Rachel D.
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
melon said:
And homosexuals exist to prove that there's more to love than just having a penis and a vagina.
Melon
You seem to be confusing love and sex.
melon said:
And homosexuals exist to prove that there's more to love than just having a penis and a vagina.
Melon
Rachel D. said:If it's OK for men to have sex with men who aren't male temple prostitutes, then does that mean that it's OK to sacrifice your children, as long as it's not to a pagan god? No, of course not.
So does that mean that it's OK for a man to have sex with a man who isn't a prostitute? No.
Rachel D. said:You seem to be confusing love and sex.
Rachel D. said:
You seem to be confusing love and sex.
Rachel D. said:God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
anitram said:We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.
I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.
It's sickening and it's getting old.
Precicely, opposition to the reactionary beliefs and retrograde social pressures demands unequivocal and loud condemnation, just because somebody believe something to be true doesn't stop it being any less offensive or deserving of contempt.anitram said:We don't shy away from calling racists and anti-Semites bigots.
I don't see why we constantly feel the need to extend a special courtesy to people bigotted against homosexuals just because they believe their religion demands it. The jihadist also believes his religion demands he blow polytheists to smitherines and we don't humor him by engaging in polite dialogue either.
It's sickening and it's getting old.
The hatred is sanctioned, and no matter how much is dredged from the well of revealed truth it will always bring forth the same answers. The days of bronze age semitic tribal law is over, reason and rationalism prevailed; bring on the free love, faggotry and blasphemyBonoVoxSupastar said:Wow the hatred is deep...
But it makes for a very fierce defender of ideas and enables the middle ground to be won; there are matters that are simply non-negotiable that have to be defended vigorously and in many of those situations respect for other peoples alternative opinion is simply untenable and in some rarer circumstances an respect for them period is null. Ideas have to be fought for and strong oratory is the prime weapon, just look to the early days of evolution and Thomas Henry Huxley.yolland said:^ From this POV it would seem that MLK Jr. was a patsy and a weakling, since he did not fight contempt with contempt, and insisted on respect even towards men who used violence to keep down those he stood for.
His may not be the answer to everything, but contempt and refusal to extend respect make a poor basis for a social liberation movement.
Yes and that makes them prone of saying what they really think, and at that stage the nature of their ideas is there for the world to judge and in most cases it ensures they are discredited to the mainstream, the debate is won.they tend to further harden hearts and seal up ears on the other side.
maycocksean said:And you know, I don't think (and I know many here don't support this contention) that homosexuality was a part of God's original plan, before sin. But God has allowed all kinds of things that were not part of his original plan--polygamy and slavery during Biblical times, eating meat, warfare, and others.
melon said:
I appreciate the depth of your post, but let me comment on this concept.
You could say that lefthandedness was not part of God's plan before sin. Or different hair colors. Or different languages. Or black people--an argument I've heard from Christian white nationalist movements.
That last part kind of hits what I'm touching on here. The "Christian ideal," ultimately, is one of fascism, where everyone is exactly the same in lifestyle, in biology, in looks, and in thought. When I think about the implications of Christians getting exactly what they desire, I don't see God's will either. I see man's will. I see man's narrow idea of "perfection."
As I stated earlier, I don't believe in fundamentalist theology. I think that Adam and Eve are mythological based on overwhelming evidence. The evolutionary model, which I believe to be a mechanism of God, is full of diversity in creation. I find it very telling that strict sexual roles are not even maintained in the animal kingdom. In seahorses, for instance, it is the male who is "pregnant," as the female deposits the eggs into him.
I could go on and on (and something tells me that I will end up doing so in this thread), but I do take issue with comparing homosexuality with polygamy, slavery, and warfare. I believe it to be as much of nature as anything else. If anything, homosexuality exists to prove that God's love in infinite, and that even man-conceived gender roles cannot stop Him.
Melon
maycocksean said:
I'm sure no gay person wants to be considered on par with polgyamists, slaveholders, and warmongers, and it was not my intention to place them on the same moral level. It was a poor comparison.