The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

PopePalpatine · 04-01-2015 01:29PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll assume this Saturday night drive by and await substance to come..

You said that young people were easy to brainwash, and considering that your post was also dealing with homosexuality, I assumed you were making the bigoted assumption that homosexuals target children for "conversion". It's ironic because the RCC has long manipulated the people of this country into believing their dogma because of their influence on our country's schools.

tommy2bad · 04-01-2015 01:48PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's utility, not morality. You have no basis for morally objecting to someone who has no problem in kicking ass of anyone who stands in the way of them having society the way they desire it

My objection to gay marriage (and LBGT agenda) would stem

a) from how I consider God to have set up the running of society for it's own long term good and a unquestioned* nod I would give to sustaining that as opposed to alternatives, however well intentioned and 'fair' sounding

b) having no faith at all in man's ability to foresee the consequences of his actions. In a relatively short period of time society has been moved/forced towards considering sexuality as one would a product on a supermarket shelf - any number of options or sub-options to be chosed from with the option of changing your mind at any time and switching brands.

A receipe for disaster fiddling with the building blocks of identity like that.

But I wouldn't at all be fatalistic about it. That society lunges from collision to collision in the course of it's rebellion can be no great surprise nor can it be avoided in the main.

I didn't think you'd like wriggling out of the problem of God's sovereignty. If he exists..

(A)I can't be sure that something which sounds 'fair' is in accord with what God wishes,but if it seems unfair or unjust,I can be pretty certain it's not.
(B) I have some sympathy with this position. Identity is an important aspect of everyone's make up. I suspect equality will affect gay identy in ways they don't expect. I think gay culture may disappear completely but that's their choice and I can't find any good reason,religious or secular to object.

MrPudding · 04-01-2015 05:57PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's utility, not morality. You have no basis for morally objecting to someone who has no problem in kicking ass of anyone who stands in the way of them having society the way they desire it

I think you have missed a large section of what is being suggested, perhaps not in the specific section you have quoted, but in other posts.

This is not the idea that anyone can do whatever they want without restriction, the restriction is that when your acts begin to harm other people, then you are restricted. So in my case, for example, I am quite happy for people to strive and work for their idea of 'a good life'. That life might consist of a number of elements, marrying the person they love, following a religion they believe in or not following a religion and the collection of property, to name a few. Now, with respect to marrying, I would not be so accepting if a person was marrying someone against their will, or someone or something that was not capable of giving informed consent. With respect to religion, knock ourself out, but when the manifestations of a person's religious beliefs begin to the impact the pursuit of 'a good life' by someone else, then I have a problem. This is the same for the collection of property.

And here we have a working example.

antiskeptic wrote: »

My objection to gay marriage (and LBGT agenda) would stem

a) from how I consider God to have set up the running of society for it's own long term good and a unquestioned* nod I would give to sustaining that as opposed to alternatives, however well intentioned and 'fair' sounding

b) having no faith at all in man's ability to foresee the consequences of his actions. In a relatively short period of time society has been moved/forced towards considering sexuality as one would a product on a supermarket shelf - any number of options or sub-options to be chosed from with the option of changing your mind at any time and switching brands.

A receipe for disaster fiddling with the building blocks of identity like that.

But I wouldn't at all be fatalistic about it. That society lunges from collision to collision in the course of it's rebellion can be no great surprise nor can it be avoided in the main.

So I am happy for you to hold this belief, but I have an issue when you start impacting other people's pursuit of their good life. If you can show a credible harm to society then we can take a look, but one person's religious beliefs are not sufficient justification for discrimination on other people, or preventing them from pursuing their idea of a good life, subject to that pursuit not impacting someone else pursuit.

To the mods, I appreciate that homosexuality is mention in this post but, 1) it is in response to another post and, 2) it is only peripherally related and any right that religious people seek to restrict could be substituted and 3) I think it would detract form an interesting conversation here is the post was moved to the mega-thread.

MrP

antiskeptic · 05-01-2015 05:24PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You said that young people were easy to brainwash, and considering that your post was also dealing with homosexuality, I assumed you were making the bigoted assumption that homosexuals target children for "conversion".

I wouldn't at all be supposing homosexuals targeting children. I would suppose folk spannering with the works, not necessarily understanding the long term and widespread consequences, will lead to confusion and so, damaging choices made by the young.

antiskeptic · 05-01-2015 05:47PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you have missed a large section of what is being suggested, perhaps not in the specific section you have quoted, but in other posts.

There was nothing being suggested other than morality a matter of personal preference. In this case "so long as no harm is being caused another - because that's the way I'd like society to be"

This is not the idea that anyone can do whatever they want without restriction, the restriction is that when your acts begin to harm other people, then you are restricted. So in my case, for example, I am quite happy for people to strive and work for their idea of 'a good life'. That life might consist of a number of elements, marrying the person they love, following a religion they believe in or not following a religion and the collection of property, to name a few. Now, with respect to marrying, I would not be so accepting if a person was marrying someone against their will, or someone or something that was not capable of giving informed consent. With respect to religion, knock ourself out, but when the manifestations of a person's religious beliefs begin to the impact the pursuit of 'a good life' by someone else, then I have a problem. This is the same for the collection of property.

Yet you would want that society restrict the freedoms of others in certain circumstances where those individual freedoms might impact on the good of the whole society.

The only difference between your view and mine is that I would see the gay agenda as being damaging to the fabric of society. You don't have to agree with that but all I'm doing is what you are doing - deciding where the freedoms of others should lie.

So I am happy for you to hold this belief, but I have an issue when you start impacting other people's pursuit of their good life. If you can show a credible harm to society then we can take a look, but one person's religious beliefs are not sufficient justification for discrimination on other people, or preventing them from pursuing their idea of a good life, subject to that pursuit not impacting someone else pursuit.

My comments above establish the central point: neither has a completely laissez-faire view of society. The next issue is on what basis can we justify our respective wish to restrict absolute freedom to do absolutely anything.

I draw my views from my worldview. You do from yours. You might want, for example, to have it demonstrated scientifically that such and such causes harm before the freedom is restricted. In that, two elements of your worldview:

- science shows all
- harm is the only factor to consider

My worldview would have different considerations

- society as God intended it, with homosexuality an aberration.
- science doesn't at all show all.
- whatever science shows would be after the fact. When the cat was already out of the bag.

You could talk long and hard about the merits of each of our worldviews but it's unlikely that we'd come to agreement. All that's left to do is for both of us to exercise our right to work towards society the way we think best.

You can call it discrimination if you like but all you're referencing is a definition extracted from a secular view of the world.

bodice ripper · 05-01-2015 06:29PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There was nothing being suggested other than morality a matter of personal preference. In this case "so long as no harm is being caused another - because that's the way I'd like society to be"

Yet you would want that society restrict the freedoms of others in certain circumstances where those individual freedoms might impact on the good of the whole society.

The only difference between your view and mine is that I would see the gay agenda as being damaging to the fabric of society. You don't have to agree with that but all I'm doing is what you are doing - deciding where the freedoms of others should lie.

My comments above establish the central point: neither has a completely laissez-faire view of society. The next issue is on what basis can we justify our respective wish to restrict absolute freedom to do absolutely anything.

I draw my views from my worldview. You do from yours. You might want, for example, to have it demonstrated scientifically that such and such causes harm before the freedom is restricted. In that, two elements of your worldview:

- science shows all
- harm is the only factor to consider

My worldview would have different considerations

- society as God intended it, with homosexuality an aberration.
- science doesn't at all show all.
- whatever science shows would be after the fact. When the cat was already out of the bag.

You could talk long and hard about the merits of each of our worldviews but it's unlikely that we'd come to agreement. All that's left to do is for both of us to exercise our right to work towards society the way we think best.

You can call it discrimination if you like but all you're referencing is a definition extracted from a secular view of the world.

This is about as strong as "I know you are, but what am I?" as arguments go...

PopePalpatine · 05-01-2015 08:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

blah blah blah

My worldview would have different considerations

- society as God intended it, with homosexuality an aberration.

blah blah blah

By any chance, is this "aberration" to be corrected with a good stoning session?

antiskeptic · 05-01-2015 09:10PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

This is about as strong as "I know you are, but what am I?" as arguments go...

I've no idea what that means.

antiskeptic · 05-01-2015 09:12PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

By any chance, is this "aberration" to be corrected with a good stoning session?

Nope, death will sort out everyone's aberrations, yours and mine.

tommy2bad · 05-01-2015 09:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

There was nothing being suggested other than morality a matter of personal preference. In this case "so long as no harm is being caused another - because that's the way I'd like society to be"

Yet you would want that society restrict the freedoms of others in certain circumstances where those individual freedoms might impact on the good of the whole society.

The only difference between your view and mine is that I would see the gay agenda as being damaging to the fabric of society. You don't have to agree with that but all I'm doing is what you are doing - deciding where the freedoms of others should lie.

My comments above establish the central point: neither has a completely laissez-faire view of society. The next issue is on what basis can we justify our respective wish to restrict absolute freedom to do absolutely anything.

I draw my views from my worldview. You do from yours. You might want, for example, to have it demonstrated scientifically that such and such causes harm before the freedom is restricted. In that, two elements of your worldview:

- science shows all
- harm is the only factor to consider

My worldview would have different considerations

- society as God intended it, with homosexuality an aberration.
- science doesn't at all show all.
- whatever science shows would be after the fact. When the cat was already out of the bag.

You could talk long and hard about the merits of each of our worldviews but it's unlikely that we'd come to agreement. All that's left to do is for both of us to exercise our right to work towards society the way we think best.

You can call it discrimination if you like but all you're referencing is a definition extracted from a secular view of the world.

Is their not a moral obligation to respect the autonomy of others, or are we obliged to stop the wicked from going to Babylon? While your desire to work towards what God wants is admirable,without clear convincing evidence of your God then sadly all we have to go on is the evidence we have. So far apart from afronting the ones who have moral objections theirs no evidence of harm to anyone. Gay won't be compulsory, it won't be encouraged all will happen is some people will get the same status in law that you enjoy.
Continue to shake your head and tut tut but if you respect your God then respect the fact that he gave people the freedom to choose. Their life, their choice.
and yes i deliberately used your God because your argument works for forbidding alcohol pork and women drivers. I might share your aspiration to set up society as God would want it, but as I don't share buko harams vision,I'm reluctant to grant any special privilege to a moral position in law.

antiskeptic · 05-01-2015 10:54PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Is their not a moral obligation to respect the autonomy of others, or are we obliged to stop the wicked from going to Babylon?

I'm talking of society and the effect on society. Certain people want society shaped one way and I don't see an issue with me preferring that it be shaped another way.

While your desire to work towards what God wants is admirable,without clear convincing evidence of your God then sadly all we have to go on is the evidence we have.

You switched from me to we. You are entitled to work to make society in the way your worldview informs you it should be shaped. The evidence which convinces you of your worldview doesn't convince me. Similarly, the evidence* which convinces me doesn't convince you.

*Those screaming "what evidence" needn't. I'm not interested in demands from a particular worldview for evidence couched in terms that worldview demands.

Gay won't be compulsory, it won't be encouraged

I disagree. When sexuality is placed on the supermarket shelf, with the sense that all is optional and all is valid and all is exchangeable - should you so desire in the future .. then in the confusion that follows, some will make wrong choices.

PopePalpatine · 05-01-2015 11:18PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I disagree. When sexuality is placed on the supermarket shelf, with the sense that all is optional and all is valid and all is exchangeable - should you so desire in the future .. then in the confusion that follows, some will make wrong choices.

So much idiocy in one (run-on) sentence. How many times does this have to be drilled into you: sexuality is not a choice, it's not going to be placed on this allegorical supermarket shelf.

antiskeptic · 05-01-2015 11:58PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So much idiocy in one (run-on) sentence. How many times does this have to be drilled into you: sexuality is not a choice, it's not going to be placed on this allegorical supermarket shelf.

Sexuality is something that is formed. Precisely how and how open to influence by the environment in which that formulation takes place isn't something known to you - bold or no.

_Redzer_ · 06-01-2015 03:54AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sexuality is something that is formed. Precisely how and how open to influence by the environment in which that formulation takes place isn't something known to you - bold or no.

Wanna take a stab at explaining the science of it then, chief?

06-01-2015 09:20AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

...
The only difference between your view and mine is that I would see the gay agenda as being damaging to the fabric of society....

Could you explain how? Thanks

marienbad · 06-01-2015 09:34AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm talking of society and the effect on society. Certain people want society shaped one way and I don't see an issue with me preferring that it be shaped another way.

You switched from me to we. You are entitled to work to make society in the way your worldview informs you it should be shaped. The evidence which convinces you of your worldview doesn't convince me. Similarly, the evidence* which convinces me doesn't convince you.

*Those screaming "what evidence" needn't. I'm not interested in demands from a particular worldview for evidence couched in terms that worldview demands.

I disagree. When sexuality is placed on the supermarket shelf, with the sense that all is optional and all is valid and all is exchangeable - should you so desire in the future .. then in the confusion that follows, some will make wrong choices.

Are all world views equal ? For example someone that believes in Aryan superiority and racial purity ?

RikuoAmero · 06-01-2015 11:52AM

*Those screaming "what evidence" needn't. I'm not interested in demands from a particular worldview for evidence couched in terms that worldview demands.

Yeah, we're all crazy, demanding evidence that manifests in reality and can be observed, that's crazy talk ain't it? Or to quote a line from a Clerks II deleted scene "sex nuts and retard strong"

tommy2bad · 06-01-2015 03:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm talking of society and the effect on society. Certain people want society shaped one way and I don't see an issue with me preferring that it be shaped another way.

You switched from me to we. You are entitled to work to make society in the way your worldview informs you it should be shaped. The evidence which convinces you of your worldview doesn't convince me. Similarly, the evidence* which convinces me doesn't convince you.

*Those screaming "what evidence" needn't. I'm not interested in demands from a particular worldview for evidence couched in terms that worldview demands.

I disagree. When sexuality is placed on the supermarket shelf, with the sense that all is optional and all is valid and all is exchangeable - should you so desire in the future .. then in the confusion that follows, some will make wrong choices.

Well yes society will change, for the better for gay people,very little for every one else. From me to we because society is plural. While for some inexplicable reason you reject evidence it remains the only way reasonable people who have differing morals can accommodate each other. The alternative is a theocracy, Kingdom of Saudi anyone?
I get your point about world views but as I said evidence is worldview independent, that's why it can be used by differing worldviews.

Sex a a selection box of options, and it isn't already? I think sexuality in the sense of attraction to one or other of both or none will stay as it was, sexuality in the sense of gender roles will change as the legal and social status of lgbt changes. It's changing already, I don't think Kevin this is a bad thing.

marienbad · 07-01-2015 12:39AM

marienbad wrote: »

Are all world views equal ? For example someone that believes in Aryan superiority and racial purity ?

antiskeptic any chance of an answer to this question please ?

BMMachine · 20-01-2015 09:50PM

Having a conversation with someone and am looking as to why Homosexual sex isn't allowed. Not a blanket statement, but an actual reason.

I've read through this:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f018.html
and this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

and couldn't find an actual reason. It just very vaguely says no, or just kind of says "men and women should be together" but nothing else.
Is there something I'm missing? Why does God not like homosexual sex? Like, what are the problems with it? And for Brucie Bonus points, where does it say this?

Delirium · 20-01-2015 11:06PM

Thread merged with Gay Megathread

BMMachine · 20-01-2015 11:09PM

shouldn't this be called "the prejudice against homosexual people thread" ?
genuine question

PopePalpatine · 20-01-2015 11:12PM

BMMachine wrote: »

shouldn't this be called "the prejudice against homosexual people thread" ?
genuine question

Keep your voice down, or else you might get sued for defamation!

BMMachine · 20-01-2015 11:18PM

what part of Christianity isn't prejudice against homosexuals? If the answer is "love one another" and "love thy neighbour" etc. then why are they treated as second class and are living in sin?

Its just a prejudice and if people want to hide behind a storybook instead of openly admitting their bigotry then for shame. It just proves their weak character, lack of perspective and overall unpleasantness.

Just admit you don't like homosexuals and move on. You will get judged for it but like in all aspects of life, you get judged on the decisions you make
So yeah, its not "The Gay Megathread" its the "Christianity's prejudice against homosexuality thread"

Delirium · 20-01-2015 11:20PM

BMMachine wrote: »

shouldn't this be called "the prejudice against homosexual people thread" ?
genuine question

No, this thread is for the discussion of homosexuality and Christianity.

BMMachine · 20-01-2015 11:25PM

SW wrote: »

No, this thread is for the discussion of homosexuality and Christianity.

ok, what part of that discussion doesn't involve prejudice? Considering of course that the Bibles only mention of homosexuality is met with massive prejudice and the continued second class treatment by the church and a large portion of its followers?
I really fail to see how I'm wrong

Delirium · 20-01-2015 11:33PM

BMMachine wrote: »

ok, what part of that discussion doesn't involve prejudice? Considering of course that the Bibles only mention of homosexuality is met with massive prejudice and the continued second class treatment by the church and a large portion of its followers?
I really fail to see how I'm wrong

There are a number of branches of Christianity that allow for same-sex marriage.

MrPudding · 20-01-2015 11:57PM

SW wrote: »

There are a number of branches of Christianity that allow for same-sex marriage.

Off the top of you head, do you know how many of the 33000 branches allow it? Of the remaining that don't, what do they say about those that do?

MrP

BMMachine · 21-01-2015 12:14AM

SW wrote: »

There are a number of branches of Christianity that allow for same-sex marriage.

ok, that still doesn't make the extreme mass of them not bigoted. You also don't mention how a load of those branches actively seek out second class rights for homosexual people.

You guys are going to have to face up to the massive bigotry and prejudice someday and dancing around the subject and performing patented mental gymnastics won't stop that. Like the tide, the church will be eroded away to its rotten core for all to see, you cannot stop that.

But in the mean time lets just make life hell for everyone else cos ya know, reasons

K4t · 21-01-2015 03:37AM

BMMachine wrote: »

its the "Christianity's prejudice against homosexuality thread"

SW wrote: »

No, this thread is for the discussion of homosexuality and Christianity.

Both imply the same thing, no matter how you wish to disguise it. Why is it so hard to be honest in acknowledging a core belief of Christianity which is that homosexuality is a sin?

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Comments