homosexuality

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

what is your view on homosexuality?

it's okay to be gay
32
82%
i love to sodomise other men!
0
No votes
it's immoral
4
10%
i'm a closeted homosexuel that goes around screaming god hates fags
1
3%
other
2
5%
 
Total votes: 39
User avatar
wwarnick
level5
level5
Posts: 1863
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Rexburg, ID

Postby wwarnick » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:23 pm

I think alot of this argument lies with whether or not we believe homosexuality can be genetic.

wwarnick
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:32 pm

wwarnick wrote:I think alot of this argument lies with whether or not we believe homosexuality can be genetic.

wwarnick


Why would it really matter? Would it be OK for the government to deny me equal rights because I liked strawberry ice cream? Does whether a preference is genetic or not matter as far as the legitimacy of government discrimination? Or even whether something is moral or not?
User avatar
Chimaera
level2
level2
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Behind You.

Postby Chimaera » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:47 pm

zjoere wrote:
Chimaera wrote:1. All of the random crap from Leviticus got overturned by Jesus, who replaced it with 'Be nice' and 'Love God'.
5. I like the lego bible thing.

1.no he didn't
5.it really makes things easier to understand doesn't it ?


I hoped you wouldn't take me up on this :oops: I was trying to paraphrase for a (presumably) largely non-Christian audience. I suppose I will have to explain it now. The general consensus is that Jesus meant that above all it is best to follow in spirit, rather than in letter. Basically, if you follow all of these laws you will be rewarded accordingly, but if you break any of them, which you are expected to do often, you will be justified through faith that you will be forgiven. However, nowhere does it say that ordinary people should carry out the punishments that were given for each crime in Leviticus - these were for the Levis to follow. Something that Jesus did get rid of was the system of priesthood that ruled before he came - he meant that only God should judge, noone else a t all should now take that job. This is nicely illustrated in the story where jesus comes across a crowd who are about to stone a woman - he says that only somene who has never done anything wrong can actually punish her. At least I think that is how it works. Basically: God judges, not us.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:53 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
wwarnick wrote:I think alot of this argument lies with whether or not we believe homosexuality can be genetic.

wwarnick


Why would it really matter? Would it be OK for the government to deny me equal rights because I liked strawberry ice cream? Does whether a preference is genetic or not matter as far as the legitimacy of government discrimination? Or even whether something is moral or not?


Part of the homosexuality argument (I think), is whether it is 'natural' or 'un-natural'

If the so called gay gene can be isolated, (and fully proven), it will be a huge change to the argument on both sides.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:57 pm

MrBunsy wrote:Marriage is an ancient sacrament between a man and a woman, you can't just change what it is.

No, it isn't. That is really a fairly common misconception in the Judeo-Christian world. Marriage is a nearly universal institution across all cultures in the world (one notable exception occurs among the Na, in China -- there is a rather large book on the topic, which gives you some idea of how rare "no marriage" cultures are, and how interested by them anthropologists are). In other cultures, polygyny is very, very common. It was also quite common in Jewish culture, at one point in time (which is where the Mormons pull their ideas about polygyny from). Polyandry is also rather common. Oddly enough, group marriages (i.e. multiple men and women) are rather uncommon. Also, while it is not exceedingly common, and generally only happens in specific contexts, homosexual marriages do exist in other cultures. Obviously, marriage is not just between a man and a woman. It can be between one man and many women, or one woman and many men, or groups of men and women, or a pair of men, or a pair of women (groups of men or women are vanishingly rare).

Also, marriage, historically speaking, is not a "sacrament" as much as a union of families for economic and social reasons. Certainly, marriages were performed by priests, but that is largely because the roles of government and leadership fell to the priests for such a long time. Priests would also be expected to arbitrate disputes, or build and maintain public structures.

In hunter-gatherer societies, a series of bad years can be hard on a band. So, it is useful to have relatives in the band one valley to the east, and one valley to the west. Then, if you are having a bad couple of years where you are, you can go hang out with the in-laws for a while. Of course, they will do the same. If you don't have relatives in other areas, you are totally fucked. Thus, in addition to joining two people for possible reproductive reasons, marriage serves as a way of increasing the economic potential of a small band, buffers against bad conditions, and creates social ties between two groups. In these societies, marriage is about sexual rights and economics. "Religion" only enters into it because religion is integral to every aspect of life in these societies -- there is little distinction between natural and supernatural, so everything has supernatural overtones.

These kinds of economic ties also influences marriage in agrarian societies. Look at the princes and princesses that were married into other families to grow the kingdom or make the peace in Christian Europe. Look at the dowries and brideprices paid in Hawaii, India, and Europe. Marriage has always been primarily about securing sexual rights, and economic and social ties. The "sacrament" of religion is a much later addition to it -- I would argue that it is an addition from the 19th or 20th century, largely due to the influence of Victorian ideals.

Even assuming that marriage has remained unchanged for thousands of years, why is this a good argument not to change it now? For tens of thousands of years, humans existed by gathering food off of the landscape, and occasionally killing an animal or two. That was an ancient tradition. Was it wrong to adopt agriculture? Conservatism for the sake of conservatism is silly. Arguing that things should not be changed simply because they have "always been that way" is silly. (Conversely, change for the sake of change is also silly -- I am not arguing that).

So, if your argument is basically "don't fuck with the ancient sacrament of marriage between men and women," here is my counter-argument:
  1. Marriage is not, by definition, between a man and a woman. (though it can be)
  2. Marriage is not, by definition, a "sacrament." (though it can be)
  3. Marriage has changed through time, so conservatism is no argument. (assuming that it is an argument in the first place)


xander

EDIT: One more argument about the nature of marriage changing -- it as illegal and considered immoral for a black man and a white woman (or vice versa) to be married in much of the US. That has changed. Recently, even.
Last edited by xander on Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mas Tnega
level5
level5
Posts: 7898
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 11:54 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Mas Tnega » Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:59 pm

kentuckyfried wrote:Part of the homosexuality argument (I think), is whether it is 'natural' or 'un-natural'

If the so called gay gene can be isolated, (and fully proven), it will be a huge change to the argument on both sides.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php


Indeed. One side will say, as they always did, "But they're born like it and can't help it!" and the other will, as always, scream "Abominations before God!"
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:03 pm

kentuckyfried wrote:Part of the homosexuality argument (I think), is whether it is 'natural' or 'un-natural'

If the so called gay gene can be isolated, (and fully proven), it will be a huge change to the argument on both sides.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php


I still don't see how it matters beyond basic scientific curiosity. Would discrimination be acceptable in either instance? Would the morality be different in either instance?
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:08 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote: Would discrimination be acceptable in either instance?

Yes, because neither is inherently wrong. :wink:
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:18 pm

As I see it, any religion that indicates that lust is a sin will disapprove of sex outside of marriage, adultery, homosexuality, polyamory, most alternative sexual practices and pretty much sex in general for any other motive than reproduction. If that is someone's reason for finding it immoral, then I, actually, feel that their view is completely justified provided of course that their views are consistant. Otherwise they're a hypocrit and probably deserve a slap.

Considering the way society's views on taboos change, there is infact some good reasoning in the mind of a religious political leader for suppressing these things, as allowing any one couple to do it doesn't just affect the individuals involved, but will over time make it seem morally ok (this happened a long, long time ago with sex in general and it's not been jumped on by religious leaders in remotely the same way homosexuality and etc have been - the point of marriage has seemingly become 'great now we can have sex!', not to create a stable environment for children etc, and that out-of-taboo status is only just dawning really for a lot of the other practices above).

Ultimately, other really people should be allowed to do what they want with anyone who will consent to it and is in their right mind.

torig wrote:It's those people going 'I was born as a woman in a man's body, so I'll have to undergo surgery, so then I can be a real lady and get me a man." that TRULY freak me out :shock:

Care to explain further?

Edit - so far as a 'gay gene' is concerned, as far as I'm aware sexuality etc could never be considered to be genetic, and is *many many times* more likely to be created due to hormone fluctuations during the development of the brain in the womb, much like the situation the people related to in torig's statement above probably were.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:23 pm

The GoldFish wrote:Considering the way society's views on taboos change, there is infact some good reasoning in the mind of a religious political leader for suppressing these things, as allowing any one couple to do it doesn't just affect the individuals involved, but will over time make it seem morally ok (this happened a long, long time ago with sex in general and it's not been jumped on by religious leaders in remotely the same way homosexuality and etc have been - the point of marriage has seemingly become 'great now we can have sex!', not to create a stable environment for children etc, and that out-of-taboo status is only just dawning really for a lot of the other practices above).


Except, it's not the government's place to legislate morality. It is the governments duty to protect its citizens' rights.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:32 pm

The GoldFish wrote:Considering the way society's views on taboos change, there is infact some good reasoning in the mind of a religious political leader for suppressing these things, as allowing any one couple to do it doesn't just affect the individuals involved, but will over time make it seem morally ok (this happened a long, long time ago with sex in general and it's not been jumped on by religious leaders in remotely the same way homosexuality and etc have been - the point of marriage has seemingly become 'great now we can have sex!', not to create a stable environment for children etc, and that out-of-taboo status is only just dawning really for a lot of the other practices above).

It is not the government's job to enforce morals. It is the government's job to create and enforce laws. Morals and laws, while they overlap to some extent, are not the same thing. Morals are about prescribing certain behaviours. Laws are to protect people's rights. Murder is illegal because one person's right to live is infringed upon by another. It is also immoral, according to nearly every code of morals in existence. On the other hand, slavery is illegal because it infringes upon a person's freedom. However, it is not immoral under many systems (including many interpretations of the Torah / Bible). What rights are infringed upon by homosexual relationships?

xander
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:33 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
kentuckyfried wrote:Part of the homosexuality argument (I think), is whether it is 'natural' or 'un-natural'

If the so called gay gene can be isolated, (and fully proven), it will be a huge change to the argument on both sides.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/03/news/cell.php


I still don't see how it matters beyond basic scientific curiosity. Would discrimination be acceptable in either instance? Would the morality be different in either instance?


It would matter because it would be an extremely (in)famous discovery. The results of the scientific curiousity would very, very, quickly be 'proof' of the legitimacy of homosexuality as 'natural', unavoidable and very normal. If proven to be a legitimate part of human existence, would also be argued (incidentally) that if part of nature, than is also part of god's creation thus intentional and perfect.

(of course then the criers of 'abomination', as well mentioned by Mas Tnega, would quickly come to play too)
torig
level5
level5
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:19 pm

Postby torig » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:38 pm

I've just had a thought. Well a few thoughts.
I'll try and formulate them in a non-offensive way, as much as possible, but I expect religious people to take offense anyhow. It's not my intention, but I can't refrain from saying these things.
With that disclaimer being given, here goes.

IF you religious types say that God created man to be like him and there is a master plan which considered gay sex evil and wrong, would you not think he would make it _impossible_ for people of the same sex to fall in love or lust for eachother?
Or are you implying the devine being "made an error"/oversight? :shock:

Secondly. If you still don't see my point, try accepting gays as a way for God to test your faith. Why would you merit heaven, if you didn't treat all people equally and with the necessary respect? Perhaps then, gays exist, so that on the Judgement Day your behaviour against them can be used as an argument for your Judgement.

Thirdly, and finally, "sexual preference" is really the worst choice of words one could give that. Do you think it has a lot to do with preferring?
I'm hetereosexual, and I don't simply "prefer" women over men. I'm in no way attracted to men and seeing two men kiss kind of makes me cringe (I wouldn't even want to see more...). HOWEVER the problem lies with me, not them. Luckily, I can accept them, without passing judgement on their so-called "preference".

What saddens me is the level of unopenmindedness (if that word exists) that people have.
What has religion -any religion except Buddhism, which I personally consider more a philosophy than a religion anyways- in any form ever done for the improvent of mankind and brought to it, besides war mongering, alienation of population groups, blood shedding and abuse/suppression of population groups by keeping them docile?
I'll stop here, as I'm getting worked up, and I have no intent on insulting people's beliefs. You're free to believe whatever you want, but your beliefs -over time- have done us more harm than good, if I'm allowed to speak my honest opinion.
Last edited by torig on Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:39 pm

kentuckyfried wrote:It would matter because it would be an extremely (in)famous discovery. The results of the scientific curiousity would very, very, quickly be 'proof' of the legitimacy of homosexuality as 'natural', unavoidable and very normal. If proven to be a legitimate part of human existence, would also be argued (incidentally) that if part of nature, than is also part of god's creation thus intentional and perfect.

(of course then the criers of 'abomination', as well mentioned by Mas Tnega, would quickly come to play too)


Race has always been known to be inherited, but it did nothing to stop racial discrimination. Gender is genetic, yet sexism is still prevalent and defended by many.

Christianity at least has never embraced the if it's genetic it's perfect idea and there is no indication the majority of Christians would change their views on homosexuality based on whether or not it is genetic.
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:41 pm

torig wrote:<snip>


Well spoken, honestly said. Good luck, I hope that something good comes from your post, a respectful intelligent reply from an opposing view if anything.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests