothing.
The important points were those based in the language you and I both communicate in, logic and reason. They involved homosexuality, bestiality, incest, polygamy etc and the justification for their discussion and the plea for consistency has been made clearly.
I am going to bed now but look forward to hearing your opinions on these matters if you wish to express them.
edit: ... and are capable of coming up with something better than this "Indeed, maybe you should read it a bit better before you post thinking you got me." ... sigh.
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts.
The important points made by soon.Cloak were not his own subjective opinions against that of gay marriage, soundly or unsoundly based on faith as they may or may not be. In his effort to be open, honest and discuss the topic fully the discussion has been derailed into essentially science vs religion. I implore you to forget this and move on, as we both know and I have attempted to express specifically and repeatedly this will accomplish nothing.
The important points were those based in the language you and I both communicate in, logic and reason. They involved homosexuality, bestiality, incest, polygamy etc and the justification for their discussion and the plea for consistency has been made clearly.
I am going to bed now but look forward to hearing your opinions on these matters if you wish to express them.
edit: ... and are capable of coming up with something better than this "Indeed, maybe you should read it a bit better before you post thinking you got me." ... sigh.
As for the bolded part, I'm sorry if I offended you, however I really felt you didn't read correctly what I meant while saying I'm apperantly not thinking it through ("think of futility, yadda yadda").
As for the rest of the post, I agree that we may have went too much off-topic here. However what I tried to point out, is that there is no valid reason to discuss an opinion based on fate, it has no substance to discuss about and thus is of no eventual expected value. I may have gone too far in trying to explain that position, but meh, can hardly stay silent if someone is trying to refute it.
On November 25 2012 12:13 Reason wrote: The point is that you "think" and "feel" homosexual marriage is morally acceptable, the Ugandans do not.
Once you admit that you "think" and "feel" that incest marriage and bestiality marriage are not morally acceptable, you become no different from the Ugandans passing judgement; judgements based on your own set of morals.
Your mind cannot comprehend this, thus you refuse to answer.
Most people feel the same way, as do I. For the purpose of discussion however it's important to go through the motions and be objective.
Why are you mixing marriage here. Topic is prosecution of homosexuality itself. Once more, this topic IS NOT about marriage equality.
EDIT: I see that your point is not really that tied to only marriage issue. So ignore this post, my response to the relativity nonsense is in other posts.
On November 25 2012 08:23 Glurkenspurk wrote: [quote]
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
I still don't get the point. There are a lot of silly laws that should be removed in the US. I think most intelligent people agree that even though you may feel a bit uncomfortable around something doesn't mean you should try to ban it. I don't really feel comfortable around any couple making out in public, but I don't think it should be against the law to show affection in public.
I think you should accept the fact that some people are different and not make up arbitrary reasons to defend your blatant homophobic thoughts.
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it.
Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one?
And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing.
Let's see you prove that.
Why would I prove anything or did you miss the part where we are talking about real world and not some formal construct. No proofs exist in real world, only evidence.
On November 23 2012 22:32 shadymmj wrote: there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
Just a quick question for my studies, would you mind informing me of your highest completed education level, salary range, socioeconomic status of birth, and geographic location?
On November 25 2012 10:42 mcc wrote: [quote] I have no opinion on incest and since it has nothing to do with this topic and was only brought up by you I see no reason to devote time to create such an opinion.
No I was not saying anything like that. I was saying exactly what I wrote, which was that there is no inconsistency that you claim exists. I oppose bestiality on the same grounds as I oppose any mistreatment of animals. Again bestiality has nothing to do with this thread as it is an issue of animal treatment.
Even if accepted your position about incest and bestiality, it would still not have anything to do with the topic. Topic is about mistreatment of homosexuals. The fact that there are political prisoners in China or that incest is banned in Andorra is completely irrelevant.
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
While I think this is utterly wrong and stuff I must say I don't see africa changing in the near millenium, so may I ask can't gays just pretend they aren't gay outside their homes ? or will they be hunted even in their homes ?
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
*That* is the point.
One makes a personal opinion based on reason, one that is based on ethics and philosophy. Such an opinion is therefore more reasoned and holds a logical basis. One cannot say such if you quote God's word that is inconsistent throughout. There's a difference.
On November 25 2012 14:40 soon.Cloak wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:33 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
On November 25 2012 14:28 sekritzzz wrote:
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
The inconsistency comes from human change to the bible which served special interest at different time periods.
True enough, so we're still nitpicking which of them is right.
Your opinions may be reasoned, and based on what you feel is ethical, but as they are subjective, they are only as good as anyone else's, including the Ugandians. My opinion is based on what God said. God has decided that He is the moral authority. Feel free to argue with God about His right to do that. And again, quote to me the different parts of the bible which seem to give different explanations about homosexuality.
It's not about what I feel is ethical, it's what's found to be ethical by common concession between various fields by reason, without any supposed superior word thrown in without any reasoning behind it.
One makes opinions based on what THEY feel is ethical, not on what is objectively ethical, as (I feel) there is no such thing as objective morality. Unless you can prove objective morality, you can't prove that what you say is ethical is actually ethical.
And anyways, my viewpoint isn't the point. The point is that you have to be consistent, and being consistent would mean either (in principle) saying heterosexual, homosexual, bestial, incestual, and polygamial (not a word, sorry) marriages should be recognized, or none of them should be recognized.
Proof is completely unnecessary, evidence is completely enough. There is enough evidence that most of morality has common and shared roots. Differences are superficial.
On November 25 2012 08:31 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
Incest is still illegal, even if you use a condom. By that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride horses, because they can't consent. The point I think you're saying is whether or not it hurts the animal, and many of the laws covered under bestiality don't hurt the animal. There are bestiality laws in place because society isn't okay with bestiality.
As if you are among those that think everything should be legal, that's specifically what I addressed in my second point. I didn't say they should be banned in that part- I said that you have the right to be uncomfortable. Reread, maybe.
And as I explicitly said, I am okay with people being different than me, but again, that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with their lifestyles. If that makes me homophobic, fine. But unfortunately, there's no derogatory word describing you, who feels uncomfortable with people making out in public, even though by logical extension it's just as bad as my being homophobic.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
Bestiality is against the law because animals can't consent. Incest is a bit trickier, but the much higher rate of birth defects probably accounts for that now (although in the past it may have just been a religious thing.)
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it.
Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one?
And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing.
Let's see you prove that.
Why would I prove anything or did you miss the part where we are talking about real world and not some formal construct. No proofs exist in real world, only evidence.
You said "of course" like "of course Earth is not the only object in the universe" when actually it's more like saying "of course Pink is the greatest musician of all time".
You are not stating fact, it's not "of course". You are just stating your own opinions as fact, and that is an error on your part.
I think your examples are completely arbitary. Gay marriages are not related to beastiality or incest, it is a marriage between humans. We have given the right to certain humans but not others, it is not related to other species. Since you used the concept of a "true" marriage when saying gay marriages are not "true", I'll assume you believe in the concept of marriage in general. In that regard, you consider a subset of humans being married but not the other subset. This is where you seem to contradict yourself when you say you demand fair treatment for gay individuals but then don't treat them equally as other humans.
Incest is between humans...
But even ignoring that, you just decided that marriage is only between humans. Let's say a human wants to marry a member of a different species. You are denying their right to marry an animal. Why isn't that marriage recognized? PROVE to me that that shouldn't be recognized as a marriage. .
Edit:
On November 25 2012 08:48 Thereisnosaurus wrote: [quote]
Indeed, comparing these two isn't valid. Bestiality falls into the same category as rape in an ethical/moral framework
Incest (between consenting adults in any case) falls into a wierd edge case like the religious laws against eating pork. It comes from a very legitimate socio-cultural source, but one that is rendered obsolete by modern culture and science (since incest is only problematic if it ends in several consecutive generations of children, and even then is probably less of an issue than a mother smoking or a parent with a serious genetic condition reproducing in a 'how is this going to fuck up the children' sense).
In the context of homosexuality, incest between consenting partners should be governed by precisely the same doctrine that governs homosexuality- it is consent, not format that is important. It's an interesting kind of provocative point- if you're okay with gay and lesbian rights, you should have no issues with incestuous ones until procreation becomes involved.
As I said before, by that argument of bestiality, you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse, or milk a cow, or, heck, own a pet. The reason for bestiality laws is because people are uncomfortable with bestiality.
Your second thing is exactly my (second) point. If you're okay with all of that, you're being logically consistent, and making laws based off of that is logical. But that doesn't mean you have to be comfortable with the idea, or be uncomfortable with being uncomfortable.
Animals cannot legally consent to contracts. This is because animals cannot read, write, or speak on a level that would enable them to give informed consent. Thus they cannot enter into a marriage contract. Please quit comparing gay marriage to bestiality. It is degrading. Bestiality laws exist as a very basic, low level moral standard. When partnered with animal cruelty laws it effectively says that while animals are property, they have the right to not be tortured or raped. Thus it has nothing to do with our ability to ride a horse or milk a cow.
As stated by many others previously, it has little to do with the issue of gay marriage. The gay marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against incest provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
I'm comparing gay marriage to bestiality just as much as I'm comparing bestiality to a heterosexual marriage. All are arbitrary. Now you decide that a marriage needs "informed consent". Well maybe I don't think marriage needs informed consent. Again, it's ARBITRARY- as in, you can't defend your argument for what marriage is/isn't based off of any objective standard.
Similar to your animal cruelty position. Why are animals allowed to be owned? Maybe they want to be free? What gives you the right to pull a dog on a leash? What gives you the right to ride a horse? What's defined as "torture"? Again, all these things are ARBITRARY.
Thus it is not hypocritical to support gay marriage while not supporting consensual incest.
Why? Simple question. Why? Let me replace your quote with the word "incest" instead of gay marriage. (I also replaced your "incest" with "bestiality", because you are against that)
The incest marriage front wishes to change the gender requirement for secular marriage. It is not a movement which wishes to deregulate marriage to the point of it being between any two things. You are correct in saying that laws against bestiality provide a similar problem from a purely ethical point of view. Unfortunately for your argument, the two ethical problems are independent of one another. Thus it is not hypocritical to support incest marriage while not supporting bestiality.
Now try to PROVE that that statement is illogical.
Are you really that out of touch with logic and reality ? By your argumentation there is nothing that can be said using human language that is not arbitrary. You can take that position, but then everything you say has no meaning. Which would explain a lot as your arguments are just one big exercise in empty semantic games.
Word marriage has some meaning, and that meaning requires informed consent. Only a person who does not understand what meaning of the words is can ask someone to justify the meaning of the word. Meaning of the word is created by people using the language, there is no need to justify it. The meaning is given.
If you disagree with the meaning of the word you are welcome to do so, but then you are not using the same language as others and there is no point in talking with you. As for animals, they are allowed to be owned, because of historical and practical reasons and the fact we do not include them into our ethical calculus on the same level as humans. I expect you to not be satisfied with that justification, because you will call it arbitrary. Strangely I do not care as according to you everything is arbitrary. As for torture, again questioning meaning of the word. If you do not know what torture is, it is probably your lack of understanding of the language. It is pretty simple word. We are not writing a legal document here, so there is no need for detailed definition of "torture", knowing the meaning is enough for everyone, except people who do not actually want to debate the topic, but instead want to play semantic games.
Not at all. I'm saying that nothing in the human language relating to morality isn't arbitrary.It's an argument about objective morality, and I'm not the first to argue about it.
Then suddenly you define marriage as consent. Well I define marriage as heterosexual. Are we now arguing about what the dictionaries define marriage as? Why do you assume your definition is the right one?
And your argument about torture is simply wrong, because we are exactly arguing legalities. We are defining the legal status of bestiality. You called it torture. I don't want to call it torture. It's not for fun; it's about the law.
Of course there is objective morality, and you vehemently protesting so will not change a thing.
Let's see you prove that.
Why would I prove anything or did you miss the part where we are talking about real world and not some formal construct. No proofs exist in real world, only evidence.
You said "of course" like "of course Earth is not the only object in the universe" when actually it's more like saying "of course Pink is the greatest musician of all time".
You are not stating fact, it's not "of course". You are just stating your own opinions as fact, and that is an error on your part.
No, I am saying something like : orbit of Earth is elliptical. Or closer, introducing minimum wage does not always raise unemployment.
On November 25 2012 10:49 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
You only form opinions on topics brought up by OP's on Teamliquid?
Bestiality is more than just mistreatment of animals, as many things we do are worse to animals than what falls under the lgeal definition of bestiality.
And it has everything to do with this thread. See my first post. I made two points. The first was that if you believe purely in the argument of a victimless crime, then you should recognize incest and bestiality as okay. My second point was that it is okay to feel uncomfortable around people that are in heterosexual, gay, bestial, or incestual marriages. As you are not saying what your opinions are, I can't really argue with you.
No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote: [quote] No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts..
Assuming you are talking about religious texts of established religions created for a specific purpose, the logic with in them are usually self perpetuating and unprovable / undisprovable, if religious assumptions are true then the logic system is valid, but with out concrete quantifiable proof it's impossible for other parties to observe, debate, or even understand your doctrines better with out accepting the arbituary basis assumptions of said religion. Unless I accept at face value that the Christian god is all mighty, all knowing, etc, and that Jesus is the son of God then everything about the religious belief system falls apart because nearly all of its logics, appeals to authority and credibility, etc are all based on these assumptions.
It also means that strictly speaking there should be no progress to be made in religious logic, no applications except the absolute, no evolution of ideas and concepts, because all of these assumptions are taken for granted as absolutely true. Has humanity's studies of Christianity developed further than it has in the past in the contexts of religious logics? Can humanity develop, improve, and overrule religious logic where it's no longer applicable? Can generations and millenias of developing Christian faith actually lend itself to any degree of growing closeness to God or understanding of God? Based on the fundamental assumptions all of the answers are no, because the assumptions are all absolute. Yet we see that in reality the religious bureacracy is always happy to make private amendments for the sake of popularity and revise their logic to suit their own singular purpose, where claims that these selfish and corrupt purposes reflect those of an unchanging God is ridiculous. A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid.
Its kinda sad to see. As a christian, I still think homosexuality is a sin, but shouldnt they know that honoring God and Human life comes before that? I dont care who you are, but if you're human, I have a basic sense of respect and honor for you whoever you are.
On November 28 2012 12:07 Obeast96 wrote: Its kinda sad to see. As a christian, I still think homosexuality is a sin, but shouldnt they know that honoring God and Human life comes before that? I dont care who you are, but if you're human, I have a basic sense of respect and honor for you whoever you are.
Well, the problem is that you need to make a distinction: Is the word of God and the scripture and writing of God absolute and law, or is it an ethics system and a school of thought applicable to free thinking people who can form their own selective appreciation. If the latter then it is no longer a religious bureacracy that you subscribe to, but a school of thought, I have absolutely no problems with people subscribing to differing schools of thought but I do have problems with people applying absolutely scriptures or doctrines of religious bureacracies as law. The major religious entities have given us great gifts in terms of thought, language, basic moral practices, and so on, but if we can't acknowledge the fact that thought advances and that society advances with differing needs and try to apply the same exact ruling then we run into problems.
Imagine if in the common law system there was absolutely no way of overturning a precedent case, and that the judge and jury needed neither to qualify or quantify their judgement beyond the innvocation of the constitution. This would be okay if every precedent setting case was absolutely unchangingly right and that the constitution was absolutely and unchanging good, but no such human constructs exist.
There has to be something said about the people who Christ most had problems with and ended up killing him were people who took religion took seriously. The same people who would believe the letter and not the spirit of the bible. The same people who instead of following in Christs footsteps of tolerance and love would rather follow the path of hate and intolerance.
The catholic church has and continues to embody the very things that Christ fought against when he was on earth. Such a shame that they manage to undermine all the good that other Christians try to do every day across the globe so much.
On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
...There is so much I disagree with in this post...
...something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make.
Really? That's how you define objectivity? Let's check out dictionary.com, shall we?
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
We can be biologically inclined to do anything, and it will still be subjective, because it won't be a fact. Biological inclination as nothing to do with it. So a statement like
The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective.
is meaningless. Even if we all share the same morals, that doesn't make it objective. What would make it objective if it would be a fact. Similarly, a statement like
It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category
makes no sense. You really feel that in any sense, pizza can be considered objectively tasty? What?
...whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
And now all of a sudden, morality is based off the existence of societies. Morality must be objective, because if not, societies couldn't exist . And the existence of societies has to do with morality how...? If evolution causes us to act in a certain way, that way is now objective? What definition of objective are you using?
I will say my original point again, in one sentence. Since we defined what marriage is, anyone can define it however they want, and their definition will be legitimate to act off of. The result of that statement is that it is legitimate for the Uganda government to not recognize homosexual marriage. Note that I never said it it was ok for them to persecute gays; I actually explicitly said the opposite in my first post. My point was exactly what I said, nothing more.
But you seem to have misunderstood my argument. What you think I am arguing is...
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality.
What I am arguing is (a quote from my original post)
If you support gay marriage, but don't support those other things, then you are arbitrarily deciding what is legitimate and what is not. And if Uganda disagrees with you, their laws aren't any less legitimate than yours
See the difference now? Or do I really have to explain it?
So to respond to each of your individual points
1) As you seem to have misunderstood what my inconsistency was, this point is irrelevant. It seems I once actually called it inconsistent. That once was a mistake. My first point, and all my arguments, have never needed to call it inconsistent to feel one way.
2) If it will make you feel better, take out the word morality from my first post, and my argument will still be the same. My argument does not hinge on objective/subjective morality; it hinges on the subjective nature of the meaning of the word marriage. Don't want to discuss the issue-fine, we won't. The end.
3) You are discounting an argument that's based off semantics, by derisively calling it an argument based off of semantics. Again and again, your issue with my argument is that it's based off semantics. That seems to be an issue with you. That's ok. If you don't want to argue semantics that have important results, nobody is forcing you to do so.
Furthermore, your decision that there is a difference between meaning and definition is still ridiculous. See dictionary.com again, for the definition of the word "definition"
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.
And you are going to rage about how I am getting into semantic arguments. And I will nod.
Edit: And one more thing. Just because I'm not relating to exactly what the OP stated doesn't mean what I'm saying is irrelevant to the thread. The people in this thread seem to have felt a certain way, relating to the OP. I pointed out an issue with how they felt. That is on topic enough for me. If not for you, don't respond to me.
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts..
Assuming you are talking about religious texts of established religions created for a specific purpose, the logic with in them are usually self perpetuating and unprovable / undisprovable, if religious assumptions are true then the logic system is valid, but with out concrete quantifiable proof it's impossible for other parties to observe, debate, or even understand your doctrines better with out accepting the arbituary basis assumptions of said religion. Unless I accept at face value that the Christian god is all mighty, all knowing, etc, and that Jesus is the son of God then everything about the religious belief system falls apart because nearly all of its logics, appeals to authority and credibility, etc are all based on these assumptions.
It also means that strictly speaking there should be no progress to be made in religious logic, no applications except the absolute, no evolution of ideas and concepts, because all of these assumptions are taken for granted as absolutely true. Has humanity's studies of Christianity developed further than it has in the past in the contexts of religious logics? Can humanity develop, improve, and overrule religious logic where it's no longer applicable? Can generations and millenias of developing Christian faith actually lend itself to any degree of growing closeness to God or understanding of God? Based on the fundamental assumptions all of the answers are no, because the assumptions are all absolute. Yet we see that in reality the religious bureacracy is always happy to make private amendments for the sake of popularity and revise their logic to suit their own singular purpose, where claims that these selfish and corrupt purposes reflect those of an unchanging God is ridiculous. A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid.
Did you completely misunderstand what I wrote? My opinions are based on logic and reason. My opinions are not based on religious texts. Why are you lecturing me about religious beliefs?
On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote: [quote] No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
Whether pizza is tasty, or not, is completely subjective.
Just because the majority of humans find it tasty doesn't change that. We are human, and we like pizza. Guess what mcc? That's our subjective opinion as humans.
There are other living creatures within this universe that may find pizza disgusting.
That is why pizza is not objectively tasty. It's entirely subjective and it's not up for debate. This is like the most basic point of contention I think I've ever come across and the fact that you tried to use it as an example to disprove or discredit someone elses beliefs is verging on hilarious. Are you for real, seriously?
That you have completely failed to understand this simplest of examples demonstrates further the extent of your ignorance. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ You are trying to argue that claiming objective morality is a fact is comparable to a mathematical description of the orbit of the Earth?
For someone who regards their opinion and knowledge so highly to not immediately recognise how flawed that view is.... well I find that troubling to say the least.
I'm not going to waste my time destroying the rest of what you've written. Clearly discussing the finer points of this with you would be a fools errand.
You attempt and fail to find flaws in logic and reasoning where there are none and then state unprovable opinion as proven fact.
You are the worst combination of opinionated and ignorant I think I've ever come across.
A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
Just wanted to point out that this example is, well, totally inaccurate both in the facts it asserts and the underlying argument they are being used to support.
I feel like you should leave lame semantic arguements for topics that don't actually effect other people. No one really really cares that you can weasel your way out of taking any moral position, you have to take one at the ballot box eventually. And that decision can and will be judged, unless you can provide adequate reasoning besides "morality is subjective, mine just happens to come from an old book."
Here is an additional link to see how hostile people are towards gays in the region. You can read the backstory on the website before watching the video. The video is extremely graphic; the man is burned alive and died. you were warned!
On November 29 2012 05:37 acidstormy wrote: Here is an additional link to see how hostile people are towards gays in the region. You can read the backstory on the website before watching the video. The video is extremely graphic; the man is burned alive and died. you were warned!
A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
Just wanted to point out that this example is, well, totally inaccurate both in the facts it asserts and the underlying argument they are being used to support.
Both were changes made to the formal doctrine based on popular belief that changed over the years as the public thought that ideas were synonymous yet not formally recognized with in the context of the religious texts until finalized by respective popes in those years. So how exactly am I totally incorrect.
It's a huge difference whether or not a doctrine is officially recognized by the Pope / respective head of religion, because it actually impacts the world in significant manners whether a religious belief is "formal" because it carries with itself the implication of finality and absoluteness, and people hold laws accountable on that basis. How am I wrong in using this as support for my argument? We can write off the actions of Christian Cults or divisions which have beliefs not officially endorsed by the Catholic hierarchy, but once the Pope finalizes or formalizes it it becomes the official dogma of the religion.
The disparity of recounting of the role of women is a part of the Synoptic problem, as the Gospels do not agree on it, yet the Catholic hierarchy also has official stances on what transpired. How is this totally inaccurate too?
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts..
Assuming you are talking about religious texts of established religions created for a specific purpose, the logic with in them are usually self perpetuating and unprovable / undisprovable, if religious assumptions are true then the logic system is valid, but with out concrete quantifiable proof it's impossible for other parties to observe, debate, or even understand your doctrines better with out accepting the arbituary basis assumptions of said religion. Unless I accept at face value that the Christian god is all mighty, all knowing, etc, and that Jesus is the son of God then everything about the religious belief system falls apart because nearly all of its logics, appeals to authority and credibility, etc are all based on these assumptions.
It also means that strictly speaking there should be no progress to be made in religious logic, no applications except the absolute, no evolution of ideas and concepts, because all of these assumptions are taken for granted as absolutely true. Has humanity's studies of Christianity developed further than it has in the past in the contexts of religious logics? Can humanity develop, improve, and overrule religious logic where it's no longer applicable? Can generations and millenias of developing Christian faith actually lend itself to any degree of growing closeness to God or understanding of God? Based on the fundamental assumptions all of the answers are no, because the assumptions are all absolute. Yet we see that in reality the religious bureacracy is always happy to make private amendments for the sake of popularity and revise their logic to suit their own singular purpose, where claims that these selfish and corrupt purposes reflect those of an unchanging God is ridiculous. A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid.
Did you completely misunderstand what I wrote? My opinions are based on logic and reason. My opinions are not based on religious texts. Why are you lecturing me about religious beliefs?
On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote: [quote] No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
Whether pizza is tasty, or not, is completely subjective.
Just because the majority of humans find it tasty doesn't change that. We are human, and we like pizza. Guess what mcc? That's our subjective opinion as humans.
There are other living creatures within this universe that may find pizza disgusting.
That is why pizza is not objectively tasty. It's completely subjective.
That you have completely failed to understand this simplest of examples demonstrates further the extent of your ignorance.
You are completely wrong yet love to lecture other people are great length about why you are right when you have literally absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You are trying to argue that claiming objective morality is a fact is comparable to a mathematical description of the orbit of the Earth?
For someone who regards their opinion and knowledge so highly to not immediately recognise how flawed that view is.... well I find that troubling to say the least.
I'm not going to waste my time destroying the rest of what you've written. Clearly discussing the finer points of this with you would be a fools errand.
You attempt and fail to find flaws in logic and reasoning where there are none and then state unprovable opinion as proven fact.
You are the worst combination of opinionated and ignorant I think I've ever come across.
Did you not read the entire second half of my post? I explained why an opinion based on evidence or logic is more or less valid depending on your definition of validity than one based on absolutism and self perpetuating assumptions. That was the point. I wasn't lecturing you on anything.
I could apply this logic to any other logical argument too, for example, if we were in an argument and I invoked "I'm much more intelligent and knowledgeable about this subject" and provided evidence or logic to back up that information with the previous logic, it's fundamentally different than if I invoke the same thing but with "I'm a messenger of God who you must assume to be maximally knowledgeable and good" or "The rules of this discussion were created by me thus I should dictate who is right", because you can't prove or disprove the latter and its self perpetuated.
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts..
Assuming you are talking about religious texts of established religions created for a specific purpose, the logic with in them are usually self perpetuating and unprovable / undisprovable, if religious assumptions are true then the logic system is valid, but with out concrete quantifiable proof it's impossible for other parties to observe, debate, or even understand your doctrines better with out accepting the arbituary basis assumptions of said religion. Unless I accept at face value that the Christian god is all mighty, all knowing, etc, and that Jesus is the son of God then everything about the religious belief system falls apart because nearly all of its logics, appeals to authority and credibility, etc are all based on these assumptions.
It also means that strictly speaking there should be no progress to be made in religious logic, no applications except the absolute, no evolution of ideas and concepts, because all of these assumptions are taken for granted as absolutely true. Has humanity's studies of Christianity developed further than it has in the past in the contexts of religious logics? Can humanity develop, improve, and overrule religious logic where it's no longer applicable? Can generations and millenias of developing Christian faith actually lend itself to any degree of growing closeness to God or understanding of God? Based on the fundamental assumptions all of the answers are no, because the assumptions are all absolute. Yet we see that in reality the religious bureacracy is always happy to make private amendments for the sake of popularity and revise their logic to suit their own singular purpose, where claims that these selfish and corrupt purposes reflect those of an unchanging God is ridiculous. A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid.
Did you completely misunderstand what I wrote? My opinions are based on logic and reason. My opinions are not based on religious texts. Why are you lecturing me about religious beliefs?
On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote: [quote] No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
Whether pizza is tasty, or not, is completely subjective.
Just because the majority of humans find it tasty doesn't change that. We are human, and we like pizza. Guess what mcc? That's our subjective opinion as humans.
There are other living creatures within this universe that may find pizza disgusting.
That is why pizza is not objectively tasty. It's completely subjective.
That you have completely failed to understand this simplest of examples demonstrates further the extent of your ignorance.
You are completely wrong yet love to lecture other people are great length about why you are right when you have literally absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You are trying to argue that claiming objective morality is a fact is comparable to a mathematical description of the orbit of the Earth?
For someone who regards their opinion and knowledge so highly to not immediately recognise how flawed that view is.... well I find that troubling to say the least.
I'm not going to waste my time destroying the rest of what you've written. Clearly discussing the finer points of this with you would be a fools errand.
You attempt and fail to find flaws in logic and reasoning where there are none and then state unprovable opinion as proven fact.
You are the worst combination of opinionated and ignorant I think I've ever come across.
Did you not read the entire second half of my post? I explained why an opinion based on evidence or logic is more or less valid depending on your definition of validity than one based on absolutism and self perpetuating assumptions. That was the point. I wasn't lecturing you on anything.
I could apply this logic to any other logical argument too, for example, if we were in an argument and I invoked "I'm much more intelligent and knowledgeable about this subject" and provided evidence or logic to back up that information with the previous logic, it's fundamentally different than if I invoke the same thing but with "I'm a messenger of God who you must assume to be maximally knowledgeable and good" or "The rules of this discussion were created by me thus I should dictate who is right", because you can't prove or disprove the latter and its self perpetuated.
Fantastic, I hoped that's what you might be getting at, otherwise I would be confused beyond belief.
Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, allow me to refer you to my previous posts...
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
Yes, my opinion is a reasoned, ethical and philosophical stance. His is only based on what he feels god's position is on parts he read in the bible. How is that the same and as valid?
His position is based on the word of God. Your position is only based on your own personal opinions. How is that the same and as valid?
Neither of your positions is stronger than the other, no matter how either of you attempt to prove otherwise. It's completely subjective and down to perspective.
On November 25 2012 15:40 Reason wrote: Explaining to me why opinions based on logic and reason are more valid than those based on religious texts is like teaching a snake how to slither. I advocate gay marriage and my opinions are not based on religious texts..
Assuming you are talking about religious texts of established religions created for a specific purpose, the logic with in them are usually self perpetuating and unprovable / undisprovable, if religious assumptions are true then the logic system is valid, but with out concrete quantifiable proof it's impossible for other parties to observe, debate, or even understand your doctrines better with out accepting the arbituary basis assumptions of said religion. Unless I accept at face value that the Christian god is all mighty, all knowing, etc, and that Jesus is the son of God then everything about the religious belief system falls apart because nearly all of its logics, appeals to authority and credibility, etc are all based on these assumptions.
It also means that strictly speaking there should be no progress to be made in religious logic, no applications except the absolute, no evolution of ideas and concepts, because all of these assumptions are taken for granted as absolutely true. Has humanity's studies of Christianity developed further than it has in the past in the contexts of religious logics? Can humanity develop, improve, and overrule religious logic where it's no longer applicable? Can generations and millenias of developing Christian faith actually lend itself to any degree of growing closeness to God or understanding of God? Based on the fundamental assumptions all of the answers are no, because the assumptions are all absolute. Yet we see that in reality the religious bureacracy is always happy to make private amendments for the sake of popularity and revise their logic to suit their own singular purpose, where claims that these selfish and corrupt purposes reflect those of an unchanging God is ridiculous. A great example is the change of the roles of women in the Christian religious texts to reflect a larger role and the "canon"-ization of the role, sacredness and death of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was literally by popular demand and made as late as the 19th (Immaculate conception) and 20th century (The assumption of).
The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid.
Did you completely misunderstand what I wrote? My opinions are based on logic and reason. My opinions are not based on religious texts. Why are you lecturing me about religious beliefs?
On November 25 2012 11:09 mcc wrote: [quote] No I do not form opinions lightly. And since I see no point to devote time to incest relationships and this discussion does not require it, as it is non-related tangent that you introduced, I will not devote the time to think about it.
As for mistreatment of animals. What is your point ? I oppose also other forms of mistreatment of animals.
Bestiality is not a victimless crime as for incest I really do not care. Feeling uncomfortable is one thing, basing policy on such feelings is another.
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
Whether pizza is tasty, or not, is completely subjective.
Just because the majority of humans find it tasty doesn't change that. We are human, and we like pizza. Guess what mcc? That's our subjective opinion as humans.
There are other living creatures within this universe that may find pizza disgusting.
That is why pizza is not objectively tasty. It's completely subjective.
That you have completely failed to understand this simplest of examples demonstrates further the extent of your ignorance.
You are completely wrong yet love to lecture other people are great length about why you are right when you have literally absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
You are trying to argue that claiming objective morality is a fact is comparable to a mathematical description of the orbit of the Earth?
For someone who regards their opinion and knowledge so highly to not immediately recognise how flawed that view is.... well I find that troubling to say the least.
I'm not going to waste my time destroying the rest of what you've written. Clearly discussing the finer points of this with you would be a fools errand.
You attempt and fail to find flaws in logic and reasoning where there are none and then state unprovable opinion as proven fact.
You are the worst combination of opinionated and ignorant I think I've ever come across.
Did you not read the entire second half of my post? I explained why an opinion based on evidence or logic is more or less valid depending on your definition of validity than one based on absolutism and self perpetuating assumptions. That was the point. I wasn't lecturing you on anything.
I could apply this logic to any other logical argument too, for example, if we were in an argument and I invoked "I'm much more intelligent and knowledgeable about this subject" and provided evidence or logic to back up that information with the previous logic, it's fundamentally different than if I invoke the same thing but with "I'm a messenger of God who you must assume to be maximally knowledgeable and good" or "The rules of this discussion were created by me thus I should dictate who is right", because you can't prove or disprove the latter and its self perpetuated.
Fantastic, I thought that's what you might be getting at. Otherwise I would be confused beyond belief.
Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, allow me to refer you to my previous posts... [edit pending]
On November 25 2012 14:22 Reason wrote: Incest isn't limited to parent/child relationships, nor does the fact that consent is difficult to ensure change whether consenting incestous relationships are morally right or wrong.
Nobody is suggesting gay marriage should be prohibited nor that homosexuals are incapable of consent.
On November 25 2012 14:18 Shival wrote:
On November 25 2012 10:33 soon.Cloak wrote: Well, you're not going to like this (at all), but I'm religious. I follow the bible. The bible says gay marriage isn't a marriage. My definition is based off of god, not off a subjective (human) moral standard.
So if you want, we can have a completely separate argument (in a different thread, I suppose) about the legitimacy of religion. But if you don't believe in an objective definition of marriage based off of god, you are saying your morals are subjective, and that anyone else's view is as legitimate as yours.
So that's how I defend my viewpoint. But you still haven't said how you defend yours.
Sorry, but I don't think we should accept this as a valid position to have. The bible is hugely inconsistent on nearly all it talks about. For example Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy are completely off with each other on the subject of incest. Thus, in light of the inconsistency, it's not god's literal word you're quoting, you're nitpicking which parts of the bible suit your opinions.
You've missed the point completely.
The only argument against gay marriage is religious. He is quoting this argument. "I believe this because God told me so"
What is your argument? "I believe this because I believe this"
That's the point. Is your position more valid than his?
You reduced the other person's argument to "I believe this because I believe this". Where originally the argument usually contains appeals to other logic constructs such as human rights, genetic causality for homosexuality, natural occurrence of homosexuality, legality and social constructs around homosexuality, etc. Some of which are quantifiable and qualifiable arguments and proofs.
Where as the God appeal is based on the self perpetuated assumption that God is right because God is all powerful.
Didn't I already say this? A personal opinion could be either based on evidence and logic or a self perpetuating assumption, or both. You argument isn't even relevant as it assumes that somehow there isn't any difference between the two, which I implicitly argued against.
"The problem of undisprovable theories based on self perpetuating assumptions is that they are ultimately singular and meaningless beyond its scope, religion gets around that by claiming that it emcompasses the entire scope of human life and the universe with out actually establishing any logical connection or proof other than the tacid assumptions. What you get is what you are stuck with, which is why religious reform always strikes to me as having your cake and eating it too. Where as quantifiable and proveable theories and logics which do not depend on self perpetuating assumptions are constantly updated and advanced with an evolving society. If scientists all assumed that the opinion of Newton was absolute then we wouldn't have modern physics despite Newton laying the grounds work for much of it since it wouldn't ever advance.
You don't at all need to prove that legitimacy of one theory over the other because doing so would draw in anecdotal evidences which is contrary to the actual problem: That one side favors absolutism based on self perpetuating assumptions, where as the other side evolves along with society. If your scope and judgement of "validity" is based on how accepted a value is or how concrete and unchanging a value is, then yea ofcourse religious texts are more "valid" since its impossible to disprove them if you make the assumption that their logic is correct. But if your scope and judgement of validity is on if methods of science, philosophy, individual thought etc can be applied and advance the theory or opinion then the latter is more valid. "
If I make the self perpetuating assumption that "I'm always right" when I'm arguing with you, then I don't need to present any evidence or logic but merely invoke "I'm right because of previous assumption: I'm always right.". Are you arguing that an opinion based on this carries the same weight as an opinion based on factual evidence and other logic constructs? Because that's bloody stupid.
On November 28 2012 12:28 Sermokala wrote: There has to be something said about the people who Christ most had problems with and ended up killing him were people who took religion took seriously. The same people who would believe the letter and not the spirit of the bible. The same people who instead of following in Christs footsteps of tolerance and love would rather follow the path of hate and intolerance.
The catholic church has and continues to embody the very things that Christ fought against when he was on earth. Such a shame that they manage to undermine all the good that other Christians try to do every day across the globe so much.
On November 29 2012 05:33 Smat wrote: I feel like you should leave lame semantic arguements for topics that don't actually effect other people. No one really really cares that you can weasel your way out of taking any moral position, you have to take one at the ballot box eventually. And that decision can and will be judged, unless you can provide adequate reasoning besides "morality is subjective, mine just happens to come from an old book."
You are rebutting my argument by telling me why my opinion is illogical. That's completely irrelevant. We can discuss my opinion after we discuss my argument against the thread's opinion. Try to defend that one first.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
Exactly. If they dont like it, they can emigrate to a country where someone accepts their behavior. Thats what a social group is. Think of this forum. If the admins dont like someone that can force them to emigrate, especially if said person is in favor of a view that isnt popular.
There are no white pride parades that are "peaceful and empowering", because if anyone started one, it would start a hate war directed at the people marching.
There are no "hetero pride" parades, because if there were, it would be offensive to gays, since it implies that people are proud to be hetero, which makes gays feel bad. But noone thinks of this in the reverse terms.
White and heteros cant have parades because it is seen as inciting bigotry and hatred, and thus draws bigotry and hatred towards those two groups. They cannot speak in public about what they want and dont want, because they get ostracized for it. It is therefore not equal. Either all of us can march for our ethnic and sexual proclivities, or noone should be able to do it while others are hated or shut down for it.
People in the country they OWN get to decide how they run it. What if China decided the U.S. was a bunch of amoral and deviant pigs, so they invaded to "save you" from yourselves?
edit: to the people talking about how god decrees are essentially "I believe this, because I believe this", people who call it moral and human rights to "believe" people should be treated to their own standard are doing the same thing; believing it because they believe it. Not some empirical and universal law or reality.
It's as if it's Immoral to have a set of Morals these days.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
Exactly. If they dont like it, they can emigrate to a country where someone accepts their behavior. Thats what a social group is. Think of this forum. If the admins dont like someone that can force them to emigrate, especially if said person is in favor of a view that isnt popular.
There are no white pride parades that are "peaceful and empowering", because if anyone started one, it would start a hate war directed at the people marching.
There are no "hetero pride" parades, because if there were, it would be offensive to gays, since it implies that people are proud to be hetero, which makes gays feel bad. But noone thinks of this in the reverse terms.
White and heteros cant have parades because it is seen as inciting bigotry and hatred, and thus draws bigotry and hatred towards those two groups. They cannot speak in public about what they want and dont want, because they get ostracized for it. It is therefore not equal. Either all of us can march for our ethnic and sexual proclivities, or noone should be able to do it while others are hated or shut down for it.
People in the country they OWN get to decide how they run it. What if China decided the U.S. was a bunch of amoral and deviant pigs, so they invaded to "save you" from yourselves?
edit: to the people talking about how god decrees are essentially "I believe this, because I believe this", people who call it moral and human rights to "believe" people should be treated to their own standard are doing the same thing; believing it because they believe it. Not some empirical and universal law or reality.
It's as if it's Immoral to have a set of Morals these days.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
Exactly. If they dont like it, they can emigrate to a country where someone accepts their behavior. Thats what a social group is. Think of this forum. If the admins dont like someone that can force them to emigrate, especially if said person is in favor of a view that isnt popular.
There are no white pride parades that are "peaceful and empowering", because if anyone started one, it would start a hate war directed at the people marching.
There are no "hetero pride" parades, because if there were, it would be offensive to gays, since it implies that people are proud to be hetero, which makes gays feel bad. But noone thinks of this in the reverse terms.
White and heteros cant have parades because it is seen as inciting bigotry and hatred, and thus draws bigotry and hatred towards those two groups. They cannot speak in public about what they want and dont want, because they get ostracized for it. It is therefore not equal. Either all of us can march for our ethnic and sexual proclivities, or noone should be able to do it while others are hated or shut down for it.
People in the country they OWN get to decide how they run it. What if China decided the U.S. was a bunch of amoral and deviant pigs, so they invaded to "save you" from yourselves?
edit: to the people talking about how god decrees are essentially "I believe this, because I believe this", people who call it moral and human rights to "believe" people should be treated to their own standard are doing the same thing; believing it because they believe it. Not some empirical and universal law or reality.
It's as if it's Immoral to have a set of Morals these days.
ha. Gay prides make you "feel bad"? Any heteros that "feel bad" because of gay pride parades should get a life.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
Exactly. If they dont like it, they can emigrate to a country where someone accepts their behavior. Thats what a social group is. Think of this forum. If the admins dont like someone that can force them to emigrate, especially if said person is in favor of a view that isnt popular.
There are no white pride parades that are "peaceful and empowering", because if anyone started one, it would start a hate war directed at the people marching.
There are no "hetero pride" parades, because if there were, it would be offensive to gays, since it implies that people are proud to be hetero, which makes gays feel bad. But noone thinks of this in the reverse terms.
White and heteros cant have parades because it is seen as inciting bigotry and hatred, and thus draws bigotry and hatred towards those two groups. They cannot speak in public about what they want and dont want, because they get ostracized for it. It is therefore not equal. Either all of us can march for our ethnic and sexual proclivities, or noone should be able to do it while others are hated or shut down for it.
People in the country they OWN get to decide how they run it. What if China decided the U.S. was a bunch of amoral and deviant pigs, so they invaded to "save you" from yourselves?
edit: to the people talking about how god decrees are essentially "I believe this, because I believe this", people who call it moral and human rights to "believe" people should be treated to their own standard are doing the same thing; believing it because they believe it. Not some empirical and universal law or reality.
It's as if it's Immoral to have a set of Morals these days.
ha. Gay prides make you "feel bad"? Any heteros that "feel bad" because of gay pride parades should get a life.
Seriously, in a world where homosexuals are forced to assimilate to a completely heterosexual society no straight person should EVER feel threatened by simply being reminded that gay people exist.
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.
I don't care one bit for the sovereignty of nations when violating the rights of the individual.
An atrocity here is an atrocity there. No invisible line on a map will change that.
there's quite a difference between anti-gay laws and anti-gay-behaviour laws. most laws fall under the latter, i.e. to discourage open homosexuality, because it is simply not practical to enforce the former.
while i don't support sending gays to jail, i'm actually in favour of discouraging gay pride and all that nonsense. some cultures find it offensive, i find it offensive, and let other countries make their own laws.
You're not finishing your thought.
Explain how you finding something offensive gives you the right to dictate that it must be banned.
"I find it offensive" so what? A dozen things offend me on a daily basis, but why is it you that instantly screams for censorship?
It's up to each society to determine what's offensive and what should be law. These 'rights' that you speak of are relative to the society that you find yourself in. They are not absolute. I bet you can't walk around naked in the streets of your home country. That's just as much of a 'rights violation' in the sense that you are not simply free to behave however you please in public.
Exactly. If they dont like it, they can emigrate to a country where someone accepts their behavior. Thats what a social group is. Think of this forum. If the admins dont like someone that can force them to emigrate, especially if said person is in favor of a view that isnt popular.
There are no white pride parades that are "peaceful and empowering", because if anyone started one, it would start a hate war directed at the people marching.
There are no "hetero pride" parades, because if there were, it would be offensive to gays, since it implies that people are proud to be hetero, which makes gays feel bad. But noone thinks of this in the reverse terms.
White and heteros cant have parades because it is seen as inciting bigotry and hatred, and thus draws bigotry and hatred towards those two groups. They cannot speak in public about what they want and dont want, because they get ostracized for it. It is therefore not equal. Either all of us can march for our ethnic and sexual proclivities, or noone should be able to do it while others are hated or shut down for it.
People in the country they OWN get to decide how they run it. What if China decided the U.S. was a bunch of amoral and deviant pigs, so they invaded to "save you" from yourselves?
edit: to the people talking about how god decrees are essentially "I believe this, because I believe this", people who call it moral and human rights to "believe" people should be treated to their own standard are doing the same thing; believing it because they believe it. Not some empirical and universal law or reality.
It's as if it's Immoral to have a set of Morals these days.
ha. Gay prides make you "feel bad"? Any heteros that "feel bad" because of gay pride parades should get a life.
Seriously, in a world where homosexuals are forced to assimilate to a completely heterosexual society no straight person should EVER feel threatened by simply being reminded that gay people exist.
I told a pre-op transgender that I wasn't into them because I would like a woman who's born a woman, and they called me a homophobe for stating my preference.
The message is clear: Think like us, or be condemned.
You know how shameful it is to be male these days? I'll tell you. Men who look upset in college are considered "creepy". Women who look upset are just considered upset. I got this from the mouth of my own female friends.
He has procured a prostitute. He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes. He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. He has gone to a strip club. He is anti-abortion. He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
its okay if men are depicted in porn, because they're not real people like women are.
If women behaved towards men as men do towards women, we would be hunting you down and killing you, torturing you while we said we loved you, raping you and calling it intimacy. None of you have addressed any of that – it’s all froth-mouthed insults, and people saying that my little post on the internet is “just as bad” as pimps or snuff films and is “the real reason” why men simply can’t be bothered to stop buying little girls in Thailand.
Here’s the difference between me and you boys: I don’t think any of the cruel or terrible shit which men engage in or defend is innate or biologically driven. I think you were taught to treat us in this way since you were kneehigh to a grasshopper, and that those behaviors and attitudes have been reinforced and encouraged daily, and the ruts worn so thick in your brains that you think it’s how you “really are.” I think that you’re in a society in which this stuff is treated as so normal that you have difficulty envisioning things any differently, and when you do get a glimpse of an alternate way of life it’s just easier to forget it and go back to watching yet another pretty dead woman’s corpse on CSI.
Sharon Osborne laughed at the guy who got his penis cut off. Female genital mutilation out of anger draws hatred and massive condemnation.
The females who made a false police report of a very serious crime get no legal action by the police. You can see that they were trolling for guys attention in their outfits, yet are more than willing to use sexuality as a weapon against a man. You think this is isolated? It isn't.
here's a lesbian relationship video for a reference point about how females in our culture perceive their "ideal mate", and how willing they are to degrade their prospect if the prospect fails to meet her standards.
go to 22:00. This is the same idealism levelled at males, only it's worse because at least females are humans, by the standards of most self described feminists today.
a woman's point of view on our present day Mysandry.
Examine how more and more men are dressing "emo", "hipster", trying to be rail thin, effeminate, etc. If you don't think they should be doing that, you're a bigot, however, by the admission of women, they WANT MANLY MEN. I know a 21 year old who broke up with her long term boyfriend, due to being unhappy with his position in life, and the fact that he treated her well, to get into a "casual" relationship with a fireman who was fucking 2 other chicks on the side, and then she had her heart broken, and she went back to him a month later, even though he's clearly not going to be faithful or be what she says she wants. Oh, and his reason for not turning the others down to jump on his unit? "He said he's too nice and doesnt want to hurt their feelings".
it's shameful to be a man, but even if you try to change to be more "emotionally available", less aggressive, etc, women don't respect or want you. They tend to also complain "where have all the good men gone", while at the same time creating false rape charges in revenge, abusing their partners physically and emotionally in public with impunity, and so on. They obviously desire men who are what they describe that they hate, even as the usual "decent man" is ignored.
That is why it feels uncomfortable to watch "gay pride" parades, knowing a hetero male parade is out of the question. Men are viewed as terrible, and being heterosexual is being "closed minded'.
To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
If you actually want to get anecdotal, look at the life of Alan Turing, the fucking father of computer science, how much more would the world be positively affected today if he wasn't condemned just for being gay.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about them? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats. I put this here, not to legitimize hate against a whole population, like you would claim. I put this here, because by your emphasis, you imply that homosexuals, trans, etc, cannot be criminal like heterosexual males. In other words, they lack agency, or hetero males are just so bad, that only they deserve mention in such crimes.
remember that pedophilia (of the homosexual nature) was around in ancient Greece, and they had codes for how to do it. It was seen as teaching men not to rely on women, a bit ironically like that Vagina Monologue part involving a 13 year old female getting drunk by a much older female and forced into sex, recalling it as "if it was a rape, it was a good rape", in later memories.
As to saying "yes but it was a majority oppressing a minority, therefore your argument is invalid", you're stereotyping and skirting the issue. Congrats on your own bigotry towards others. What people did in the past may have been right or wrong, and if we view it as wrong, then who committed it? Those in the past. Not those here. But go ahead and stereotype me.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
On November 25 2012 11:19 soon.Cloak wrote: [quote]
So if you feel that bestiality, on a fundamental marriage-based level, isn't wrong (the issue is just the cruelty to animals), and you feel that incest isn't wrong, then we are in agreement, as per the second part of my first post.
But I'm assuming that part about incest. Again, I can't argue if you won't say your opinion, when your opinion is relevant (because my whole point is that we have to be consistent).
No, my opinion is that bestiality has no fundamental marriage-based level as marriage requires consent and animals cannot give it to you. I was talking about my opinion on bestiality as general practice. As pertaining to marriage it is like talking about flying penguins.
Your whole point is complete non-sequitur to the debate. I do not have to talk about human right violations in country A to be able to condemn them in country B. I do not have to talk about issue A to discuss issue B if they can be solved independently. And issues of homosexuality can easily be solved independently from issues of incest or bestiality. So stop acting like there is any need to bring them into the issue.
You are trying to define what marriage is, and argue that marriage"requires" certain fundamental aspects, while denying that other aspects of marriage (i.e. heterosexuality) can be considered fundamental. How did you come up with that?
My argument is about consistency, which by definition relates to multiple issues. I am arguing that it is inconsistent,and thus illogical, to consider some things marriage, while not other things. That is very related to Uganda, as it is arguing that it is illogical to feel that hetero and homosexual relationships are okay, while others are not, which is what I perceive to be the position of many in this thread.
I think you missed my post where I already answered this. I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes. I said nothing about homosexuality or heterosexuality, I think you are confusing me with someone else. Also after you read the post I was referring to I would like to stress that you have no point outside of playing semantic games.
I am not trying to define anything. Marriage has some meaning and consent is one of its attributes.
Do you not see the self-contradiction in that statement?
And in the post you are quoting now, I explained why it's not simply semantics, and how it relates to Uganda.
Nope, there is no contradiction. Only if you do not know what meaning is you would think so. As I said it seems you did not read a post where I addressed this. It is on this page, look it up.
Oh, my bad, skipped that. There's been a lot of posts...
"Of course there is objective morality", you say? Can I point you to this thread? 40 pages about people arguing about the topic, and the poll says it's subjective. Don't try to say that everyone agrees with you on this.
So now I argue that the "meaning" of marriage is heterosexual, while you argue that the "meaning" is consent. How can you defend the position that you're definitely correct?
I never said everyone agrees with me on that topic. All your responses to my posts are full of attributing to me positions I never defended. Could you stop misrepresenting my posts ? I said that most people (including most probably you) by their actions prove me correct. Their words how they do not believe in objective morality are irrelevant as long as they act like there actually is one. Plus since when matter of science are decided by polls
As for the meaning part, you again completely missed the point. Marriage has as part of its meaning consent. If you disagree, you do not speak English and I can easily ignore you. You can argue that marriage has as part of its meaning heterosexuality. And I would not disagree with you. I would state meaning of marriage is in state of flux right now on that topic. Somewhere in-between. But it is pretty clear the meaning will move in the future to include homosexual relationships. But there is no evidence of the meaning of marriage moving anywhere close to losing its consent component.
As for how I can defend my position. I do not need to defend my position. Meaning of the words is shared between all speakers of the language. And right now it has consent component. If you disagree, be my guest and once again show that you are just playing semantic games. Or do you expect that majority of English speakers in the world would disagree with me ?
lol, thought this thread had died.
It's not that "people disagree with you about objective morality, but that it's a fact". You say that of course there is objective morality. That's your opinion. You can believe in it as much as you want, and believe that it exists, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's your opinion, and no more. And because it's only an opinion, people are more likely to disagree with you (which they do). Your proof from how people act is meaningless. It's like claiming that since most of the world enjoys pizza, pizza is inherently and objectively delicious. There is a significant difference between something that's objective, and something that's subjective, but agreed upon. But I don't want to argue about objective morality. I'm arguing against the people in this thread that are comfortable with defining marriage as hetero and homosexual, and not just heterosexual (as in, not willing to listen to someone that just defines marriage as heterosexual), while they themselves wouldn't be willing (on principle) defining marriage as lacking consent.
Ah, the poll was just thrown in their for literary emphasis .
And it's very nice that you defined the Western definition of marriage, which is in flux. But the Ugandese (?) may define it as heterosexual. And since your definition has no more validity than theirs, because it's subjective, who's to say theirs is wrong?
My point about consent is that the definition of marriage could be whatever we want it to be. Agreed, it's not moving towards the loss of consent, but that doesn't mean that if it would, there'd be anything wrong with that. Thus, those that are willing to define marriage how they want to should be willing to accept the fact that others may define it differently. So if in a different state, they'd legalize and recognize bestiality as marriage, your reaction should be "Oh, guess they define marriage differently", not "Oh, that could never be marriage".
Yes, and in the same vein all scientific facts/theories are also opinions. Good to know. You fail to differentiate something that is agreed upon, because we decided so based on a whim and something agreed upon, because we are so biologically inclined and in fact never had a decision to make. The second one cannot change without our biology changing and is quite objective. Morality falls under the second kind. And that also goes for your pizza example to some degree. It shows that pizza is made in a way that we find (statistically) delicious, which is also biological and objective, in this sense, category. Of course much smaller percentage of people finds pizza delicious than the number of people that agree on core moral principles. Which is not surprising as there are other foods thus no point in evolution forcing us all into one box, whereas without the specific morality humans share, societies could not exist.
As for the rest, you again demonstrate that you do not understand what you read. You are talking about definitions being wrong after I repeatedly told you definitions are not wrong or right. They cannot be. Definitions are tautologies/naming conventions. So I never said Ugandan definition is wrong.
Your original point was trying to argue there is inconsistency between allowing homosexuality and not allowing incest/bestiality. People explained to you why there is no inconsistency. That is why you changed your argument to include the whole marriage discussion, even though it has no relevance to the topic, because it was the only way how you can salvage your refuted argument.
There are only three ways for you to argue your original point. 1) Try to argue that there is only one criteria to judge ethical scenarios. You attempted this first by claiming the supposed inconsistency. That inconsistency of course does not exist if you actually understand that ethical decisions are reached using multiple criteria and so just because two actions share one/few attributes (sex/love/..) they all do not have to fall into the same ethical category. And people pointed out that you are wrong as there is no issue with having multi-criteria to decide ethical considerations.
2) Claim that morality is relative. After that you moved to claim that morality is relative. So please do not lie that you do not want to argue about objective morality.
3) Move the topic from actual ethical calculus, to the murky waters of human language and its meanings. But since the cases of bestiality vs homosexuality was so clear for most people, you moved into this final argument, which is completely irrelevant to original topic. Of course you picked it because it is easier to create confusion and argue whatever nonsense by saying that definitions of the words are arbitrary and so on. It is complete derailing of the thread as your point can easily and clearly be formulated without the whole marriage thing as I have easily shown few paragraphs above. But of course without the marriage thing, you would have to confine yourself to ethical discussion and that does not allow so much bs. So you moved it to semantic games over word marriage.
This was the last thing I am going to write about your tangent on marriage. Either argue your original point, where your only option is to claim that morality is relative to extremely big extent. Or continue with your word games, but without me.
This is really a massive simplification of the matter, if not total ignorance. Sometimes we have to take all the cultural and political context to understand all the mechanics involve in events that happen outside our culture. You can`t just have a cookie cutter formula and shove it in everyone's thraot.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:
A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.
A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.
When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:
A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.
A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.
When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.
And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.
And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.
Additionally, you're playing fast and loose with the word "celebrate". Does the existence of something inherently celebrate itself? like the existence of weddings? If gays get wedding rights, then you wouldn't be able to pull that particular straw man out. Its as if you're talking about basic life, attaching "heterosexual" to it, and then saying "so there". On the other hand, if the public acceptance IS equal to celebration as you have determined it is for "heterosexual things", then gays are being celebrated daily just as heterosexuals, and thus, by your logic, pride parades are redundant.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:
A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.
A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.
When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.
And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.
And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.
Additionally, you're playing fast and loose with the word "celebrate". Does the existence of something inherently celebrate itself? like the existence of weddings? If gays get wedding rights, then you wouldn't be able to pull that particular straw man out. Its as if you're talking about basic life, attaching "heterosexual" to it, and then saying "so there". On the other hand, if the public acceptance IS equal to celebration as you have determined it is for "heterosexual things", then gays are being celebrated daily just as heterosexuals, and thus, by your logic, pride parades are redundant.
You have 7 posts on your account...I don't take you seriously. I knew trying to debate this topic on the internet would be a failure. If someone else wants to tackle your egregious logic then they can beat their head against that wall. I'm going to go play LoL.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats. I put this here, not to legitimize hate against a whole population, like you would claim. I put this here, because by your emphasis, you imply that homosexuals, trans, etc, cannot be criminal like heterosexual males. In other words, they lack agency, or hetero males are just so bad, that only they deserve mention in such crimes.
remember that pedophilia (of the homosexual nature) was around in ancient Greece, and they had codes for how to do it. It was seen as teaching men not to rely on women, a bit ironically like that Vagina Monologue part involving a 13 year old female getting drunk by a much older female and forced into sex, recalling it as "if it was a rape, it was a good rape", in later memories.
As to saying "yes but it was a majority oppressing a minority, therefore your argument is invalid", you're stereotyping and skirting the issue. Congrats on your own bigotry towards others. What people did in the past may have been right or wrong, and if we view it as wrong, then who committed it? Those in the past. Not those here. But go ahead and stereotype me.
I guess I will use this as an opportunity to maybe shed some light since this argument about pride parades has somehow dominated this thread about institutionalized murder.
The pride element of the parade is about overcoming civil rights challenges. It follows the same vein as black history month or other such traditions to remember the struggles of our past with a flare that is unique to the community. Feel free to critique the style but the actual expression should be reasonable to all but the most biased observer.
The second point I would like to make is about why it is important to have such a flashy celebration. This is something that never really registered for me as a kid but seems so obvious in hindsight that I feel silly about my doubts today. The big thing to remember is that gays do not function like a traditional minority. Gays form communities but with every generation the ten percent gets randomly redistributed around the globe. Pride parades are like a beacon for desperate disenfranchised gays everywhere.
Every single day is straight pride all over America. I would see my parents kissing, see boys and girls walking hand in hand on the street and even some serious macking by people on dates when I was a kid. My parents were catholic and hated gays but you better believe my ears perked up when I heard about these kinds of celebrations on the news or even when spoken of derisively. It is a small light in a dark time that saves many lives.
This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.
It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.
On November 29 2012 13:20 heliusx wrote: This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.
It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.
Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for. If you think it's gone way off course, you've read half of the last page. I covered both the content and the ad hominems of "homophobia and fear" directed at myself. Others kept driving those points, and I responded solely to those, as they ignored my OT points.
On November 29 2012 13:20 heliusx wrote: This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.
It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.
Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for.
Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of america signs a law sentencing all religious people to death will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for. What a weak ass argument.
Yeah I get it, you're not homophobic and you're not a bigot. You just don't think they should enjoy the same privileges you do just because.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:
A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.
A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.
When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.
And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.
If only we had a magical place where we could go when we don't know something. This place would have a huge amount of information categorized, cataloged and ready to search. If we typed "sexual orientation statistics" into such a database, we might find....
TADA!!!!~~~~
The gallup poll for 2012 so far shows that 3.4% of the US population consider themselves LGBT. this will not translate directly to ugandan data, but I think that it will certainly be close enough.
So what makes me think heterosexuals are a majority? 96.6% is a pretty big majority.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
I don't know where to place anyone I've met into what you've mentioned. I am left asking if maybe you have ran into people who do not understand the concept of respect. I don't think anyone with respect for others would we well described by what you're saying. Regardless if they are feminists, gay, or straight.
I can understand that there are some very extreme people, but I fail to see how they should have any hold over anyone. And in the end, you cannot cry over people who perceive you differently or incorrectly. Such is life. But once they act on their incorrect perception and try to "get you" in any way, is when things should be "handled". So girls falsely accusing men of rape, just like anyone accusing anyone falsely of anything, is indeed problematic, but a completely separate issue to homosexuality.
And no, you are not close minded for being heterosexual. Who/what ever made you feel that way has too much of a hold on you. You should see the unwarranted snide remarks for what they are, and not mistake them for personal flaws.
It can be very noble to point out issues. But don't think these issues dilute other issues, because they do not.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:
A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.
A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.
When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.
And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.
This, right there, shows that you are either trolling or desperately trying to find something to reply at all costs, just out of spite. No sane person would have any doubt that a majority of the population is heterosexual.
On November 29 2012 13:09 Arighttomorals wrote: And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.
Klondikebar explains in the post you just replied to what the gay pride is about. I suggest you read it before replying. This applies to the rest of your post.
On November 29 2012 13:20 heliusx wrote: This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.
It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.
Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for. If you think it's gone way off course, you've read half of the last page. I covered both the content and the ad hominems of "homophobia and fear" directed at myself. Others kept driving those points, and I responded solely to those, as they ignored my OT points.
This is simultaneously a good, and a very bad, point. Yes, if the majority of Uganda decides to sign this into law, then it is a democratically decided upon law. This makes it legally legitimate. This does not make it right. Democracy allows the masses of people who would otherwise be forced to live with the implications of the decisions of their leadership to hide behind a curtain of voting. They just cast a ballot, how can they be responsible for the slaughter or removal of rights of an entire demographic?
They are just as responsible. They still need to look in the mirror, look at their friends and family who are being systematically persecuted for a permanent and inextricable part of their being, just as much as me being a white male, I am also gay. This is a part of me as real and as important as any other fact of my humanity or biology. This law wants to tell these people that who they are, what they are and the things they cannot control about themselves are inherently wrong and worthy of at best contempt, at worst slaughter. This is a part of them. Democracy does not make persecution okay, it makes the inhumane doable by assigning it to non-human entities.
On November 29 2012 12:00 Caihead wrote: To above spam post: Every point you are making stems from a straw man argument against extremist factions with in the feminism movement which is usually denounced by actual feminists. Nor does it even contribute to the discussion about homosexuals, by your definition is it fine for you to watch a gay pride parade consisting entirely of women because you are physically attracted to women? That's completely arbitrary.
First one, no. If you are a male in our culture, Im sure you've experienced mysandry and sexism against you. I know I have. A lot. It doesn't matter where the ideas come from, what matters is that they permeate the culture, whether consciously or not. Do you know that we Ignore rape statistics for women when we want to talk about rapists? You should watch those videos is you don't want to remain ignorant.
As to gay pride, it doesnt matter what sex marches in it. For males, it's pride in male on male, for females, it's pride for female on female. Both of these are more acceptable to women in general than male on female.
The "think like us" categorization of the gay pride movement is god damn retarded. Do gays force heterosexuals to be homosexual through traumatizing medical / social / psychological experiments? Because the opposite has been true for as long as civilization has existed. Now homosexuals / transexuals / bisexuals finally see the light of day in some areas and you are complaining?
You're the one straw manning. What you just described is a fallacy of logical reason. Simply because they had it done to them, any repression of heterosexuality is okay so long as it's just snide remarks, or low opinions and even hate speech, and not medical or social experiments? Because thats what's happening, and you just call it "seeing the light of day", a phrase you wont even quality the meaning of.
People like you who don't understand the difference between a minority and a majority have nothing to contribute to any sociological discussion. I will give you a quick starter though: An action by the majority will have difference consequences than that same action done by the minority.
oh, so you resort to stereotyping and tropes?
Why is this even relevant, I've already said that you are aiming your argument at a straw man instead of having an actual discussion about the legality of homosexuality. This isn't a thread about extreme feminism which I also take personal issue with because it devalues the entire feminist movement.
Nvm I give up. Good bye. I can't be bothered so I automatically lose.
I suppose you do lose, but not because of what you think. I responded to another person claiming that no heterosexual should be uncomfortable about gay pride parades, and I illustrated WHY heterosexual MALES should be uncomfortable. The implications of our society. Prove me wrong, if you feel like. Start a Hetero Pride parade in San Francisco. Let's see if people start calling your hate crime mongers.
I bolded what I think is the most telling part. You have issue with it, not because it is incredibly hate filled and bigoted like KKK pages or some sort of "hang sluts" website, but because it devalues the feminist movement. So even here, you still do not directly attack the message that's being spread as hate speech, because she's a woman. You instead say that it is devaluing a movement. You won't even criticize her directly for doing the same things that males do, and are directly and harshly criticized for.
It's like a deflection shield made of mental barriers. Even if the woman is totally and utterly in the wrong, spewing the worst stereotypes, generalizations, and sometimes even death threats towards males in general, you won't dare treat her like you would a man. What does that tell you?
As to being forced into homosexual acts; does prison ring a bell? And even among "free" citizens, there have been many rape crimes committed by one sex on someone of the same sex. Remember, rape is about power, not about lust or desire for sexual release. You think there haven't been gays/trans picking up straight guys to drug and rape them? Women also drug and rape guys. google the stats.
Again, the actions of a majority have different consequences than the actions of a minority. A heterosexual pride parade is not the same as a homosexual one.
So when a majority takes pride in itself, it's a shameful and disgusting thing, and when a minority does, it is empowering? So if you are part of the majority, you should be ashamed of it and hide it?
Aye caramba you sound so emo. I usually loathe explaining this on the internet because I usually find myself stepping into a pit of ignorance that I could never hope to fill but here goes:
A heterosexual pride parade is silly and redundant because everything about society already celebrates heterosexuality. Everything from chick flicks, to commercials, to frat parties, to mother fucking weddings are celebrations and announcements of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is the majority and it society already empowers it and takes pride in it. A parade would be a waste of time because everyone already knows heterosexuals can express their sexuality and still find a place in society. It'd be like celebrating having permission to go to the bathroom...no fucking duh you can do it.
A homosexual pride parade is actually important because homosexuals have historically been told to hide, to be ashamed, and that they have no place in society. A gay pride parade is a way of saying that homosexuals don't have to hide anymore, or be ashamed anymore, and that society will let them participate. AND it finally gives them a chance to celebrate their sexuality instead of having to watch chick flicks, or go to frat parties, or play best man at yet another wedding. It gives a voice to an otherwise silent minority.
When a minority FINALLY gets a place in society, they are happy about it and they celebrate it. The majority was never not a part of society and their place in society has NEVER been threatened. Celebrating a heterosexual place in society is a waste of time at best, at worst it comes off as a mockery of what homosexuals have had to endure and what they've finally earned.
And what makes you think heterosexuals are a majority? I know more "bi" girls than straight girls.
And is that all gays want? A few parades to celebrate instead of the whole year, like heteros? Or are they just rubbing our faces in it.
Additionally, you're playing fast and loose with the word "celebrate". Does the existence of something inherently celebrate itself? like the existence of weddings? If gays get wedding rights, then you wouldn't be able to pull that particular straw man out. Its as if you're talking about basic life, attaching "heterosexual" to it, and then saying "so there". On the other hand, if the public acceptance IS equal to celebration as you have determined it is for "heterosexual things", then gays are being celebrated daily just as heterosexuals, and thus, by your logic, pride parades are redundant.
But do not heterosexual couples celebrate when they get married?
you dont have anything that's based on facts. you just keep spewing party lines mindlessly out of your mouth without having done any critical thinking at ALL on the subject. I can tell when a person has done that. Your poor arguments and lack of understanding what you yourself are saying tells me.
This is when you know someone is desperately clinging to a losing argument. They can no longer face public scrutiny. They have to bully people out of the public eye and hope they shut up.
you dont have anything that's based on facts. you just keep spewing party lines mindlessly out of your mouth without having done any critical thinking at ALL on the subject. I can tell when a person has done that. Your poor arguments and lack of understanding what you yourself are saying tells me.
This is when you know someone is desperately clinging to a losing argument. They can no longer face public scrutiny. They have to bully people out of the public eye and hope they shut up.
he's projecting the faults of his argument onto you. how cute.
On November 29 2012 13:20 heliusx wrote: This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.
It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.
Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for. If you think it's gone way off course, you've read half of the last page. I covered both the content and the ad hominems of "homophobia and fear" directed at myself. Others kept driving those points, and I responded solely to those, as they ignored my OT points.
You know that simply because a majority of people vote in something that does not make it right... The supreme court has overturned many laws in our country. Simply because their country is being occupied by more biggoted people than not doesn't make it correct.
On November 29 2012 13:20 heliusx wrote: This thread has gone wayyy off course. The crux of it is homosexuals aren't equals in the current situation of most countries. All this bullshit some of you are spewing about parades and feminism is so irrelevant I don't know why people are still discussing it with you.
It's really fucking simple, do you support gays having equal right or do you not? All this dancing around the real issue is stupid. If you think gays shouldn't have all the privileges you as a straight male do just be a man and say it. No need for mental gymnastics to avoid admitting you're bigoted against gay people.
Do you believe in democracy? If the majority of Uganda signs the idea into law, will you still complain? After all, it was democratically decided for. If you think it's gone way off course, you've read half of the last page. I covered both the content and the ad hominems of "homophobia and fear" directed at myself. Others kept driving those points, and I responded solely to those, as they ignored my OT points.
You know that simply because a majority of people vote in something that does not make it right... The supreme court has overturned many laws in our country. Simply because their country is being occupied by more biggoted people than not doesn't make it correct.
That is absolutely correct. The beliefs of the majority arent necessarily infallible, and NEITHER are the beliefs of minorities. I had all this crap told to me in "human development" during the "let's celebrate diversity and acceptance of different values and beliefs!" song and dance, but really, the native american was subsumed by the cultural values of europeans. Instead of waiting for them to be late to bus stops, they forced buses to leave on time, thus forcing the cultural value of time out of the native american. This is clear supression and dissolvement of another culture's beliefs, and why? Because it was more profitable and useful to have them on time. You should read the book "http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Language-Edward-T-Hall/dp/0385055498"
I have this book. here's the reality. Any cultures that have differing values MUST give up quite a few of those cultural DIVERSITIES to fit into american life. Imagine if everyone stayed true to their own immigrant culture's home country values. Nothing would get done. People would be late, early, and fighting constantly. I mean, we already see this kind of fighting on construction sites as normal. But imagine, that the baseline of this simple cultural concept, Time, is actually derived from European sense, and will continue to be so, as it was the dominant culture, and the spectre of that culture is forever going to hold a grasp on many of the values we take for granted, that other people must internalize in order to survive in america.
There was also a pretty bullshit part that tried to analogize diversity to a symphony, with all the different instruments playing a part and making "beautiful music". Well, when you play a single instrument, it only works with one note at a time unless it's a stringed instrument, and not a double bass or bass guitar. Those instruments are such low frequency as to have their sound clarity muddied and lost, leading to unpleasant noise, if the other strings aren't Silenced when plucking another one. The analogy is pretty crap due to the fact that you must suppress strings on certain instruments for them to make conchordant noise, and other instruments must be allowed to ring multiple strings freely.
By the way, your moral views, and your beliefs, those are coming from a majority view. Otherwise you'd be in a minority and crying about being oppressed. How do you know your beliefs are correct? Just because many people believe like you?
On November 29 2012 14:03 Klondikebar wrote: ARighttomorals has taken it to PM's apparently:
you dont have anything that's based on facts. you just keep spewing party lines mindlessly out of your mouth without having done any critical thinking at ALL on the subject. I can tell when a person has done that. Your poor arguments and lack of understanding what you yourself are saying tells me.
This is when you know someone is desperately clinging to a losing argument. They can no longer face public scrutiny. They have to bully people out of the public eye and hope they shut up.
Not at all. You look like a fool going "Waaahh... See what he said to me everyone?!". Pandering is the tool of tools.