|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religion in Government | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: Well, it's not so much an assumption as a conclusion based on what I know of my own sexuality and what I've found out about others. Ascribing your conclusion based on a tiny, biased sample set (your own sexual development and acquaintences) to an entire population is an assumption.
crashfrog writes: Heterosexual sex wasn't something I learned to like - I just liked it, right away. What does it mean 'you liked it right away?' Does that mean you liked it the first time you tried it? So what. If you had been raised in an environment that was welcoming and, in fact, promoted homosexual encounters how do you know you wouldn't have liked being with a boy just as much? (And I am assuming that you were not raised in such an environment based on your previous statements about being a fundie.) But even if you didn't like it, there is no way to know what percentage of the male population wouldn't have liked it and to what degree they liked it. The data just isn't there.
crashfrog writes:
Gets back to our sample set problem. For example, in my experience has been such that I have observed that more gay men (and lets stick with men for the sake of simplicity) I know were either abused by another male or had their first sexual encounter with another male more than hetero men. So either case is an invalid sample set. When gay people talk about it... But I have also observed that in this country homosexuality has only recently been considered acceptable behavior. Even now, people have ingrained biases depending on their upbringing. You state you knew right away that you knew you liked heterosexual sex. You ask 'Why would gay sex be any different?' How do you know you wouldn't like homosexual sex? If you were blindfolded and someone gave you oral sex would you still enjoy it? If you later discovered you had received it from a man would that disgust you? Why? Why would it matter? (Perhaps you have tried it and you do know; I'm not asking you to bare your chest here and tell us if you don't want to - this is primarily rhetorical). It's been demonstrated, though I have no evidence on hand, that the concept of what is beautiful or erotic has strong roots in one's cultural upbringing. So you can say you know you aren't gay because you get aroused by thinking of/looking at women and not men, but that doesn't demonstrate your concepts weren't completely dependent on your upbringing. If an individual was raised in an environment where sex and physical love between members of the same gender was considered natural and 'cute,' do you really believe more people wouldn't try it? And having tried it, do you really believe more people wouldn't continue to participate in it, at some level, than they do now? Additionally, I submit you, I, and most heterosexuals have been too indoctrinated at an early age to be able to objectively claim that we are heteros merely because that's the way we were born, and not because of the way they were raised. I think more men would have sexual encounters of varying degrees with other man much more frequently than they do now if we were raised in such a manner that this activity was acceptable or encouraged. That doesn't mean heteros just 'go away,' it just means that men would have more sexual encounters with men. Some men would prefer only to have sex with men, some wouldn't have a preference, and some would prefer women. But I think the incidence of gay sex would definitely increase; and that is exactly what I think frightens many people who find this activity immoral or distasteful.
Rather, the most consistent explanation is that genetic or early development factors are responsible, not post-puberty acclimation to homosexual acts. I dissected the genetic question in another thread, and I was unable to find any compelling evidence in the studies published thus far to show that sexual attraction is genetic. So far, everything still seems to point to development factors such as environment, culture, experience. And you should notice I am not talking about pos-puberty acclimation. It's speculated, that your preferences (not just sexual), in fact a great deal of your personality, is formed before you are ten years old.
crash writes: Out of curiosity, when did homsexual suddenly come to mean "male"? Try not to conflate the male homosexual experience with the experience of all homosexuals No, I am not conflating anything. I am restricting my point to gay men because it is too confusing to continue to include both men and women in the same argument.
crashfrog writes: There's every possibility that female sexuality is considerably more fluid than male, for instance. {*BLINK*) Excuse me? Seriously, what possible evidence do you have to back up that statement? What makes you think women would be more 'fluid,' whatever that means, than men? If anything, as the gender most driven by sex, I would expect men to be more open to homosexual sex than women; and when you look at the statistics(http://EvC Forum: Is homosexuality a natural response to large populations?), there actually is a higher percentage of men who have had sex with other men (gay and bi) than women (gay and bi). This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 07:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What you say is possible, I guess, but again, if it's true, then all the gay people I know are unique, apparently.
I dunno. Like I said, your position is radically different from my experience with gay people, and like you say, the data isn't there. But, what you say could be true.
What makes you think women would be more 'fluid,' whatever that means, than men? It's a prediction from natural selection: as long as men are larger, stronger, and more violent than women, the woman's individual sexual preference is fairly irrelevant to impregnating her under certain circumstances. On the other hand, if a man isn't aroused by a woman's body, wouldn't it be rather hard to impregnate the woman? Ergo I would predict that there would be a selection pressure against gay men, but not so much a pressure against gay women. That to me would lead to more fluid sexual preferences in women, as born out by studies such as this one:
quote: or this one:
quote: In other words, one would expect a higher incidence of homosexual experience among women who identified as heterosexual, and that's apparently what we find. That's what I meant by "fluid"; that women are more likely than men to view their sexuality in such a way as to experiment with the opposite orientation as the one they self-identify as.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mr Jack responds to me:
quote: But nobody seems to be claiming that if the gay people turned straight and got married, there'd be any extra cost. In other words, if we have 16 mixed-sex couples, a male-male couple, and a female-female couple, nobody seems to ever complain should the male-male and female-female couple split up and form two male-female couples. Despite the fact that they are now part of the married group, nobody considers this to be an additional expense. And thus, that is the lie to the claim that allowing same-sex marriage ends up "costing more." If they wouldn't call it "costing more" to have these exact same people forming mixed-sex relationships, then it cannot "cost more" for them to form same-sex relationships. You are harping on the literal and missing the bigger picture. Obviously, having to pay for the benefits of two couples will cost more than having to pay for the benefits of one couple. But people don't seem to consider it "paying more" when those couples are mixed-sex instead of same-sex. Thus, my conclusion: If riVeRraT is truly concerned about having to pay more taxes in order to support same-sex couples, he should be fighting to abolish marriage altogether, not simply keeping it away from heterosexuals. At the very least, he should be fighting to reverse the scenario: With fewer gay people than straight people, there would be fewer same-sex couples than mixed-sex couples and thus, you'd reduce the tax burden from supporting married couples. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: In other words, one would expect a higher incidence of homosexual experience among women who identified as heterosexual, and that's apparently what we find. Ahhh... this is extremely interesting. I wonder if there are any studies comparing the attitudes or reactions of men towards other men who engage in homosexual sex vs. women towards women who have engaged in homosexual sex. To put it simply, I wonder if there is more peer pressure among men to be straight than among women. I only postulate this since homosexuality has so often been linked to effiminacy (e.g. the thought if you are gay you are a wimp and vice versa), and effiminacy among men is the ultimate taboo. So again, I wonder how much if this is ultimately due to social/cultural upbringing and experience. Extremely interesting stuff.
crashfrog writes: On the other hand, if a man isn't aroused by a woman's body, wouldn't it be rather hard to impregnate the woman? Yeah you definitely have a point here. I guess what I would say is that perhaps sexually attractive features are not limited to women (full lips, smooth skin, youthful features, eyes, body symmetry, etc)so that humans might be predisposed arousal by these features regardless of whether they appear on men or women. This might explain why we see so much literature that refers to 'beautiful,' almost feminine boys when describing homosexual relationships among older cultures where bi-sexuality was not uncommon (Romans, Greeks, Persians, etc). I'm not sure how this argument, 'people are so horny they'll sleep with both men and women,' is a genetic advantage yet I wonder if there really needs to be one. Perhaps humans are willing to pursue sexual pleasure, in its various forms, merely as a by product of our tremendous sex drives. Think about it, why do people masturbate? Obvious answer: because it feels good. But do people just look at their hand one day and say 'wow, that turns me on,' or do they teach themselves that this action provides pleasure? Why dont people masturbate? One answer: because they are told it is wrong and have so much guilt involved with it that it is no longer pleasurable. Certainly there is no genetic advantage for a species to masturbate, is there? If not, why does there need to be a genetic advantage to engage in any sexual activity that does not lead to reproduction? Maybe we just do it because it feels good. And maybe we don't engage in certain types of sex because we don't feel comfortable enough to do so. For example, getting oral sex from another man might physically feel great, but our psychological stress might be such for some of us that it makes the experience less pleasurable and we prefer not to engage in that activity. This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 01:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Extremely interesting stuff. Yeah. If you wanted to, you could go to pubmed.org and search around. I found those abstracts that way, and I think I saw a few headers describing what you were talking about.
Perhaps humans are willing to pursue sexual pleasure, in its various forms merely as a by productive of our tremendous sex drive. Oh, I'm sure that's the case. Moreover, humans pursue sexual pleasure because the existence of sexual pleasure is an evolutionary adaptation. Arguably that's true of pleasure in general; pleasure is just the body's way of influencing behavior.
And maybe we don't engage in certain types of sex because we don't feel comfortable enough to do so. Well, I certainly agree with you, largely, though I wonder if you're not making too big a deal about the difference between sexual function of the genitals and the sexual motivations of the mind. We don't really understand how sexual response works in the body, and we don't really understand how to tell the difference between a person's sexual motivations and the sexual response of their genitals, if there even is a difference. Are people gay or straight because they're programmed to not want sex with certain individuals, even though that sex could be pleasurable? Or do people only consider sex pleasurable when it's with certain individuals? I don't think we know enough about sex and the brain to be sure. AbE: Christ, how confusing. No wonder Kinsey put human sexuality on a scale. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-18-2004 01:35 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: By contradicting yourself. Therefore, you didn't answer it. Let's try again, shall we? Indulge me: If there were a law presented to you right now seeking to deny equal access to the legal contract of marriage to same-sex couples, would you vote for it or against it, knowing that the Constitution expressly forbids denying equal access? Are you going to vote for the Constitution or for the popular opinion?
quote: I never said that you did. Instead, I said that you directly stated that you would vote for a law prohibiting equal access to the legal contract of marriage despite the fact that the Constitution expressly requires equal access. So the question to you is: If you were president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would you push for denying equal access to the legal contract of marriage or would you vote for what you think your god tells you and what seems to be the popular opinion that would seek to deny equal access? The majority wants to violate the Constitution. Do you support them or do you support the Constitution? Say it explicitly. Say something like, "I support the right of all citizens to have equal access to the legal contract of marriage as required by the Constitution and would fight any attempt to deny that right." It doesn't matter how many times you belatedly say, "Constitution first, majority second." The fact remains that such a statement blatantly and directly contradicts your earlier statement that you would fight any action that would try to provide equal access to the legal contract of marriage. The only way anybody could take your later claims seriously is for you to directly and explicitly retract your earlier claim. Say it. Say, "I would fight to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the legal contract of marriage and I retract any claims I may have made previously that indicated that I would actually seek to deny such access." Why is that so difficult?
quote: But denial of equal access to the legal contract of marriage isn't one of them. The majority of people want to violate the Constitution. Are you one of them? Would you fight against them? Would you tell them that you are not in favor of same-sex marriage but rather are in favor of equal treatment under the law? That just because people have the right to do something you disapprove of doesn't mean you actually approve of it? That your life is yours to control and you will show your disapproval of same-sex marriage by refusing to participate in any such marriage?
quote:quote: What does that have to do with taxes? If marriage means a certain type of legal contract between two people without regard for the sex of the people involved, how does that result in more taxes being paid? Why would you have to pay more taxes if you had a boy/boy, girl/girl pair of marriages rather than a boy/girl, boy/girl pair? You're the one that brought up taxes. You said that if we allowed same-sex marriage, you'd have to pay more taxes. But you didn't really mean that. If those same-sex couples had paired off as mixed-sex couples, you wouldn't have complained about supporting their marriages with your tax dollars. You wouldn't have complained about having to pay more money for the mixed-sex marriages. So for you to make a fuss about having to pay more to support same-sex marriages is the epitome of whining. If you really cared about having to pay to support married couples, you'd fight to abolish marriage altogether.
quote: Yes. The same ones where the straight ones mate for life.
quote: Then why did you ask? Oh, it couldn't possibly be because you weren't being completely honest and truthful in your claim that it wouldn't make a difference? You were trying to get me to say that gay animals don't remain mates for life so you could then claim that their sexual proclivities are simply transitory and driven by lustful urges...that they're really straight and are simply making do in a world where there isn't an opposite-sex partner for them. If it truly didn't matter, why did you ask? What would you have said if I answered no, there are no species where same-sex couples remain that way for life? Be specific. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes:
quote: Actually it's not so hard. I did it myself as a teenager (had sex with girls, that is, I didn't actually get anyone pregnant so far as I know) in order to throw off any suspicions about my sexuality. It requires intense concentration, but it can be done. In fact, it happens all the time. Homosexuality is so very taboo in fundamentalist circles that, here in the South, many gay men get married to women and have kids for the sole purpose of hiding their true sexuality. It's a sick situation, and I put the blame almost entirely on the fundamentalist Christian community.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: Because nobody becomes a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. without being expressly taught how to be one. Because we actually have documented cases of people changing their religion and remaining in the new one for the long term. Compare this to sexuality where people turn out to be gay despite nobody showing them how and, in fact, being expressly taught constantly that they are supposed to be straight. How despite numerous attempts to change gay people into straight people, there has never been a successful conversion in any long-term sense. The sexual desire for those of the same sex always remains.
quote:quote: When was the last time a legal case got appealed to god? Have you ever found someone saying that they were going to appeal a SCOTUS decision to god? And have anybody within any body of legislature actually take them seriously? Our freedoms are determined by the government. The government derives its powers from the people. God simply doesn't enter into it.
quote:quote: Where? Where have I ever said I'm an atheist? I want a direct quotation. You show me the precise post and the exact words where I ever hinted that I was an atheist.
quote:quote: Like kissing somebody you viscerally despise? How many men did you kiss before you decided that you were getting to like it too much?
quote: I loved it. Still do. Good plate of steamed broccoli with butter and garlic, maybe some Parmesan and Romano cheese? Mmmmmm. Perhaps you just had a bad cook. And perhaps you just need a good gay lover.
quote:quote: Oh, please! You're the one saying that it's a choice. That a person could willingly, actively, and enthusiastically engage in sexual activity they find repulsive and despite this bodily reaction, they would eagerly attempt to do it again and again and again. So the obvious response is to test that claim on the person making the claim. If you don't have the guts to put your money where your mouth is, don't blame me. Have you ever considered the possibility that the problem is not with me but rather with you? That if you find the logical conclusion of your statements to be harrassment when applied to you, it just might be harrassment when applied to others? You're the one saying that gay people are really horrendously deluded straight people who have fallen into a trap where they repeatedly engage in sex that they find repulsive. So if you find it harrassment to have that attitude applied to you, what makes you think it isn't harrassment when you apply it to others?
quote:quote: So enlighten me. Just how many times would you have to fellate me before the both of us would begin to like it?
quote: Because I, as an adult who has mastered post-operative logic, am capable of understanding that I wouldn't want such discrimination to happen to me, therefore I should ensure that it doesn't happen to others. I don't have to be gay to combat homophobia. I don't have to be a woman to combat sexism. I don't have to be something other than white to combat racism. I don't have to be an atheist to combat religious discrimination. I simply have to realize that unequal treatment before the law is reprehensible and needs to be fought whereever it is found. To do anything less opens up the possibility that someday I will be the one who is considered a stranger to the law. After all, isn't that one of the directives mentioned in your holy book? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
quote:quote: No, it is not. It's a sign of submission.
quote:quote: Yes, you did. You said that same-sex couples are inherently different from mixed-sex couples because gay couples can't produce offspring. Well, neither can sterile mixed-sex couples. And yet, you don't consider their marriages to be anything other than legitimate. So if a sterile mixed-sex couple can have a legitimate marriage despite their being inherently incapable of producing offspring, why can't same-sex couples have a legitimate marriage despite their being inherently incapable of producing offspring?
quote: Neither can sterile mixed-sex couples. So what's the difference? If a sterile mixed-sex couple can have a legitimate marriage, why can't a same-sex couple? It can't be because of the impossibility of having children. A man who's had an orchiectomy cannot produce sperm as he doesn't have the organs that produce them. A woman who has had a hysterectomy cannot bear children as she doesn't have the organ to allow passage of sperm to the eggs. There are plenty of people who, by their natural physical makeup, are sterile. If all of these people who are inherently incapable of having children can enter into a legitimate marriage, what's the difference in a same-sex couple? It obviously has nothing to do with the ability to reproduce, so what's the real reason? That you think god doesn't like it is perfectly fine, but the question is why the government shouldn't allow equal access to the legal contract of marriage, especially when the Constitution expressly requires it. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I did it myself as a teenager (had sex with girls, that is, I didn't actually get anyone pregnant so far as I know) in order to throw off any suspicions about my sexuality. Wow. You know, I didn't have sex until I was 22, and it took quite a bit of searching to find a willing woman - at college, no less. I'm not an unattractive man, but honestly, it chaps my ass that guys like you - who didn't even really want it in the first place - were able to score years before I could. Women! No offense, of course. And you raise a good point; thanks for weighing in. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-18-2004 02:26 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: The only ones who can see it are the high-level administrators of the list. I don't know what your name or address is and cannot find out. The only way I can find out information about you is to peruse your profile and there is no information in there about you.
Profile for riVeRraT Now you tell me: Where do I find any personal information about you that would allow me to determine who you are and where you live? You haven't even filled out a physical location!
quote:quote: A work office is not a private enterprise. It is a public contract between the employee and employer. But see below, too.
quote: You can show actual harm from such actions because you are dealing with direct interaction. Where is the harm from a completely anonymous forum where nobody knows who you are and you are free to disengage at any time? Harrassment necessarily requires unwanted intrusion into your personal space. This is not your personal space. You are here of your own free will and the moment you decide that you do not want to be here, it is impossible for someone to continue to engage in behaviour toward you that you find unpleasant. So where is the harm? By your logic, if we attend a potluck and I have brought a bowl of peanuts that are clearly marked as such, you would have a claim against me should you decide to consume the peanuts to which you are deathly allergic. Despite the fact that you knew that you were walking into a scenario that was problematic for you (food prepared by other people who might not have your particular issue with peanuts in mind), despite the fact that nobody forced you to come or eat the food, despite the fact that you could have refused at every step along the way, you have a cause of action because you ate something you knew would cause you harm. You don't have to be here. Nobody knows who you are. How can there be any harrassment?
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Vishnu is Allah? Amaterasu is Jehovah? Zeus is Coyote? Strange how the people who actually follow those religions don't seem to share your view. Since they are the final arbiters of who their gods are, I think we would have to defer to them when they claim that they do not worship the same god you do.
quote: Incorrect. You said, and I quote (from Message 142):
Acting like a wise guy will not get you into the gates of heaven either. How is this not telling me what god wants me to do? Surely god is the one who decides who gets into heaven, yes? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
custard responds to me:
quote:quote: The first would explain sex workers ("gay for pay"). The question, of course, then becomes what they do when they aren't getting paid. And obviously, they don't find it that disgusting or they wouldn't do it unless they were so desperate they have no other alternative. I fail to see how there could ever be a case of "peer pressure to be gay" without it being a completely artificial environment. Our entire society is dramatically pointed toward being straight. Where are these high schools where everybody's gay and they don't allow straight couples to go to the prom? When was the last time you heard someone complain, "My mother keeps asking me when I'm going to find a good woman and settle down. I have to keep telling her, 'Mom! I'm straight! I'm never going to be a lesbian!'" The last one would be a sign of abuse. So now that we have removed business, desperation, fantasy, and neurosis, let's look at the healthy, well-adjusted human being. What would cause a healthy, well-adjusted human being to engage in sexual activity he found revolting? Or are you intimating that gay people are either doing it for money, out of desperation, or are psychologically disturbed?
quote: They're still having sex with a man, however. If they truly found it that bad, then no, they wouldn't do it. I think it's safe to say that if a man found out his female partner continually retched when trying to fellate him, he'd take the hint. Of course, that assumes we're talking about healthy, well-adjusted people. We are talking about healthy, well-adjusted people and not those who take pleasure in forcing people to do something they vehemently despise, aren't we? I don't think you understand just how gay some people are. This isn't a question of "I'm starving and if I don't eat something, I'll die. The only thing in front of me is liver which I have a hard time keeping down without retching. But if I don't try, I'll die." This is a question of, "I have a full buffet in front of me and can have my pick of what I want to eat. Do I take the liver which I will vomit over or the chicken?"
quote: In other words, they're either businessmen, desperate, non-existent, or neurotic. Do you seriously think that applies in the context of my question? Do we seriously expect to find a significant number of gay people who fall into any of the above? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes: They're still having sex with a man, however. If they truly found it that bad, then no, they wouldn't do it. My point is that women may find the idea of oral sex repulsive at first, but after performing it, or participating in it, they may grow to actually enjoy it. Why? Because they never tried it so they didn't know that turns them on, or because they derive pleasure from giving pleasure to their partners: a desire to please. Not sure why you linked desire to please strictly to abuse, but lots of lovers will try new things merely because they think their partners might enjoy it. Read Penthouse Letters sometime.
Rrhain writes: This is a question of, "I have a full buffet in front of me and can have my pick of what I want to eat. Do I take the liver which I will vomit over or the chicken?" Yes, but you are assuming that most people only want chicken or liver whereas I am arguing that there might be more people trying and enjoying both, or all of the items offered by the buffet but they don't because they are raised to believe everything but the liver is bad for them. I don't see any evidence that sexual proclivity or orientation is genetic any more than most of the other aspects of an individual's personality are genetic. I certainly think that experience and environment have a great deal of impact on an individual's personality, and that includes his/her sexual desires.
rrhain writes: In other words, they're either businessmen, desperate, non-existent, or neurotic. Sure, your words perhaps; but I would never characterize gay people in that way. This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 03:25 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: By causing them harm. A gay person causes no harm. You can't get hooked on being gay. Being gay does not affect your lifespan, cause you to become incapable of functioning in the world, or lead to traffic accidents. Are you seriously saying that gay people are equivalent to drug dealers?
quote: Then why is it we cannot find a single person who chose his sexual orientation? Why is it that despite numerous attempts to convert gay people to straight, initiated by highly motivated subjects who truly want to become straight, there haven't been any successes? If it were a choice, why is it nobody manages to make the switch?
quote: Strange...I've had no fewer than five straight people try to molest me. Not a single gay person has ever bothered. Question: How did you know they were gay? Just because a person is the same sex as you does not mean he is gay. Pedophilia is about attraction to the child. The reason why male pedophiles go after little boys (aside from easier access...we think nothing of letting our boys go off alone with adult males but would never dream of letting our girls go off alone with adult males) is precisely because little boys are androgynous and don't look that much like males. They have no body hair. Their voices haven't cracked. Their sexual organs are not developed. They do not register as "male."
quote:quote: But since gay people do not affect you or your children, why are you so obsessed? Surely you aren't comparing gay people to drug dealers and child molesters, are you?
quote:quote: How are you helping them to sin? Are you procuring for them? Are you performing the marriage? No? Then acknowledging that the government requires equal access to the legal contract of marriage is not helping anybody to sin. The fact that a same-sex couple can get married does not mean they will. A knife can be used to kill somebody. Does that mean we shouldn't allow any knives lest somebody use one in a bad way?
quote:quote: So unrepentant gay people, sinners in your mind, all go to heaven? Being gay and engaging in sex enthusiastically and repeatedly is no impediment to getting to heaven? There are no divine consequences for engaging in same-sex sex to the exclusion of all other sexual activity? Are you really saying that?
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You do realize that that passage means the exact opposite of what you are claiming, yes? The point behind Matthew 7:2 is that you are NOT supposed to judge people for whatever judgement you mete out, you will receive. No, it isn't that you will be tested and if you are found acceptable, you won't receive the punishment. You will receive the punishment despite the fact that you are innocent. If you're heterosexual, never even once fantasizing about let alone engaging in sex with someone of the same sex, judging a gay person will result in you suffering the exact same punishment you would have done to the gay person you judged. You are not the one to decide who is and who is not a sinner. That is left to the sole discretion of god. God does not need nor care about your opinion of the actions of others.
quote: But eating pork is. Should we legislate against the eating of pork? How do the Jews manage to do it? Despite living in a society that is constantly offering pork products, they manage to keep kosher. If Jews can live in a pork-eating world without problems, why are you having such a problem living in a world with such a small number of gay people having the same rights as you?
quote: Yes, it is. Being a theif does not mean you have decided how to punish said thief. After all, Jesus directly tells you that you are to turn the other cheek. If a man asks you for your shirt, give him your coat as well. You are to pray to god to forgive your debts as you forgive your debtors. To call it sin is to claim that god will punish. But you are not in any position to say what god will or will not do.
quote: Prove that I'm not.
quote:quote: Yes, I did. You do understand rhetoric, don't you? You had asked what you would tell your children if they saw you supporting equal treatment under the law with respect to sexual orientation. My response wouldn't be much good if I didn't take into consideration your position that sexual orientation is a choice, and a bad one at that, would it? If I were to assume that you had changed your mind and that being gay was perfectly square with god, that would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? I was trying to point out that even though you think that being gay is a sin, you are still compelled to provide equal treatment under the law with regard to sexual orientation because the concept of equal treatment is so vitally important to a free society that allows you to feel that being gay is a sin. Get it? In this particular area, I am not trying to change your assumptions (though in the overal sense, I am since your assumptions are incorrect). I am starting with your (erroneous) assumptions and finding that I still reach the same conclusion: The only morally and ethically acceptable response is to fight for equal treatment under the law. Especially for things you don't particularly like. As someone once said, I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
quote:quote: "Husband to every woman and wife to every man," as they say. King Bithynia left his kingdom to the Romans because of his love affair with Julius Caesar. But of course, we're not talking about him. If Jesus were speaking literally, he would have been referring to Tiberius. But by then, following the death of Augustus, the term "Caesar" became the term known for the Roman emperor, all the way through to Constantine and beyond.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Does the concept of metaphor mean nothing to you? Yes, the literal context of the tale is that Jesus is looking at a coin. But the question put to him is about the tribute. You do understand the bigger picture, yes? The Pharisees are making the same argument that you are: By paying the tribute to Caesar, doesn't that mean they are saying they approve of Caesar? Of course not. It's only money. If Caesar is due money, then let him have his money. That doesn't mean you are agreeing with anything that he says or does. Caesar may have claim over your money, but god has claim over your soul. So if Caesar wants you to give him your money, let him have it. He will never get your soul for that belongs to god. Do you seriously not see the bigger picture? The material things of this world are not important. Even if you are stripped of everything, you are still richer than the wealthiest man because you have the blessings of god upon you.
quote: Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality. Surely if he were that upset about it he would have given it a mention. He seemed to have a thing about corruption. Why didn't he manage to even hint at a displeasure regarding not being straight?
quote: Gay people are not idolators.
quote: Nice try. That's my argument to you. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT responds to me:
quote:quote: No, you were asked why you were bothered by GAY PEOPLE getting married and you said that it would cost you more. How is it that gay people getting married costs you more than straight people getting married? If your argument is, indeed, that married people causes you to pay more to supply their social support, what on earth does the sex of the participants have to do with anything? It's the fact that they are married that is causing you to pay out more, not that they are same-sex or mixed-sex. If you have two men and two women, how do you pay more if the couples are boy/boy, girl/girl rather than boy/girl, boy/girl? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024