<!--quoteo(post=1747135:date=Jan 13 2010, 08:56 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 13 2010, 08:56 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747135"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]This relationship, and the benefits within, are the same regardless of the sex/gender/sexual orientation of the 2 people involved.
Question Answered.
Next?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human nature exists and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to fit human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for the man who plays the part of a woman. There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.
<!--quoteo(post=1747147:date=Jan 13 2010, 04:43 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 04:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747147"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Human nature exists and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to fit human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for the man who plays the part of a woman. There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homophobia does not seem to be a rooted condition, given the outspokenness against it in recent times. The times, they are a-changing. The argument that "our ancestors always believed this so we shouldn't change it" was applied to the geocentric worldview as well, and it landed several of heliocentrism's proponents in hot water. As Dr. Horrible would say, the status is not quo.
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
<!--quoteo(post=1747147:date=Jan 13 2010, 03:43 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 03:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747147"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Human nature exists and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to fit human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for the man who plays the part of a woman. There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every society in history has endorsed slavery at some level. Every single one.
We got rid of it because it's wrong. Would you argue that we were wrong to do so, based on the fact that everyone in the past did?
Your argument lacks any real power, anyway. Granting the same legal rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples doesn't do anything except make people equal. What negativity could come of it? Seriously?
Homosexual people exist. They have always existed. Some societies have embraced it to a greater or lesser extent, but they've always been there, and as of recently they've become a vocal minority who are asking for rights.
If, as you say, homophobia was a "built-in" condition to protect us against... I dunno, what would it be protecting against? Anyway, even if it was, then it's not doing a particularly good job. There are homosexual people everywhere and we all know it. Granting them the same rights as straight people with regards to marriage wouldn't do anything to that.
**EDIT**
Oh, and you <b>are</b> changing your argument. You've changed it each time it gets beat. Your first post was about how homosexual marriage is against god's plan. That was smashed down. You changed it to "christians not wanting anyone else to go against god's word" (a subtlely different argument). That was smashed down. You changed it to the old and annoying "slippery slope" argument and got smacked down on that, too. Then you moved to the "man-woman marriage is tradition and we can't change it" argument. And then that got lightly tapped before you "strengthed" it by making the current argument of "everyone in the past did it so we should too." Which lolf and I have at least started to attack, but I'm tired so I probably didn't do a good job of it, but I'm sure someone else will come in and smash it down better as well.
Judging by the progression of your arguments I assume that some point in the future you're going to bring out the "the roman/greek empire supported homosexuals and the empire fell" argument or whatever. Which I'll then proceed to smash.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1747147:date=Jan 13 2010, 11:43 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747147"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Human nature exists and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to fit human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for the man who plays the part of a woman. There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry, but your facts just aren't correct.
MANY ancient civilizations accepted, or even revered same sex love. Check out histories of the Americas and East Asia.
<!--quoteo(post=1747159:date=Jan 13 2010, 05:12 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 13 2010, 05:12 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747159"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry, but your facts just aren't correct.
MANY ancient civilizations accepted, or even revered same sex love. Check out histories of the Americas and East Asia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, could you name an example or two? Not that I doubt you can, just point them out so we can narrow it down some before we go looking. Telling your opposition to go find the facts to back YOUR arguments up is seldom a good idea.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
Some random ones that I can remember off the top of my head:
Berdache. A catchall term used to describe LGBT individuals in Native American society (the word isn't American). These people were generally held in high esteem, and would have specific rolls in the tribe (varying depending on tribe).
Japan also never really had a stigmatization against homosexuality. It shows up in their art every so often.
There is one important question to ask: <b>What if everyone did it?</b>
If everyone married a person of the same sex, our nation would die. We need reproducing couples for our society to continue. We must have traditional families.
If government cannot allow everyone to do it, it cannot allow anyone to do it. It can’t tell these people they can marry whomever they please, but those people have to marry a member of the opposite sex. Why not? Why because we’ve already declared (if we have SSM) that everyone has a right to marry whomever they please.
“But we limit things all the time.†Yes, but that is given limited resources – e.g., there can only be so many radio stations on the dial – which doesn’t apply here. And, again, we’ve already established that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please.
“But everyone doesn’t want to marry a member of the same sex.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone wants to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that this is a bad thing.
It would be different if we were talking about something that had always existed, but we’re not; we’re talking about something government is essentially creating. It should not create something that is obviously not good for our society.
Everyone can’t marry their own sex. Everyone can’t marry a dolphin. Everyone can’t marry their brother.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
So, the new argument is: "If we legalize ###### marriage, every one will be ######"?
No.
Just No.
And on top of that: If every one some how did magically become ###### (I'm starting to think that Depot DOES believe in the Homosexual Agenda), having ###### marriage banned isn't going to magically make everyone decide to procreate, despite having no attraction to the opposite sex.
Please, at least try to have SOME degree of rationality to your arguments.
I also don't feel like switching all instances of ###### to homosexual, so people get to deal with me being censored :)
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1747180:date=Jan 13 2010, 06:49 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 06:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is one important question to ask: <b>What if everyone did it?</b>
If everyone married a person of the same sex, our nation would die. We need reproducing couples for our society to continue. We must have traditional families.
If government cannot allow everyone to do it, it cannot allow anyone to do it. It can’t tell these people they can marry whomever they please, but those people have to marry a member of the opposite sex. Why not? Why because we’ve already declared (if we have SSM) that everyone has a right to marry whomever they please.
“But we limit things all the time.†Yes, but that is given limited resources – e.g., there can only be so many radio stations on the dial – which doesn’t apply here. And, again, we’ve already established that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please.
“But everyone doesn’t want to marry a member of the same sex.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone wants to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that this is a bad thing.
It would be different if we were talking about something that had always existed, but we’re not; we’re talking about something government is essentially creating. It should not create something that is obviously not good for our society.
Everyone can’t marry their own sex. Everyone can’t marry a dolphin. Everyone can’t marry their brother.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We already allow people to be homosexual, and not everyone is homosexual. I fail to see how marriage would change that. It's a rather bizarre argument, if we're accepting "bizarre" as a synonym for "astoundingly stupid".
And if your argument for marriage is that it's for reproduction only and we can't allow samesex marriage becase, I guess you'd better set out banning marriage for:
Infertile men / women Women over a certain age Men who have had vasectomies Women who have had hysterectomies Couples who just don't want children
Or else you're a raging hypocrite.
And ffs stop using the argument that same-sex marriage is equatable to marrying an animal. That's such a profoundly stupid thing to say I actually have a throbbing pain in my head, right behind my right eye.
Not to mention that procreation without marriage is perfectly possible as well.
Your argument can be applied to disability benefits just as well: <b>What if everyone was disabled?</b> Everybody would get disability benefits, which would be an insurmountable drain on the economy. Furthermore, nobody would work if they were disabled enough to live off the benefits (or simply too disabled to work), further weakening an already crippled economy.
“But everyone doesn’t receive disability benefits.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone does to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that disability benefits are a bad thing.
It would be different if we were talking about something that had always existed, but we’re not; we’re talking about something government is essentially creating. It should not create something that is obviously not good for our society. We should return to the old days where people with disabilities were reduced to begging for coin and food in the streets. If it was good enough for our forefathers, it is good enough for us.
<!--quoteo(post=1747114:date=Jan 13 2010, 12:14 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jan 13 2010, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747114"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->An animal can't give consent to marriage, so that's the retarded "marrying an animal" argument out of the way.
I'm pretty sure that the "marrying a football team" part would present some major challenges in practice. What exactly are you proposing? That one person marries the entire football team, or what each member of the football team marries the other? I'm not entirely sure how the legal status of that would work out. How would the tax benefits work, how would divorce work, what would count as adultery? Either way it's a retarded, stupid argument. It's like saying "if we allow christianity to exist, on what grounds can we deny people the right to sacrifice their congregation to the dark gods?"
That aside I don't see a problem with what consenting adults do, related or not. Please note the term "consenting".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ideally the legal part of marriage should be expandable to encompass any number of people. As I said before if the legal part is just people working collectively and sharing the rewards then it can work with as many people as you can get to work together.
<!--quoteo(post=1747184:date=Jan 13 2010, 07:02 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 13 2010, 07:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, the new argument is: "If we legalize ###### marriage, every one will be ######"?
No.
Just No.
And on top of that: If every one some how did magically become ###### (I'm starting to think that Depot DOES believe in the Homosexual Agenda), having ###### marriage banned isn't going to magically make everyone decide to procreate, despite having no attraction to the opposite sex.
Please, at least try to have SOME degree of rationality to your arguments.
I also don't feel like switching all instances of ###### to homosexual, so people get to deal with me being censored :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that it would be a bad thing if everyone was omnisexual, global omnisexuality would certainly remove the homosexual/heterosexual/asexual/pansexual problem because everyone would be capable of being attracted/attractive to everyone else, and that'd be a lot of fun anyway.
Besides this is again what genetics is for, even if everyone went purely homosexual I'm sure the imminent destruction of the species would incite people to organise some sort of exchange program where altruisitic women agree to have children for anyone who wants one, same way some homosexual couples currently procreate.
It's not very religious but I think it's a marvellous thing when you can find someone willing to help two people who want a child to have one by carrying the baby.
Certainly all the women in the world would still be fine because you can quite easily make artificially fertilised embryos from two female donors, you'd just end up with a planet of the amazons after a while because all the men would die off, again that's pretty rock and roll if you ask me.
<!--quoteo(post=1747146:date=Jan 13 2010, 04:39 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 04:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747146"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm changing nothing, simply offering additional perspectives.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're moving the goalposts... oddly. The reason it couldn't be redefined to include marriage to horses is because horses are not the same species, whereas Homo sapiens <i>are</i>. Your attempt at slippery slope implies that homosexuals aren't human, which is awful.
<!--quoteo(post=1747180:date=Jan 13 2010, 07:49 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 07:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is one important question to ask: <b>What if everyone did it?</b>
If everyone married a person of the same sex, our nation would die.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well technically all the ###### people "wouldn't reproduce" and thus would be "filtered" from your Aryan future. Of course that's not true because LGBTQ people frequently donate to sperm banks or do in-vitro fertilisation. There's also adoption of kids, too. Also in a fully accepting society bisexuality would also become more prevalent and reproduction would still occur.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1747180:date=Jan 13 2010, 06:49 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 06:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->“But everyone doesn’t want to marry a member of the same sex.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone wants to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that this is a bad thing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is theoretically legal for every single free citizen of the United Kingdom to visit the High Wycombe branch of Morrisons at exactly 3pm this Saturday, and I'm sure that would be a pretty unpleasant event. But to argue that because of this implausible, hypothetical event, access to the High Wycombe branch of Morrisons should be permanently restricted would be bizarre and, frankly, rather pathetic. The same is true of your argument.
Strangely you acknowledge this, but dismiss it as irrelevant. On what grounds? The only reason you seem to consider it irrelevant is because you know it demolishes your argument. It is very simple: legally recognised ###### marriage <i>will not</i> lead to every citizen marrying someone of their own gender. Your preoccupation with a fantasy world where everyone does should have no bearing on any decision over the granting of equal rights.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, could you name an example or two? Not that I doubt you can, just point them out so we can narrow it down some before we go looking. Telling your opposition to go find the facts to back YOUR arguments up is seldom a good idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Male-male sexual relationships were quite important to a number of ancient Greek societies. To take an example from the Iliad, Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship was generally accepted by the Greeks to have been a sexual one. Their being lovers would certainly account for the extent of Achilles' grief after Patroclus' death, and his subsequent actions.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
I think it stands for "queer", which is often used as a catch-all term for people who define their sexuality as something other than "straightfoward" heterosexuality.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited January 2010
I think anyone who has payed any attention over the years should recognise that certain people are attached to a narrative and use poorly thought out reasoning to support their position. Ethics and reasoning DO NOT factor into the discussion.
This quote from House sums it up perfectly - "If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people".
Examples are taken in isolation to support a specific interpretation of a singular value in the bible or whatever.
For example, in this discussion Depot argues that since homophobia has always been around we should accept it as part of human nature. This ignores the fact that homosexuality has always been around too.
The reality is that we have developed advanced systems of ethics and reasoning to allow us to resolve our hierarchy of values. A person's right to freedom is not absolute and we collectively empower our government to restrict certain freedoms, however, history will always judge a society by how it abuses its minorities with these powers.
Just as slavery has been around forever, and is sanctioned in the bible ( with even detail given to rules of how it should be applied etc ), a large majority look back at the leaders of the emancipation movement with great admiration. I think equality of sexuality is just another chapter in the long and noble history of enlightened people trying to extend fair and reasonable rights to all.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1747273:date=Jan 14 2010, 08:05 AM:name=Insane)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Insane @ Jan 14 2010, 08:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747273"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think it stands for "queer", which is often used as a catch-all term for people who define their sexuality as something other than "straightfoward" heterosexuality.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Google said Queer or Questioning. Questioning works for me (especially as I'm used to it being Unsure), Queer seems redundant as it is generally a catchall for LGB (which is already in the acronym).
as for puzl: I agree, it is part of why I never bothered arguing with "my faith says so", and instead focused on the fact that our nation says that faith is cool, but you aren't allowed to force it on other people, nor are other people allowed to impinge upon your faith.
I actually have no problem with people who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on faith. I do have problems with people who refuse to offer others the same respect, which is part of why I like our constitution/bill of rights so much.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1747287:date=Jan 14 2010, 01:15 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 14 2010, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747287"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Google said Queer or Questioning. Questioning works for me (especially as I'm used to it being Unsure), Queer seems redundant as it is generally a catchall for LGB (which is already in the acronym).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While it includes LGBT, it's not exclusively limited to it. But at any rate, go with what works for you; it's not overly relevant to the discussion.
<!--quoteo(post=1746917:date=Jan 12 2010, 09:23 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 12 2010, 09:23 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1746917"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Agreed, the bible is interpreted differently by different religions and it's true God didn't write it, but he is quoted frequently in it.
There's not much more I can say here, other than I will pray for those in favor of homosexual marriage and anyone else here who is "lost".
God bless you all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know God did make them that way, so I shall say a prayer for your double standards.
<!--quoteo(post=1747320:date=Jan 14 2010, 06:50 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 14 2010, 06:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747320"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know God did make them that way, so I shall say a prayer for your double standards.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, Satan made them that way!
God just... is happy to do absolutely nothing about how overpowered Satan is.
<!--quoteo(post=1747320:date=Jan 14 2010, 01:50 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thaldarin @ Jan 14 2010, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747320"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know God did make them that way, so I shall say a prayer for your double standards.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're confused. God didn't make them that way, he <b>allowed</b> them to be created in such a manner. Big difference.
Forgive me if I'm wrong Depot but didn't God create man? God didn't allow man to be created?
And just to throw in a two cents, ripping from a BBC article on another website which shows different perspectives, views and opinions on what has been perceived as homosexual in the bible. Number 2 pretty much caught my eye,
<a href="http://purplepew.org/god-matters/truth-matters/what-does-the-bible-actually-say-about-being-######" target="_blank">http://purplepew.org/god-matters/truth-mat...about-being-######</a> - replace the ### with the "g, a, y" word and it's done. Silly forum.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. On the story of Sodom. (Genesis 19:4-5)
Geneva Bible (1560): "But before they went to bed, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom compassed the house round about from the young even to the old, all the people from all quarters. Who crying unto Lot said to him, Where are the men, which came to thee this night? bring them out unto us that we may know them."
King James Bible (1611): "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, here are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
New English Bible*: "They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we might have intercourse with them.'"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You could have tinyurl-ed that link to prevent the linking issue. That story of Lot states that he then offers the people of Sodom his daughters to rape, instead, but they decline because they are women. The next day God turns the village of Sodom to a pillar of salt. Because Lot tried to save the angels who were staying at his house through the bargaining of his daughters, he is saved from this judgement.
It seems God's become a bit more fond of ###### people these days.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
The story of Lot isn't really a good "homosexuals are bad" story. It is more a "######s are bad" story. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are generally listed as pride, gluttony, and being rude buggers to strangers. The fact that they were homosexual is never actually listed. There is also the fact that the passages say that EVERYONE comes out to bugger the angels, this includes females.
There are much better passages for why god hates homosexuals, a number of them basically come down to "And god said, if a man lays with another man, stone em both". There are minor differences in translations in parts, but there are a number of "kill homosexuals, they are bad" that are rather damn clear. Some of them are fun and really seem to translate into "Effeminate men", which means that thaldy should also be stoned for the amount of time he spends on hair products.
<!--quoteo(post=1747660:date=Jan 17 2010, 11:46 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 17 2010, 11:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747660"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->which means that thaldy should also be stoned for the amount of time he spends on hair products.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is true. Although, rather than stoning, I'd prefer bouldering.
Comments
Question Answered.
Next?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human nature exists and has fixed characteristics. We are not infinitely malleable. Human society and human institutions need to fit human nature, or at least not go too brazenly against it. Homophobia seems to be a rooted condition in us. It has been present always and everywhere, if only minimally (and unfairly — there has always been a double standard here) in disdain for the man who plays the part of a woman. There has never, anywhere, at any level of civilization, been a society that approved egalitarian (i.e. same age, same status) homosexual bonding. This tells us something about human nature — something it might be wisest (and would certainly be conservative-est) to leave alone.
Homophobia does not seem to be a rooted condition, given the outspokenness against it in recent times. The times, they are a-changing. The argument that "our ancestors always believed this so we shouldn't change it" was applied to the geocentric worldview as well, and it landed several of heliocentrism's proponents in hot water. As Dr. Horrible would say, the status is not quo.
Every society in history has endorsed slavery at some level. Every single one.
We got rid of it because it's wrong. Would you argue that we were wrong to do so, based on the fact that everyone in the past did?
Your argument lacks any real power, anyway. Granting the same legal rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples doesn't do anything except make people equal. What negativity could come of it? Seriously?
Homosexual people exist. They have always existed. Some societies have embraced it to a greater or lesser extent, but they've always been there, and as of recently they've become a vocal minority who are asking for rights.
If, as you say, homophobia was a "built-in" condition to protect us against... I dunno, what would it be protecting against? Anyway, even if it was, then it's not doing a particularly good job. There are homosexual people everywhere and we all know it. Granting them the same rights as straight people with regards to marriage wouldn't do anything to that.
**EDIT**
Oh, and you <b>are</b> changing your argument. You've changed it each time it gets beat. Your first post was about how homosexual marriage is against god's plan. That was smashed down. You changed it to "christians not wanting anyone else to go against god's word" (a subtlely different argument). That was smashed down. You changed it to the old and annoying "slippery slope" argument and got smacked down on that, too. Then you moved to the "man-woman marriage is tradition and we can't change it" argument. And then that got lightly tapped before you "strengthed" it by making the current argument of "everyone in the past did it so we should too." Which lolf and I have at least started to attack, but I'm tired so I probably didn't do a good job of it, but I'm sure someone else will come in and smash it down better as well.
Judging by the progression of your arguments I assume that some point in the future you're going to bring out the "the roman/greek empire supported homosexuals and the empire fell" argument or whatever. Which I'll then proceed to smash.
Sorry, but your facts just aren't correct.
MANY ancient civilizations accepted, or even revered same sex love. Check out histories of the Americas and East Asia.
MANY ancient civilizations accepted, or even revered same sex love. Check out histories of the Americas and East Asia.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, could you name an example or two? Not that I doubt you can, just point them out so we can narrow it down some before we go looking. Telling your opposition to go find the facts to back YOUR arguments up is seldom a good idea.
Berdache. A catchall term used to describe LGBT individuals in Native American society (the word isn't American). These people were generally held in high esteem, and would have specific rolls in the tribe (varying depending on tribe).
Japan also never really had a stigmatization against homosexuality. It shows up in their art every so often.
If everyone married a person of the same sex, our nation would die. We need reproducing couples for our society to continue. We must have traditional families.
If government cannot allow everyone to do it, it cannot allow anyone to do it. It can’t tell these people they can marry whomever they please, but those people have to marry a member of the opposite sex. Why not? Why because we’ve already declared (if we have SSM) that everyone has a right to marry whomever they please.
“But we limit things all the time.†Yes, but that is given limited resources – e.g., there can only be so many radio stations on the dial – which doesn’t apply here. And, again, we’ve already established that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please.
“But everyone doesn’t want to marry a member of the same sex.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone wants to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that this is a bad thing.
It would be different if we were talking about something that had always existed, but we’re not; we’re talking about something government is essentially creating. It should not create something that is obviously not good for our society.
Everyone can’t marry their own sex. Everyone can’t marry a dolphin. Everyone can’t marry their brother.
"If we legalize ###### marriage, every one will be ######"?
No.
Just No.
And on top of that:
If every one some how did magically become ###### (I'm starting to think that Depot DOES believe in the Homosexual Agenda), having ###### marriage banned isn't going to magically make everyone decide to procreate, despite having no attraction to the opposite sex.
Please, at least try to have SOME degree of rationality to your arguments.
I also don't feel like switching all instances of ###### to homosexual, so people get to deal with me being censored :)
If everyone married a person of the same sex, our nation would die. We need reproducing couples for our society to continue. We must have traditional families.
If government cannot allow everyone to do it, it cannot allow anyone to do it. It can’t tell these people they can marry whomever they please, but those people have to marry a member of the opposite sex. Why not? Why because we’ve already declared (if we have SSM) that everyone has a right to marry whomever they please.
“But we limit things all the time.†Yes, but that is given limited resources – e.g., there can only be so many radio stations on the dial – which doesn’t apply here. And, again, we’ve already established that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please.
“But everyone doesn’t want to marry a member of the same sex.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone wants to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that this is a bad thing.
It would be different if we were talking about something that had always existed, but we’re not; we’re talking about something government is essentially creating. It should not create something that is obviously not good for our society.
Everyone can’t marry their own sex. Everyone can’t marry a dolphin. Everyone can’t marry their brother.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We already allow people to be homosexual, and not everyone is homosexual. I fail to see how marriage would change that. It's a rather bizarre argument, if we're accepting "bizarre" as a synonym for "astoundingly stupid".
And if your argument for marriage is that it's for reproduction only and we can't allow samesex marriage becase, I guess you'd better set out banning marriage for:
Infertile men / women
Women over a certain age
Men who have had vasectomies
Women who have had hysterectomies
Couples who just don't want children
Or else you're a raging hypocrite.
And ffs stop using the argument that same-sex marriage is equatable to marrying an animal. That's such a profoundly stupid thing to say I actually have a throbbing pain in my head, right behind my right eye.
Your argument can be applied to disability benefits just as well: <b>What if everyone was disabled?</b> Everybody would get disability benefits, which would be an insurmountable drain on the economy. Furthermore, nobody would work if they were disabled enough to live off the benefits (or simply too disabled to work), further weakening an already crippled economy.
“But everyone doesn’t receive disability benefits.†True but irrelevant. The question isn’t whether everyone does to but what if everyone did. That such a thing would be catastrophic shows that disability benefits are a bad thing.
It would be different if we were talking about something that had always existed, but we’re not; we’re talking about something government is essentially creating. It should not create something that is obviously not good for our society. We should return to the old days where people with disabilities were reduced to begging for coin and food in the streets. If it was good enough for our forefathers, it is good enough for us.
I'm pretty sure that the "marrying a football team" part would present some major challenges in practice. What exactly are you proposing? That one person marries the entire football team, or what each member of the football team marries the other? I'm not entirely sure how the legal status of that would work out. How would the tax benefits work, how would divorce work, what would count as adultery? Either way it's a retarded, stupid argument. It's like saying "if we allow christianity to exist, on what grounds can we deny people the right to sacrifice their congregation to the dark gods?"
That aside I don't see a problem with what consenting adults do, related or not. Please note the term "consenting".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ideally the legal part of marriage should be expandable to encompass any number of people. As I said before if the legal part is just people working collectively and sharing the rewards then it can work with as many people as you can get to work together.
<!--quoteo(post=1747184:date=Jan 13 2010, 07:02 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 13 2010, 07:02 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747184"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, the new argument is:
"If we legalize ###### marriage, every one will be ######"?
No.
Just No.
And on top of that:
If every one some how did magically become ###### (I'm starting to think that Depot DOES believe in the Homosexual Agenda), having ###### marriage banned isn't going to magically make everyone decide to procreate, despite having no attraction to the opposite sex.
Please, at least try to have SOME degree of rationality to your arguments.
I also don't feel like switching all instances of ###### to homosexual, so people get to deal with me being censored :)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not that it would be a bad thing if everyone was omnisexual, global omnisexuality would certainly remove the homosexual/heterosexual/asexual/pansexual problem because everyone would be capable of being attracted/attractive to everyone else, and that'd be a lot of fun anyway.
Besides this is again what genetics is for, even if everyone went purely homosexual I'm sure the imminent destruction of the species would incite people to organise some sort of exchange program where altruisitic women agree to have children for anyone who wants one, same way some homosexual couples currently procreate.
It's not very religious but I think it's a marvellous thing when you can find someone willing to help two people who want a child to have one by carrying the baby.
Certainly all the women in the world would still be fine because you can quite easily make artificially fertilised embryos from two female donors, you'd just end up with a planet of the amazons after a while because all the men would die off, again that's pretty rock and roll if you ask me.
You're moving the goalposts... oddly. The reason it couldn't be redefined to include marriage to horses is because horses are not the same species, whereas Homo sapiens <i>are</i>. Your attempt at slippery slope implies that homosexuals aren't human, which is awful.
<!--quoteo(post=1747180:date=Jan 13 2010, 07:49 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Depot @ Jan 13 2010, 07:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747180"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is one important question to ask: <b>What if everyone did it?</b>
If everyone married a person of the same sex, our nation would die.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well technically all the ###### people "wouldn't reproduce" and thus would be "filtered" from your Aryan future. Of course that's not true because LGBTQ people frequently donate to sperm banks or do in-vitro fertilisation. There's also adoption of kids, too. Also in a fully accepting society bisexuality would also become more prevalent and reproduction would still occur.
It is theoretically legal for every single free citizen of the United Kingdom to visit the High Wycombe branch of Morrisons at exactly 3pm this Saturday, and I'm sure that would be a pretty unpleasant event. But to argue that because of this implausible, hypothetical event, access to the High Wycombe branch of Morrisons should be permanently restricted would be bizarre and, frankly, rather pathetic. The same is true of your argument.
Strangely you acknowledge this, but dismiss it as irrelevant. On what grounds? The only reason you seem to consider it irrelevant is because you know it demolishes your argument. It is very simple: legally recognised ###### marriage <i>will not</i> lead to every citizen marrying someone of their own gender. Your preoccupation with a fantasy world where everyone does should have no bearing on any decision over the granting of equal rights.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Actually, could you name an example or two? Not that I doubt you can, just point them out so we can narrow it down some before we go looking. Telling your opposition to go find the facts to back YOUR arguments up is seldom a good idea.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Male-male sexual relationships were quite important to a number of ancient Greek societies. To take an example from the Iliad, Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship was generally accepted by the Greeks to have been a sexual one. Their being lovers would certainly account for the extent of Achilles' grief after Patroclus' death, and his subsequent actions.
Q?
I know of ending it with U for unsure...
This quote from House sums it up perfectly - "If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people".
Examples are taken in isolation to support a specific interpretation of a singular value in the bible or whatever.
For example, in this discussion Depot argues that since homophobia has always been around we should accept it as part of human nature. This ignores the fact that homosexuality has always been around too.
The reality is that we have developed advanced systems of ethics and reasoning to allow us to resolve our hierarchy of values. A person's right to freedom is not absolute and we collectively empower our government to restrict certain freedoms, however, history will always judge a society by how it abuses its minorities with these powers.
Just as slavery has been around forever, and is sanctioned in the bible ( with even detail given to rules of how it should be applied etc ), a large majority look back at the leaders of the emancipation movement with great admiration. I think equality of sexuality is just another chapter in the long and noble history of enlightened people trying to extend fair and reasonable rights to all.
Google said Queer or Questioning. Questioning works for me (especially as I'm used to it being Unsure), Queer seems redundant as it is generally a catchall for LGB (which is already in the acronym).
as for puzl:
I agree, it is part of why I never bothered arguing with "my faith says so", and instead focused on the fact that our nation says that faith is cool, but you aren't allowed to force it on other people, nor are other people allowed to impinge upon your faith.
I actually have no problem with people who believe that homosexuality is wrong based on faith. I do have problems with people who refuse to offer others the same respect, which is part of why I like our constitution/bill of rights so much.
While it includes LGBT, it's not exclusively limited to it. But at any rate, go with what works for you; it's not overly relevant to the discussion.
There's not much more I can say here, other than I will pray for those in favor of homosexual marriage and anyone else here who is "lost".
God bless you all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know God did make them that way, so I shall say a prayer for your double standards.
No, Satan made them that way!
God just... is happy to do absolutely nothing about how overpowered Satan is.
You're confused. God didn't make them that way, he <b>allowed</b> them to be created in such a manner. Big difference.
And just to throw in a two cents, ripping from a BBC article on another website which shows different perspectives, views and opinions on what has been perceived as homosexual in the bible. Number 2 pretty much caught my eye,
<a href="http://purplepew.org/god-matters/truth-matters/what-does-the-bible-actually-say-about-being-######" target="_blank">http://purplepew.org/god-matters/truth-mat...about-being-######</a> - replace the ### with the "g, a, y" word and it's done. Silly forum.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->2. On the story of Sodom. (Genesis 19:4-5)
Geneva Bible (1560): "But before they went to bed, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom compassed the house round about from the young even to the old, all the people from all quarters. Who crying unto Lot said to him, Where are the men, which came to thee this night? bring them out unto us that we may know them."
King James Bible (1611): "But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, here are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
New English Bible*: "They called to Lot and asked him where the men were who had entered his house that night. 'Bring them out,' they shouted, 'so that we might have intercourse with them.'"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems God's become a bit more fond of ###### people these days.
There are much better passages for why god hates homosexuals, a number of them basically come down to "And god said, if a man lays with another man, stone em both". There are minor differences in translations in parts, but there are a number of "kill homosexuals, they are bad" that are rather damn clear. Some of them are fun and really seem to translate into "Effeminate men", which means that thaldy should also be stoned for the amount of time he spends on hair products.
This is true. Although, rather than stoning, I'd prefer bouldering.