Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century

i don't know why, but this has me laughing my ass off. Well, I know why not. It's not becuase of the biological impossibility. perhaps because of the gusto with which he said. or something. that, or I just ahve a sick sense of humor (which i have at times)

Why?Could this order of things be wrong? After all, slavery was once thought (and probably still is to some) thought to be part of the natural order. So were the heirarchical systems such as fuedalism and manorialism.again, why must we assume the natural order to be correct and good?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

no no no no no. listen to what you said. you are talking about a single, specific natural order. why can't there be other natural orders? that's what I was getting at by referencing slavery and fuedalism. those concepts were once part of the natural order. but those natural orders no longer exist for the majority of us. Which means you cannot assume that this specific natural order is right and good--because history shows us that the natural order of things changes, and today, we view slavery as bad. 200 years ago, it was, if not good, not bad. changing natural order.sin also has no real relation to right and wrong. I recognize right and wrong--but sin is a religious concept superimposed on "wrong". I view purposeful lying as wrong. you view it as a sin. the difference? your religious worldview. You do not need the concept of sin to determine right and wrong.

um. . .acutally, w/o gravity, I would just float away. i would still exist, but i don't think anything beyond molecules would exist if there was no gravity (i'm no phycist, so i can't comment accurately on matters of existence w/o gravity, thats just my opinion)however, mind actually responding to my rebutal? you know, with some real words, instead of a single phrase that's fairly insignificant and says nothing about the issue at hand?

there's a difference between mistake and wrong. Doing such things are wholeheartedly wrong. and yes, in my mind, what the Nazi's did to twelve million people was pure evil.that doesn't make those actions sins. i thought I laid out the difference clearly enough. the concept of "sin" is a wholly religious idea--basically, you are breaking god's law/word/whatever.
He doesn't like that. hence, its a sin.Now then, since sin requires a god, and is a religious concept, and since I don't believe in God and don't follow any religion, how can sin apply to me?There are right actions, and there are wrong actions. "sin" is an added layer, fluff if you will, to this picture. It is neither required or necessary to make value judgements. Removing the concept of "sin" does not remove concepts of "right" and "wrong".and as a personal question, why do you have to have someone constantly reminding you such and such an action is "sinful"? is your moral fiber so weak that you have to have "sin" and the retribution that comes with it?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

it is today. Go back 1,000 years ago. What was equality for medieval europe? they had no such concept. heirarchy was the natural order of things. from Lord->Vassal/Lord->Vassal/Lord . . .->Serf. Go back to the classical world. Slavery was acceptable. If you didn't pay your bills, were a prisoner of war, among other things, you could/did end up as a slave. And this was not seen as out of the natural order of things.2-300 years ago, it was argued that africans were a lower race. the best way to use them was in slavery, and since they weren't human, it didn't matter. That was the natural order of things.The natural order of things I refer to is an always changing ideal of the world--of how things should be. I recognize that this thing is changing, ever changing, for good or for worse.You are referring to a natural order stuck in a specific idea/time, of an unchanging one. You say that this "natural order of sexuality" must be recognized as good and correct. This order, too, will change. It has changed. even 50 years ago, it was "unnatural" for blacks and whites to marry. it disturbed the "natural order of things". Today, it doesn't. why? that order has changed.your arguments against homosexuality have about as much credence as those against interracial marriages.Now you say the natural order is then how is it natural to prohibit homosexuals the right to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage? doing so, would be unnatural, to your order. Something tells me you didn't mean this--because you find homosexuality to be an abomination before the lord. therefore, its only right to discriminate against them. But then, that destroys your order of equality, doesn't it?Rob, be careful. Be very careful. You claim to want equality, and yet you do not want to give equality.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

sorry about that. i didn't may attention to the name, assummed it was rob/scotness. if sounded a lot like what he would/was/is saying.

you've never read a bit on utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperitive, have you?'cause if you had, you wouldn't have made that jackass, dumb, stupid, idiotic, whatever else it is comment.Get this straight, once and for all:
SIN IS NOT THE BASIS FOR RIGHT AND WRONG. IT IS A RELIGIOUS LAYER ADDED.You still haven't replied how I know right from wrong w/o sin. Since I don't believe in God or sin, then how can I know right from wrong, according to you? Guess what, I do. I just told you that I think that what Hitler did to those twelve million plus people is wrong and evil. I also make this judgement without the sin conceptLet me repeat some basic concepts here that you are having trouble with.One: SIN IS NOT THE BASIS FOR RIGHT AND WRONG
Two: I DO NOT CONDONE THE ACTIVITIES OF HITLER< OR FOR THAT MATTER, SOCIAL DARWINISM, EUGENICS, AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.
Three: YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND RELETAVISM. READ UP ON IT.now then, one more comment from you about how I approve of Hitler's "final solution", or anything similar to it, and I will ask for your suspension.

um . . .right.
My thinking . . .
Sin has nothing to do with right or wrong. your response: then how can you determine right or wrong. you, by accepting this, end up supporting Hitler's "final solution".me:
no, read again. Sin is not the determination of right or wrong. it is a religious concept, that you are breaking god's law.you:
you accept the "final solution" by that. because then all is relative and nothing right or wrong, and I can do whatever the fuck I want.me:
no. no. no. read it again. no no no.In utilitarianism, the determination for right and wrong rests in the how much good you do for the greatest number of people. in other words, its better to let the man drown than end up having the entire rescue crew (or many of them) drown with him. (Mill also argues that this is the basis of all morality--including judeo-christian. in other words, morality ain't religious)In Kan'ts categorical imperitave, there are two questions you ask. First, would the world work if everyone did this? I can't recall the second question. the end effect, is that we do things becuase they are the right thing to do, and that is the most basic reason. the right thing to do is based off of the two questions (of which one is given).now tell me, where does Kant (or Mill, essentially the father of utilitarianism), use sin in determining right and wrong? for that matter, the law of god?the logical conlcusion of my statement that sin has nothing to do with the determination of right or wrong is this: sin is pointless for right and wrong determination.It is not, accepting de facto that right and wrong are relative (and by that you mean I can do whatever the fuck I want w/o consequence, which is a misunderstanding of the concept of relativism), and that becuase it is relative (your defintion), Hitler is neither right or wrong. thus, I am forced to accept that I condone his activities because I can't declare them wrong.I ask you again, how can I, who does not believe in Sin (by nature of being an atheist), determine right and wrong? To give you hint--I obviously can, since I declare Hitler's actions wrong and even evil. My basis isn't sin, so what is it?you'll be surprised that you actually follow the same thing (unless you can only do what's right by fear of punishment).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

you don't get it, do you?
I have a reason to act good. to do right. simply, it is the right thing to doIt has nothing to with wanting christianity or any other religion to be false. I personally don't see the need in my life for such concepts.I do what is right because it is the right thing to do. I do good becuase such is. I use Kan'ts imperative, I use utilitarianism, I use my own compass.why do I need a reason other than "it is the .... thing to do"?
why do you need more than this?The simplest law in logic is this: A=A. I exist because I do. Doing right is the right thing to do. Good is good. that simple. that plain. that easy.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

you still missed it.I determine my own, my own right and wrong. I don't base it off of what everyone else is doing. I don't base it off of what I'm told to do. you know that question "if everyone did it, would the world work?". If everyone killed who they thought to be undesirables, the world would be dead. then, murder itself is just plain wrong.murder is wrong, period. What would be interesting, is to see just how many germans from the time actually supported the wholesale murder that was the holocaust. I want to wager not many. Even Hitler didn't start the murder (at massscale) until about 1943. Why? He started to lose the war in russia. and if he lost, he'd never be able to eliminate the jews. a slave is more valuable alive than dead--they can still do work.so why do I need a reason other than, "it's the .... thing to do"?

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.