|
Click Here to Login | ||||||
| Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
03-07-2002, 03:55 PM
|
#141 | |
|
ONE
love, blood, life 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,789
Local Time: 09:20 PM
|
Quote:
Also, if you think that comparing homosexuals to "bestiality" isn't considered a slur, then you really need a reality check. That ranks high on the offensive scale to homosexuals, not so different than using the "N" word with black people. Melon ------------------ "He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time |
|
|
|
03-07-2002, 04:03 PM
|
#142 | ||||||
|
you are what you is
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,070
Local Time: 03:20 AM
|
Quote:
I can't say I totally get what you're trying to say with this, but I guess I agree Quote:
 Quote:
I don't see how I actually insulted anybody though, but I guess I'll find out when I'll read the rest of your post Quote:
if anyone else but Melon was involved in this thread you would have quit a long time ago don't get me wrong, same goes for Melon but I don't think personal dislike is a healthy basis for a debate Quote:
even if you think I did Quote:
------------------ Salome Shake it, shake it, shake it [This message has been edited by Salome (edited 03-07-2002).] |
||||||
|
|
|
03-07-2002, 04:30 PM
|
#143 | ||
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
Melon:
Once again, you've said that the Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted. BUT, you also suggest that if you look at the very same sources (and take verses out of context AND use the most obscure translations), you'll find that they condone homosexuality and therefore - Praise the Lord! - homosexuality's okay. Pray tell, what part of the Catholic Bible suggests that you can disregard the Old Testament and Matthew UNLESS you find something you agree with? And tell me, what genetics textbook says you can't assert two completely inconsistent theorems as long as both are contrary to an idea you oppose? What "contextual knowledge" allows you to be that manipulative and dishonest? Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality: Quote:
Quote:
Now, if you care to stop taking my comments out of context, I'm finished with this discussion. [This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).] |
||
|
|
|
03-07-2002, 05:21 PM
|
#144 | ||||||
|
ONE
love, blood, life
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,789
Local Time: 09:20 PM
|
Quote:
The Old Testament and Matthew are not to be trusted blindly. If you know contextual knowledge, then it should be no problem. Unfortunately, despite your very noble "eggshell" analogy, you seem to take the Bible very black-and-white. That is, all or none. I take the Bible on the basis of which group wrote it and the meaning between the lines. I'm trying not to eat the eggshells essentially, while still enjoying the meal. You call it "picking and choosing." I call it, not to mention the world of literature, as "critical reading." Learn it sometime. Next, I already stated many arguments back that the pro-gay texts were theory. If you don't remember, go back in the behemoth we call this thread and look it up. I think you are grown up enough to find it, without me quoting it again. And, yet, you bring it up again. The Bible says nothing at all about modern homosexuality. Period. And, yet, when Jesus condemns divorce, one of the few things He explicitly condemns, leave it to poorly translated Protestant Bibles to create an exception that shouldn't be there. I just love all the divorces these "good Christian people" have. I get a good laugh when I hear of their marriages are collapsing. Oh boo hoo. When St. Paul puts celibacy at the level of perfection, while putting marriage for the "weak," how come there aren't any movements for celibacy within "good Christian" circles? In fact, it is the opposite: if you don't get married, there must be something wrong with you. Yet, they throw boulders at homosexuals for not conforming to unrealistic ideals of "perfection" from asininely obscure passages in the Bible and bringing up subjective ideas of "it disgusts me" as to why they hate it. My favorite line, though, had to be from the homophobic minister's son on MTV's "Real World": "I know it is wrong and all, but there's just something about two women kissing that makes it so hot," in referring to the lesbian on the show, yet he also goes on in other parts of the show about how gross he thinks the gay guy is. Nice. Quote:
The Catholic Bible contains footnotes on context with verses, along with introductions to all the books. These same footnotes and introductions, if you read them, would state that the Mosaic Law was thrown out for "love one another," according to St. Paul, and that Matthew was written by conflicting Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian authors. Since I am adamantly against Jewish Christian beliefs, not to mention St. Paul's attempts at "theology," I am not going to believe them. A trained critical reader will be able to pick out which ones are written by whom, a talent I acquired over 13 years of Catholic education. Not to mention that you are arguing with someone who is wholly against fundamentalism, as reaffirmed by the Catholic Church in 1987, which is my religion, whether you agree with it or not. "Critical reading" is not only encouraged. It is required. Quote:
1) That science cannot even pinpoint the genetic origins of heterosexuality, let alone homosexuality. A nice gaping wide hole for those who insist that it cannot be genetic. 2) That the simple dominant-recessive genetics proposed by Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and what you implicitly cited, has lots of exceptions. For simplicity sake, they don't teach you this in high school. I was stating that your argument against homosexuality on genetic bases doesn't float, citing the glaring errors in your logic. Try again. Quote:
Grow up. I'm going to argue as deep as I am able, and if you cannot handle it, it is your problem, and no one is commanding you to agree with everything I've written. Quote:
Homosexuality has as much in common with bestiality as heterosexuality does. Oh and if you are wondering what I mean by "Christian," it refers to people or groups who call themselves Christian, but, to me, they are anything but. I'm not calling you that, but if you wish to take this out of context and lump yourself in that category, be my guest. I've been implicitly called "anti-Christian" enough by you, just because I don't agree with you, that it certainly could be appropriate. Quote:
Melon ------------------ "He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time |
||||||
|
|
|
03-07-2002, 05:52 PM
|
#145 |
|
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,415
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
*peeks cautiously into the thread*
ummm, so 4 pages and 144 posts later, did we come up with a general conclusion as to if America is more accepting of gay men than gay women? |
|
|
|
03-07-2002, 07:06 PM
|
#146 |
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:20 AM
|
AchtungBubba;
I am sorry if you felt that I aimed the homophobe comment at you, but if you actually read the structure of it, I addressed homphobes and not you in person. When I did address you in person I asked you a direct question, though I am ready to admit that the questioning and the rant was invariably mixed, and I apologized for that - I admit that I am too personal when it comes to this. I am ready to criticise others for their prejuduices, without the ability to identify my own prejeduices. However, I am baffled. How can you say that you love everyone? (You said that you treat and respect your bisexual and gay friends normally, and you echoed Diamond's very nice sentiments about loving everyone) Its a very nice thought, I admit, but do you love your enemy? WHen was the last time either of you, or indeed any of US ever turned the other cheek for the other to strike? When did you ever NOT support the bombing of Afghanistan and the war on Terrorism; don't you love Osama bin Laden? How can you possibly make sweeping comments like saying that you love everybody. I'm sorry, but if you honestly believe that then I believe you are not being honest with yourself. And I find it even more baffling to understand you when you say that you RESPECT and LOVE (you may not have said love, but you certainly said respect, the love thing was again.. an echo of Diamond's post) your gay friends when you think them to be immoral. Its like saying, 'I respect you and like you, even though I think you will and should burn in hell for all eternity for violating God's law'. You think them to be immoral, so how much do you respect and love immoral people? Again, see the above question, how much respect and love do you have for Osama bin Laden, who no doubt according to God's law should burn in hell for all eternity for his crimes. I am not saying that you are intolerant, I am calling you HUMAN. I can't say that I love everyone. 'Love your neighbour' it is always said; I HATE my neighbours and I hope their stupid dogs die soon before they wear my ears off. Given that, I certainly don't see how you can truly and properly respect and love people when you think them to be immoral to the core, as anyone else would. And when I make this deduction I aim the question towards you Diamond, as well, who was responsible for the 'loving everyone' comment. I don't believe anyone loves everybody, and I don't think either of you two do. So, as an honest question, how can you love and respect your gay friends while thinking them to be immoral? How? And as for your 'ganging up on AchtungBubba' comment, Diamond; I am very much taken aback. This is not dockside bullying, its a forum where people stand up for what they believe in, if no one else chose to support AchtungBubba its because they didn't share his views, not because the world has decided to gang up on him. And besides, if AchtungBubba and yourself are correct about your comments, then apparently he has God on his side and has therefore nothing to fear. And sulaswesigirl, I can not vouch for everyone, but I for one said it in my first post and continue to say it; we (the whole world as a global society) are NOT tolerant enough of either, gays or lesbians. Ant. [This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 03-07-2002).] |
|
|
|
03-08-2002, 12:17 AM
|
#147 | |||||||||||
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Not really a conflicting argument, but worth noting.) ... Quote:
"The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex." This was your original reply: Quote:
I said, IF is genetic, etc. I never asserted that it was genetically based (honestly, I don't know). Nor did I implicitly say anything about Gregor Mendel or his theories. I didn't make any such argument. There aren't any "glaring" logical errors to my argument because I DIDN'T MAKE ANY ARGUMENT. If you can find proof that I actually assert that homosexuality is based on genetics, PROVIDE THAT PROOF. ... Quote:
You say I said this: "Speaking of dishonest (and taking things out of context), THIS is what I said about bestiality: "I emphasized that homosexuality and bestiality were similar in that I believe both are inappropriate expression of sexual desire - and that was the only comparison I was trying to make. I also admitted they were significantly different, a fact you seem happy to ignore." But you ignored the paragraph I wrote BETWEEN those two: I compared the two only insofar as I believe both are outside of God's will for sexuality; if you noticed, I included wife-swapping in that list, and I implied that bestiality is worse than both in that it moves "even out of the realm of the same species." Didn't I just get finished telling you you take me out of context? And yet, you've done it again - conveniently excising the part in which I include heterosexual wife-swapping as a counterexample, AND INCLUDING the part where I criticize you for taking me out of context. Again, stop doing this, and I might just stop replying. Finally... Quote:
You are manipulative, and you are dishonest. Your arguments are not deep. They are riddled with inconsistencies, half-truths, hypocrisies, and lies. You repeatedly take your opponents out of context and tear down imaginary arguments they didn't even make. You repeatedly take the Bible out of context and change your mind on what can and cannot be cited. And you repeatedly ignore your own past comments if sticking by them proves to be inconvenient. Deep arguments? Hardly. [This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-07-2002).] |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
03-08-2002, 12:45 AM
|
#148 | |
|
War Child
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 698
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
Quote:
Gay men that act like Will from Will and Grace and are woman's "best friend" tend to be accepted more than lesbians with mullets or who are politically active, like Ellen Degeneres. A gay man that acts like a straight man in all mannerisms (and maybe even likes sports and doesnt talk with a lisp) but has sexual relations with a male and may even domesticate with one is not accepted more than a lesbian with long hair (not a mullet) and lipstick. A lipstick lesbian ala Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct is many American males fantasy concept. She may even make other straight woman feel a mild attraction. She is the most accepted face of any type of homosexual, be it male or female. You see, it is my opinion that the majoirity of us Americans love our stereotypes. We love to think we know how everyone acts and what kind of behavior we can expect from the people that we judge on the outside like a book on a day to day basis. We don't like it when things disrupt that. Gay gangsters, skaters, and hip hoppers just freak us out, as does the all american jock that watches football with his buddies but has a secret boyfriend. We dont want to think that those things exist because it upsets our concept of the reality. We dont like the mullet lesbian that watches Raiders games and has a kid and lover for 10 years. It threatens us. They dont look like we think they should, they dont live like we think they should. It's all about stereotypes and perception when it comes to who is accepted more or less. When it comes to acceptance, we are still light years behind. When a gay or lesbian couple cannot still adopt in Florida, when sodomy laws in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, and Oklahoma only target same sex couples, when two people who love each other cannot get the EXACT SAME legal contract as MARRIAGE(except in Vermont), there is still a long way from real acceptance. What we have right now is generalized acceptance. I see alot of changes in the younger generations(high school seniors), they seem to be more truly accepting, and maybe in 20-30 years when they are old enough to hold public offices and change laws, we will see some true acceptance in black and white, not just talk. Anyway, this is my long winded opinion on the original question (there is no easy answer), it is just that, my opinion with just a few facts a couple of paragraphs above. So, it may be strong, it may be biased, but it is after all, just an opinion. I aint even gonna touch the Melon/Bubba stuff, been there done that. It's like RECYCLE YOUR MIND, LOL! [This message has been edited by U2LA (edited 03-07-2002).] |
|
|
|
|
03-08-2002, 01:13 AM
|
#149 |
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
Anthony,
Thanks for your reply; I guess I took your comments out of context. Sorry about that. To be honest, I don't love everyone, though I know I should and I do try. You mention Osama bin Ladin, and I honestly don't know whether I hate him more or are just baffled by his hatred of us and his belief that he could attack us so brazenly without a military response. Either way, I probably do hate him, and that IS something that God and I need to work on. But the reason I've been in constant support of the war, even after the shock of 9/11 has begun to fade, is that I honestly think it's the smart, right thing to do: it's a matter of logic, not emotion. If we do not root out our enemies and deprive them of the opportunity, they will attack us again, with as much deadly force as they can muster, be it conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear. The enemy made one thing clear enough on 9/11: it's us or them. But, that's a politcal decision and VERY different from how I treat my friends. Here's a brief example of how I treat my friends: A couple years ago, one of my good friends lost her virginity, and this caused a HUGE rift between her and her mother (both Christians, her mother thought her a failure and disappointment for committing such a sin). She came to me, and I mentioned her that I thought that sex before marriage is wrong, but that it wouldn't affect our friendship - the morality of the subject was almost an afterthought, something barely mentioned: "I do think it's wrong, but that doesn't matter; I'll always be here for you." She REALLY needed friends then, people to remind her that she was loved regardless of what she did, and I would have been DEAD WRONG to not be her friend in a time of need. She has since gotten married to the same guy and patched things up with her mom, and rather than resent that "justice" wasn't done, I'm glad that her actions didn't lead to disaster. I suppose, what it comes down to is remembering that we're ALL sinners. Even Christians, who have been saved from their sin, aren't perfect in staying away from their old life of sin. I have anger issues, some friends gamble on sporting events, some (many, actually) have had sex before marriage, and a couple are homosexual. We're ALL guilty of something; I'm grateful my friends don't hold my faults against me, and I don't hold theirs against them. (And the ONLY reason this discussion kept going was because I felt like I had to defend my position; honestly, the immorality of homosexuality is not something that deeply influences my existence.) And in terms of fearing that some may not be saved, that's not something that pushes me away from others but creates more concern for them. Anyway, a very legitimate question, and I hope I answered it to your satisfaction. |
|
|
|
03-08-2002, 06:16 PM
|
#150 |
|
ONE
love, blood, life
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,789
Local Time: 09:20 PM
|
Bubba, face it. You know nothing about half the stuff I'm talking about. This isn't some little simple argument, so if you don't understand something, go to the library and look it up. I don't have time to teach you stuff you should have learned and retained in school, but likely went through one ear and out the other.
Your quote: "I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex." This is a reference to the theories of Gregor Mendel. I apologize if my arguments are too smart for you, but too bad. He is the founder and father of genetic theory, so when you think of simple dominant/recessive genetics that are passed on generationally, that is Mendel's theories. However, there are major exceptions to Mendel's dominant/recessive theories, most notably what causes "dwarfism" (again, I don't remember the scientific name). You rejected homosexuality on the basis of genetic argument, and I refuted it on the same basis. Assuming that homosexuality is passed in the same context as "dwarfism," just for argument's sake, you, Bubba, could contain the dominant "gay gene," but be totally straight. You could give this dominant gene to your children, who end up straight. Your children could pass this on to all their children, and one ends up gay. There is no rhyme or reason as to why some people with the dominant gene express it, whereas others don't. Another genetic possibility is in somatic mutations, whereas, during the routine creation of eggs and sperm, the gene for sexuality is changed making people gay. These somatic mutations always occur--each person has an average of eight mutations--but it is totally random as to which genes will be changed. Hence, my argument comparing left-handedness and homosexuality is, potentially, correct, as these facts of genetic blow holes in your arguments on it. You referred to genetics in the context of his simple theories that everyone from junior high to high school students learn. I argue at a very precise level. If you would like me to put any of my arguments to a sixth grade level, request it and I will do it so that you may understand. You don't assert that homosexuality is based on genetics, but you make it sound impossible. My discussions on genetics were to show that perfect XX / XY males and females that the Christian Coalition trumpets as the only creatures of God's creation (hence, the only "natural" humans) is incorrect. Hence, the belief that because God just created "men" (XY) and "women" (XX) that that is all that God intended for relationships. Science alone debunks that theory. As for your quotes on bestiality, let me remind you your first little quote: "And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality." And this little doozy: "If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?" You may think of that as a little innocent comment that you don't think should offend anyone, but you wrote it exactly to stir up nasty sentiments, because you know that everyone thinks of incest, pedophilia, and bestiality as repugnant (yes, even gay people do), not to mention stating that "people" are equivalent to inanimate objects. Hence, I'm telling you now, just so you don't get physically attacked someday: if you put "homosexuality" and "bestiality" in the same sentence again, you will greatly offend gay people, just like stating the "N" word around black people. I am "manipulative" and "dishonest"? If I may throw some name calling around, since you chose to throw the first punch, you are an imbecile. If I misinterpret your arguments, it is because they are literally stupid and incoherent. You do not know what you are talking about half of the time, and I spend half of my time correcting you on science and history, "facts" that you easily should have learned in school--or should have researched ahead of time, before trying to delve into this argument. If you can't play with the big players in this forum, then don't even start arguing with them. You are guilty of exactly what you are accusing me of--filled with consistent falsehoods you claim as "truth." I argue on "theory," which is all you can argue this topic on, and there are multiple theories. That may be why you mistake it as "inconsistencies." I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side. I am more here to inform on the various theories, rather than do an elementary argument that has a "winner" and a "loser." "Ignoring past comments?" What are you doing with your "bestiality" comments? I explained to you the meaning of my comments, just as you explained your "bestiality" comments. And you've taken tons of my arguments out of context. You just completely ignore any of my explanations, and I doubt even if you read all of my arguments. After explaining the dubiousness of the so-called "pro-divorce" passage in Matthew, you used it again as "evidence." Poor arguing, Bubba. "Deep arguments" they are indeed, especially when stacked up to your sloppy ones I could have likely picked up from a Christian Coalition web site. Nothing you've stated, from beginning to end, is anything new to me, but you are good at writing pseudointellectual psychobabble arguments that look intelligent, but are filled with falsehoods passed off as "truth." At least I'm admitting mine are "theories," and I'm well-versed in several theories. You should work for the Catholic Church...they always need writers like that up in the Vatican. If you want to stop arguing, then stop arguing. I will continue to correct your Limbaugh-esque manipulation of my arguments as long as I have to. Melon ------------------ "He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time |
|
|
|
03-08-2002, 08:02 PM
|
#151 | |||||||
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
On the issue of genetics:
As you say, I made two comments that supposedly rely on simple high-school biology courses; I will address each comment on its own: "I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation." I don't see any area of contention. Let's say, for an instant (and I'm NOT SUGGESTING I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THIS), that both left-handedness and homosexuality are gentic. Left-handedness, if dominant AND expressed, doesn't seriously impede the organism's efforts to procreate and ensure the survival of its genetic information. Homosexuality, if dominant and expressed, causes the person to desire the opposite sex LESS than normal. Thus, the person is less likely to have sex with a member of the opposite sex, and is less likely to create any offspring. (A similar statement can be made for infertility: if a gene causes a lower sperm count, it's not going to do very well over time.) There's nothing controversial in my statement, and as far as I know, there's NOTHING that is refuted by ANY level of biological science. (If you know of such a refutation, go right ahead.) My other statement was this: "the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex." You attacked this comment once already, and I responded then: "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." - Mark 10:6-8. I didn't use Mendel, genetics, biology, or science to back up my claim that God intentionally created the two sexes. I used the BIBLE. Now, I grant that there are deviations from the norm, but they are simply that: deviations. I'm sure that those with XXY chromosomes, etc., are really nice people, but most of them can't reproduce. That they can't pass on their genes is a pretty damn good indication that something wrong about the genes - that they do not work precisely as intended. I continue to assert that male and female are the intended states of humanity, and that we were made to join a monogomous, heterosexual union - not because of genetics, but because of the Bible. (I also note that you don't really refute the specific Biblical passages I quote, other than the usual arguments of "Old Testament bad" and "Matthew bad.") At any rate, I'm sure plenty of people from the Christian Coalition have tried to use simplified genetics to back up their claims that there are no such deviations - BUT I HAVEN'T. Again, you're attacking claims I simply didn't make. ... You bring up other quotes I made about bestiality. Let's - FOR ONCE - look at them in context: "Simple: one would fear something that might arouse you because there are things that SHOULDN'T arouse you. Examples? Your own parents, children, and animals. Sexual attraction to such things is morally abhorrent and against natural laws. "And if one subscribes to the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong, it falls under the same category as incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. "(Let me be the first to say that I do believe that homosexuality is against God's plan for humanity, and thus a sin. But just as murder is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, pedophilia is far worse than homosexuality. Murder and pedophilia should CERTAINLY be illegal; swearing and homosexuality should not. If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live.)" What's this? I partially defend homosexuality, saying that it SHOULD be legal, AND that things like pedophilia are far worse. (For the record, bestiality is also worse, but I thought that could be left unsaid; sorry if that offended you.) "I see no problem with homosexual couples having the same access to medical benefits and legal rights that married couples have. But marriage is an entirely different matter, because it is DEFINED to be the union of a man and a woman (usually sealed by an oath before God). "If we're going to extend the definition to include homosexual couplings, there's no reason to NOT further extend it by including greater numbers, other species, or inanimate objects. If two men can be married, then why not five men, three women, a sheep, and a coffee table?" And look: here I say that homosexuals SHOULD have the same medical benefits as heterosexuals. Ultimately, I was responding to the suggestion to redefine marriage from "one woman and one man" to "two adult humans." My response was that, if you can argue the opposite-sex requirement out of the definition, you could also argue out the other requirements: that the number be limited to two, the age be of consentual adults, and even the species. If you read the entire quote, you would see I'm only defending the definition of the word "marriage", not equating homosexuality and bestiality. Any other quotes you want to take out of context? ... Quote:
At any rate, you CONTINUE to take me out of context, and continue to assert that I made claims that I simply didn't make. Oh, I know what you'll say, because you've said before: "If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense." Well, frankly, that's bullshit. IF I don't make any sense, you would quote me in full, so all the world could see how idiotic I am. Rather, you take sentences utterly out of context and see things that simply aren't there to be seen. Quote:
"I call it honesty: there are no facts on homosexuality here to speak of, neither on my side, nor your side." So, you can't be lying because are no truths. But in addition to that, I MYSELF AM LYING. If there are no facts, how can there be falsehoods? If there's no such thing as truth, how can I be lying? Or is this some more of your deeply philosophical bullshit? Quote:
IF I took YOUR comments out of context, prove it, in the same way I defended myself. On the issue of divorce - surprise, surprise - I already answered your objection. Your objection was this: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I believe you're giving away one of your problems: the fact that you think I'm spouting off things that are exactly like a Christian Coalition website, which lets you believe all you need to do is find the reply to those sites and post it here. Hence, you believe I am EQUATING homosexuality and bestiality; hence, you think I have some grand proof that homosexuality is immoral on genetic reasons. You THINK I say those things because I use two words (homosexuality and bestiality; homosexuality and genetics) in the same paragraph. You then cut out that paragraph, ignore the crucial explanations before it, after it, and in successive posts. You then act like I said something that I didn't, and criticize the imaginary argument as "pseudointellectual psychobabble." I then explain myself, you then take THE EXPLANATION out of context to further "prove your point." Melon, that's fucking insane. And if you honestly think I'm doing the same thing to you, I invite you to prove it. Quote:
Including your most recent post, you have taken me out of context, utterly misunderstood my argument, and ignored my successive replies some SEVEN times in the past three posts. Hell, just taking me out of context ONCE a post would be an improvement. Stop doing that; prove IN CONTEXT that I said what you think I said, or simply shut up. [This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-08-2002).] |
|||||||
|
|
|
03-08-2002, 08:33 PM
|
#152 | |
|
I serve MacPhisto
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:20 PM
|
Quote:
Sorry Bubba, you CANNOT prove homosexuality to be wrong, and you SHOULD NOT even try. NEVER! Refer to my above post if you wonder why. No matter how you or anyone interprets the Bible, it's not for us to judge other people. Remember that, from one Conservative to another. |
|
|
|
|
03-09-2002, 02:14 AM
|
#153 |
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
I haven't been trying to prove homosexuality wrong. I don't think you can *prove* it, any more than one can prove or disprove the existence of God Himself or the validity of the Bible - which makes sense, because my reasons for thinking it wrong have mostly to do with God and the Bible. Rather than prove my the unprovable, I've been merely putting forth why I believe homosexuality is wrong. A BIG difference.
Again, I believe that homosexuals have the right to live together in a legally binding agreement that is recognized as equivalent to marriage. But I still think that the agreement called "marriage" has been DEFINED as the God-ordained union of one man and one woman, and the definition should remain intact. And, honestly, the "judge not" rule doesn't apply here. It applies on the personal level, in that one shouldn't point fingers at another human being and scream, "You're a sinner and you're going to hell;" you shouldn't because everyone has sinned. But it doesn't apply to what I'm doing - simply delineating what I believe is right and wrong. As another conservative, you should believe that there are such things as right and wrong - and that we are within our rights in both having an opinion on what's what AND expressing that opinion. Finally, we AREN'T good enough for God; rather than simply ignore our behavior, He recognizes us as unworthy of his love, but He still loves us DESPITE who are. As a Christian, I am to "hate the sin but love the sinner." Certainly, not loving the sinner is bad; it's a direct violation of Christ's commandment to us. But not hating the sin is EQUALLY unacceptable; beyond being a lie, telling a person that their behavior doesn't matter gives them the dangerous and false impression that they are just fine without salvation. |
|
|
|
03-09-2002, 03:22 AM
|
#154 | |
|
I serve MacPhisto
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:20 PM
|
Quote:
I think this is where God gives us as humans a conscience, to decide what is right. I mean we should have the intellect to say that incest and rape and pedaphillia (sp?) is wrong. But that is not the same thing, which is why we have reason to go with intellect. While we should never really "judge" other humans, there are obvious times we have to pass our "judgement". Obviously my mention of rape etc, I mean "judge" as in a court of law. And again, judge the crime and not necessarily the person, even though we may sentence the person to life. That same person may turn their life around in prison and turn their fuckup into a miracle to others. God loves us all. Sooner or later we all need to realise that people are not all "ozzie and harriet" and we should let everyone live productively and out of the fear and that is so "comfortable" to some. |
|
|
|
|
03-09-2002, 11:35 AM
|
#155 | |||||||||
|
ONE
love, blood, life
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,789
Local Time: 09:20 PM
|
Quote:
I don't know why the infertile threaten you. We have absolutely no threat of extinction; in fact, we are greatly overpopulated. Secondly, the heavy burden of procreation is a Jewish concept, one that was eliminated in the New Testament--hence, why Jesus and St. Paul accept (and encourage) celibacy for everyone. In regards to genetics, your argument doesn't make a lot of sense. You speak about "advantageous genes," but, again, there are *lots* of these genes that continually get passed on. Sometimes, they are a series of several genes. Let's say "5" here. One parent could contain 3 of them, and the other could contain 2. Separately, the trait doesn't express itself, but when the two parents create a child, the child could contain all 5 genes, with the trait expressing itself. If the parents have other children, they could contain just anywhere from 1-4 genes, with the trait *not* expressing itself, but if they marry someone with the other genes, they will, again, create a child with the trait. The people with these genes are *natural,* just not *normal* (with *normal* being defined as a heavily common trait expressed in nearly all people). Left-handedness is *natural,* but not *normal,* when stacked up against right-handedness. Humans *cannot* control their genes, so we have to leave it up to nature and fate. Once again, I don't see how my left-handed / homosexuality comparison is all that wrong. If I'm taking stuff out of context again, it is because I don't even understand your argument here. I cannot read your mind as to why this would be applicable. Quote:
The value of a human being should *not* be on his/her genetic content! A perfectly heterosexual, Christian couple could easily create an intersexed individual (occurs about 1 in 10,000 births). It is *not* the couple's fault. Their DNA is fine. It is *not* the child's fault, so why punish him/her? Once again, I'm trying to give you a future wake-up call. If you have children someday, and they end up gay or an XY female or have any slew of traits that may seemingly contradict your view of the Bible, do *not* blame yourself or your wife and do *not* blame the child. Because God created all of nature, one such thing that even the Bible asserts, these *mutations* are part of God's design for life. However, as *different* as these people may seem, they are all the same, equally worthy of love and life as the *normal* people. If they *cannot* procreate, and this includes otherwise *normal* heterosexuals, that is what God intended. However, that does *not* mean that sex is *solely* for procreation. The Catholic Church may assert this, but I will continue to disagree. Quote:
Perhaps it is my studies of St. Thomas Aquinas coming out, but I believe that nature is the expression of God's true intentions, and, through the study of nature, with all the deviations from the *norm,* I believe that it is all *natural.* God did create a means for us to multiply, but I don't think that He meant that for everyone, and that doesn't mean that those who aren't part of the *normal* club should live a life in misery because of it. God works in mysterious ways, and I don't think we should use the Bible to limit God, when, clearly, there is a *lot* to life that the Bible never covered. Quote:
You talk about free will and how God cannot control everything. Why is the Bible now immune from human imperfection? Because you and a whole mob of right-wing Christians say it to be? Quote:
Quote:
As it stands, your distinction as to why this is immoral stands on two premises: --the Bible, which I have sufficiently pointed out that it doesn't address homosexuals (only activity in the context of heterosexuals doing it in idol worship [male temple prostitutes] or in the humiliation of houseguests [Sodom and Gomorrah]), both of which are customs that are completely foreign and non-existent to us in the modern era. The homosexual act is *not* the primary emphasis of these passages. St. Paul made lots of tirades against pagan worship practices, for instance, so passages that claim to refer to "homosexuals" are likely referring to these temple prostitutes, or, at bare minimum, otherwise heterosexual individuals performing same-sex acts. The intended *sin* in these passages was the idol worship or the act of humiliating someone's house guests, not the homosexual act. It is simply a device to create a point. You can call that "legalism," but that is what they believed back then. You can think of homosexuality as a sin; that is your right. But to think that Christians who disagree are somehow just being defiant or ignoring the Bible is simply not the truth. You cannot use the Bible to back up your assertion on this essentially, without taking it out of context. Poor translation and cultural over the centuries is much of the blame. The Bible is not immune to fads either...much of the New Testament conforms to popular Greek philosophy of the time. However, call it human imperfection and cultural bias over the centuries, but people have missed the point. No homosexual acts are done in the context of either anymore, but if they were done, I would agree that they would be sinful. Idol worship does not love God, and the humiliation of strangers, clearly rape with these heterosexuals going against their own usual *natural* attractions to women, is obviously repugnant. Homosexuals *nowadays* live life just as heterosexuals--some want lifelong, monogamous relationships and to adopt children and others want to sleep around. *Neither* is any different to how heterosexuals live their lives nowadays. I am personally opposed to the sleeping around, but I am opposed to it for people of any sexual orientation, gay or straight. --your personal disgust. If we are defining morality now on personal internal disgust, you should know that gay men find heterosexual affection to be disgusting, not to mention the sight of two lesbians in affection, disgusting. Lesbians probably find the sight of two men and heterosexuals disgusting. That is just the way things work, but personal disgust is not a way to define morality for everyone...but is fine to define morality for yourself. Quote:
Quote:
Again, I disagree, but you are free to disagree. Mostly, really, I was posting all my arguments to argue my case for others, not you. Quote:
Unless you reply to this, I won't be replying again. Melon ------------------ "He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time [This message has been edited by melon (edited 03-09-2002).] |
|||||||||
|
|
|
03-09-2002, 04:22 PM
|
#156 | ||||
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
If you recall what was going on when you first mentioned left-handedness, you were asserting that all human births are wholly and irrevocably part of God's will - something I dispute on the basis that humanity can affect those births. As a counterexample, I mentioned a hypothetical scenario where a mad scientist when out of his way to affect the birth.
You rejected that counterexample on the following basis: "This is so hypothetical that it doesn't even happen in real life." That's why I originally called it "hypothetical." But, to be completely honest, it's only hypothetical in that someone probably WOULDN'T do such a thing. The actual mechanisms are well within the grasp of current technologies. That said, if you could reject MY counterexample on the sole basis of it being hypothetical, I figured I could reject your comparison between homosexuality and lefthandedness IF I could find genuine differences between the two. Quid pro quo. THAT was the reason I objected to the comparison, and that's the reason I listed the key differences, including but NOT limited to the fact that homosexuality seems to hinder its own propagation. Certainly, procreation isn't the only reason for sex (you called me a stoic before; and I rejected the ntion then). Certainly, there's no reason to reject the infertile as bad people. And certainly, human value is not based on genetic content. But the entire theory to evolution (both micro- and macro-) is that genes that hinder propagation dwindle over time, in terms of total populations. Let's say something like infertility is caused by a combination of 5 genes. When those 5 genes are present and the trait is expressed, the infertile either CANNOT pass on those 5 genes or has a very hard time doing so. So, in terms of sheer numbers, those genes cannot compete with genes that do not decrease the sperm count, etc. Certainly, the person isn't bad for having those genes, but it could be said that those genes themselves are "bad", insofar as they impede their own long-term survival. And I would think that IF homosexuality is caused by one's genes (granted, a very BIG "if", one that I don't necessarily believe), it is similar to infertility in that - when expressed - it significantly reduces its own chances for survival to the next generation. And I think the fact that homosexuality hinders propagation while left-handedness doesn't is a BIG difference. If my hypothetical example is too different from the actual case, than I suggest that left-handedness is simply too different from homosexuality. That was it: the extent of my argument. ... Cetainly, the Bible doesn't explain what nature is, but I think it addresses WHY nature is what is, and why it even exists in the first place. The explanation of the mechanisms of the universe is certainly the domain of science, but the explanation of th MOTIVES behind the universe is beyond the scope of science and firmly in the domain of theology. The Bible doesn't cover what makes us male and female, but it does explain why were made male and female - and, honestly, the VAST majority of humans are genuinely male or female. Certainly, the Bible also delineated what was clean and unclean, but it loosened the same restrictions in the New Testament. I believe that God did this - set up the impossible standards then gave us a pass - as a metaphor for grace, just as burnt offerings were a precursor to the cross. God set up the standards of perfection because He is God Almighty, can and should demand perfection. It's clear that no man can conform to those demands, so He graciously lowers the restrictions (using the word "graciously" literally). He lowered the standards most notably during the events of Acts, certainly, but Christ began the process - specifically with racial purity among other examples. While contemporary Jews considered Samaria to be a land of half-breeds, Christ told the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) and became a living example of kindness to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:7-26). But, while Christ removed barriers of purity and perfection, he kept intact the sanctity of marriage. Certainly, I could quote the already oft-used passages in Matthew, and I could quote the restrictions of divorce (whatever exceptions were made, they CERTAINLY were supposed to be rare dissolutions of the otherwise unbreakable bonds of matrimony). But look again at the woman at the well: Christ paid no notice to her ethnicity but convicted her on her promiscuity. Clearly, Christ thought marriage was important. Even if you can make the case that homosexuals can marry (an argument that I clearly disagree with), I don't think monogamy can be overturned at all. Quote:
But I also believe that the Bible isn't the last word of morality - THAT falls to the Holy Spirit. However, I also believe that if the Bible was correctly interpreted, the Holy Spirit will never contradict it. (I admit: whether a seeming contradiction is the result of a misinterpretation OR mistaking the Holy Spirit for my own selfishness - or worse spirits - is a difficult question, but my belief is what it is.) And, yes, my belief in the near perfection of the Bible appears to be inconsistent. But, I also believe in miracles great and small (parting the sea, the Resurrection, a thousand minor miracles throughout any given day on this planet) that are also the result of direct interference from the Almighty. I believe that God has more-or-less kept His eye on the Bible: He inspired its authors to write what He wanted and its scholars to keep it from being contaminated. But note: I believe the Bible is more-or-less perfect. I grant that the current manuscripts might just be incomplete and we should continue looking for older, more accurate texts. And I also grant that certain translations (certainly including the KJV) have seriously mistranlated a few verses. BUT I believe the Bible as a whole is generally as it should be. In terms of human births, I certainly believe God DOES influence what happens. But I simply don't think he has complete control over the physical universe - I think he has relented some control to give our free will meaning. He's not totally in control, but he's not totally absent. That belief allows for the Bible to more or less correct with rare exception - and it allows for births to be more or less what God intended without being *precisely* what He desired. It seems to me that my belief is internally consistent. Quote:
1) That homosexuality is explicitly prohibited. 2) That heterosexual monogamy and chastity are the only two sexual lifestyles actually sanctioned. From the first time that I mentioned the Biblical reasons, I put forth both arguments: To support #1, I suggested Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27. (I'll get to their validity in a moment.) To support #2, I quoted Genesis 2:27, Matthew 19:4-6, 19:9-12, and Mark 10:6-9. I also said the following: "That said, I do believe the message is clear: the only two sanctioned paths for humanity are a lifelong marriage (i.e., heterosexual monogamy) or chastity." Now, I may have been utterly wrong in #1: you've defended your position well, and I grant that I may have been inadequately aware of the intended meaning and historical context. BUT that still leaves #2, that heterosexual monogamy and chastity are the only ones Biblicall supported. If #2 is true (and I think it is), the question then becomes this: if a lifestyle isn't Biblically covered, is it permissible or impermissible? I believe that humanity hasn't honestly changed that much in two millenia, and that those sexual lifestyles not covered are not Biblically permissable. You can believe otherwise, but you either have to indicate that the Bible allows for such exceptions (and I REALLY don't think you can find legitimate proof of that) or admit that you're bringing in your own ideas. It seems to me that your bringing in your own ideas, that you don't use the Bible for "the last word." That's fine, but that also means that I may be right about my original assertion: that homosexuality ISN'T biblically supported. Quote:
BUT, that's not the reason I find homosexuality immoral; I never suggested that, and I nevere offered any defense of that argument. Further, lesbianism doesn't disgust me the way male homosexuality does, but I still suggest both are equally immoral. This was the closest I came to the subject, near the beginning of this discussion: "If it's between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own property (and if there's no effort to INSIST that the behavior is just as normal as heterosexual monogamy), I say, live and let live." And... "I should perhaps explain further: "Homosexuals are free to be themselves (decency laws notwithstanding) publically AND privately. Moreover, if they practice their sexuality in private, you'll hear no complaints from me. "BUT, let's say they publically suggest that the practice is as normal as heterosexual monogamy. They're still free to do so, but I will also exercise my right to disagree." I don't think I said ANYTHING to suggest my ARGUMENTS were based on personal disgust. Quote:
Anyway... it appears we have now BOTH our positions across, and ended this discussion amicably. Feel free to continue to weigh in. If not, we'll cross paths in other threads. Glad we both stuck to talking this through, and I'm glad we can agree to disagree. Bubba |
||||
|
|
|
03-09-2002, 05:33 PM
|
#157 |
|
Kid A
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holy Roman Empire
Posts: 5,271
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
Sorry to interrupt here, I was wondering if anyone wanted to comment on the notion that sexuality has some level of elasticity? I'm not necessarily talking about nature vs. nurture here either, I guess the most direct example that comes to mind is when prison inmates engage in homosexual acts, yet perhaps all their lives were repulsed by the thought of homosexual behaviour, and still, if given the choice, would much prefer engaging in heterosexual intercourse/relations/etc. What sort of theories are there regarding this phenomenon? I'm sure it will be condemned as an immoral act by immoral people (yes, they are criminals in the first place), and perhaps they are not really being intimate, but then many people having sex aren't being truly intimate either. And if sexuality is indeed elastic, does this mean sexual preference is actually a chosen behaviour (even if it's not a 'conscious' decision, i.e., learned behaviour)?
(sorry if this has been touched on before, if so, just direct me to it, I am curious about this particular aspect) |
|
|
|
03-10-2002, 12:08 AM
|
#158 |
|
I serve MacPhisto
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 07:20 PM
|
Leave it to The Wanderer to bring up something so overlooked and yet so relevant. Why would a prisoner who is heterosexual and possibly even homophobic engage in homosexual activities?
I would say it could in this instance be either a "chosen" behavior or a "learned" behavior. I say chosen because if the inmates are there a long enough time their resistance to such will lessen and they will certainly be "aware" or "exposed" to other inmates engaged in sex. That would also apply to the Learned theory too, because they are used to seeing it and sooner or later they could adapt to it. Or the possibility exists that they aren't given the choice, i.e. rape. But what about the absence of their grilfriend or wife (assuming the prisoner is a man in this case), and the absence of that intimate relationship. This could be "learned", as prisoners usually tend to divide into "cliques" and befriend others of similair background. It is possible that the feelings they would normally have for their spouse on the outside world that is far removed could be redirected to a close inmate or even cellmate. I would say this is "elastic" as they are adapting to their fate as inmates. |
|
|
|
03-10-2002, 01:21 AM
|
#159 |
|
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 08:20 PM
|
As already mentioned, I would say that it has a bit to do with forced sex, but I would also add that peer pressure may be a factor - and the fact that, for many, the sexual desire is very difficult to resist.
On the issue of prison rape, I believe that there are some sexual predators who prey on whatever's at hand. I'm reminded of the the exchange in The Shawshank Redemption over "The Sisters" and their infatuation with Andy (paraphrased): "Would it I help if I told them I'm not homosexual?" "Neither are they - they'd have to be human first." (Not wanting to start another fight; just throwing in my two cents.) [This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-09-2002).] |
|
|
|
03-10-2002, 02:49 AM
|
#160 |
|
Refugee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Posts: 1,385
Local Time: 01:20 AM
|
Good answer Bubba.
__________________db9 |
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 PM.