|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Please - Some Impartial Advice Needed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
See Thread Homosexuality and Natural Selection. in Forum Social Issues and Creation/Evolution. Thanks, Mod! I didn't know that was out there. Care to join me, Nemesis?It's been over 6 months since you've commented on that thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I like your quote, Nemesis!
One thing I agree with Jar on is that in some cultures, the emphasis is not on a persons sexual orientation so much as it is on that persons ability to be useful in that society. The Warrior was also a Dancer. In contrast, in todays emasculated society, Dancing (Ballet more so than Hip-Hop)does have a higher perce3ntage of homosexuals who pursue it. Does anyone know if there is a definite link between homosexuality and creativity? I guess that one issue that certainly needs to be settled among Christians is the whole legislation of morality issue. Do we as Christians have a responsibility to attempt to sanction and propose moral guidelines for society when it is evident that we ourselves are no different and in many cases worse than the population at large? BTW Taylor...I hope I'm not off topic, here. I just wanna pick some brains!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
jar writes: The only problem with bestiality is that under our laws, beasts cannot show informed consent. to which Nemesis replied:
quote: Care to start a thread on bestiality and see if you can support that assertion? Or is this simply more of the Christian Communion of Bobble-Heads Dogma? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: He is saying, in essence, "if you want to be happy, do this." Maybe you can show us the chapter and verse where Jesus said, "Blessed are the straight."
But what kind of person would I be if I were to acquiesce from something simply to appease them? What kind of person would you be if you accepted people as they are? A good one. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
NJ, this isn't an evolution of homosexuality thread You're right. This thread is about Taylor. But, we have quite a few threads in the EvC archives that we could possibly resurrect from the dead. "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I'm going to indulge in one more OT comment.
Dancing (Ballet more so than Hip-Hop)does have a higher perce3ntage of homosexuals who pursue it. Really? Care to provide the cite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I've never said that homosexuality is just like beastiality. No, but you applauded Iano, for his "well written reply to Taylor" (Message 63) in which Iano compared homosexual desires to bestial desires, which implies that you agree with his sentiment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: No, but you applauded Iano, for his "well written reply to Taylor" (Message 63) in which Iano compared homosexual desires to bestial desires, which implies that you agree with his sentiment. I didn't see that at as a comparison, save that they are both classified as sexual immoral. The use of something like beastiality is primarily to show that if one thing is tolerated, why not another, or another, or another? "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I've never said that homosexuality is just like beastiality. It's a common fundie tactic.
Jerry Falwell writes: So here we have now same-sex marriage. What's next, polygamy? ... Why not? And why not bestiality? CNN, Wolf Blitzer Reports, 2/24/04 Braves pitcher John Smoltz and catcher Eddie Perez reportedly made anti-gay comments this month during interviews with the Associated Press, during which Smoltz is said to have compared same-sex marriage to legalizing bestiality. Washington Blade, 7/16/04 The Santorum controversy arose over former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's statements about homosexuality and the right to privacy in April 2003. In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003 and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed consenting adults do not have a Constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behaviors, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy and zoophilia (bestiality), whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual. Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3452 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
I didn't see that at as a comparison, save that they are both classified as sexual immoral. The use of something like beastiality is primarily to show that if one thing is tolerated, why not another, or another, or another? Because they are completely different! And you've been told why (animals cannot give informed consent, nor can children). The "use of something like bestiality" to argue against the acceptance of homosexuality is simply a slippery-slope scare tactic used on the uninformed to advance a policy of inequality and intolerance. It has no basis in reality, but, unfortunately, it works so the Christian Right keeps using it over and over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2668 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
You're right. This thread is about Taylor. But, we have quite a few threads in the EvC archives that we could possibly resurrect from the dead. I've answered your question (Message 132) and I've invited you to discuss this further (Message 136) ... are you willing to continue this debate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well, I have seen dogs that hump other male dogs. This might be fascinating if it weren't for the fact that I've also seen them humping a pair of shoes.
I bet there is a human somewhere who has also done that Do your own examples of cats and inmates not demonstrate that in certain circumstances (i.e. lack of opposite sex partners) homosexual behaviour will in fact occur naturally? Anyway the notion that natural always = good is silly.Your arguments seem not only contradictory but also heavily dependant on the naturalistic fallacy. What has the naturalness or otherwise of a particular behaviour necessarily got to got to do with whether or not it is immoral? Is watching TV natural? Is it immoral?Is unprovoked violent behaviour natural? Is it morally right? There are many homosexual Christians and there are many homosexual non-Christians. It doesn't seem helpful to impose your own very narrow view of what is natural, what is right and what is Christian on this young man seeking support and advice.Frankly natural, morally right and Christian are completely unrelated things that you are unthinkingly combining to = shouldn't. If he is gay he is gay and there is no should or should not about it.He just is and should be allowed to get on with being who he is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Because they are completely different! There are only so many things that one could copulate with. Besides, if the analogy were so utterly and completely different, then it would also be useless to compare animal sexuality to human sexuality! In which case, it would completely undermine the point of bringing up "research" that shows that animals have homosexual unions.
(animals cannot give informed consent, nor can children). Animals don't give consent in the wild either. Ever see bulls and cows mate? Or alley cats? Its not consentual. Its tantmount to rape-- only, you can't call it rape because animals don't have a sense of morality, whereas, humans do. Secondly, there was a thread started the other day by Cavediver about how ass backwards US law is concerning a man who had sex with a consenting 17 year old. If we are going to go tit for tat, then the letter of the law applies. And if the letter of the law applies, then we have to determine why there are laws at all. It comes from a moral framework.
The "use of something like bestiality" to argue against the acceptance of homosexuality is simply a slippery-slope scare tactic used on the uninformed to advance a policy of inequality and intolerance. The main premise of Taylor's post was predicated on the notion of feelings, right? He "feels" gay, so he is questioning whether he is gay. Most homosexuals have declared something to the affect of, "I've always known I was gay. I felt it at a very early age." That somehow is used to show how its a natural thing. But somehow, if someone said, "I've always been attracted to goats, ever since I was a young shepherd," the same reasoning isn't extended. Why is that? Or if someone said, "I've always been attracted to young boys," it immediately is cancelled out when they come of age. While they can still "feel" the attraction, the law says they can't act upon those feelings. So, what is the difference? Aren't you being just as intollerant as you claim others are? That is why the argument is made. Its to show that feelings do not substantiate or unsubstantiate something alone. We all "feel" angry at times. Some of us, to the point of violence. How is it going to go over in front of the judge when you tell them that you bludgeoned a man to death because he made you angry? In other words, does the feeling justify the action? No one is comparing homosexuals to proponents of beastiality. No one is saying that if you engage in homosexuality that you are the same as a pedophile, or a zoophile, or what have you. Its used to show that feelings do not encapsulate who are. And, in fact, its a caveat against the foolishly naivete notion of, "follow your heart, and you can't go wrong!" I hope that made more sense. "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
And how does this supposed "unfair advantage" translate into real world consequences? Has nothing to do with consequences, or competition. It is what it is. As soon as the discussion gets into why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, the opposition (past tense) will always bring up the divorce rate of heterosexuals, and the percentage rate at which heterosexuals are poorly raising their children. It all stems from secular reasoning why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, or more accurately, that gay marriage is just not marriage. I thought we were all past that, but apparently not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I've answered your question (Re: The mysteries of life (Message 132)) I was going to respond to you, but Wounded King brought up a good point that continuing in that vein would lead us Off Topic.
and I've invited you to discuss this further (Re: The mysteries of life (Message 136)) ... are you willing to continue this debate? Sure, resurrect one of the more applicable threads and follow suit. "I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024