Watch the flames fly here.
I'm already ensconced in the peanut gallery, feet up, gummy bears in the hand, marshmallows ready for roasting.
Let 'em fly!
(To the humour impaired: This is a very blatant example of my sarcasm. I obviously do not like flame wars, but I feel this compelling need to be sarcastic. I know that a thing as civil discussion won't stop the flames, of course.)
Just pointing something out quickly, before I join MJ up in the peanut gallery. (BTW, MJ, mind if I bring up some chips and salsa? I'm famished.) Peter, AIDS is spread as much by heterosexual sex as homosexual these days. You can't say that it's just a gay disease, because it isn't. (If that were true, then there'd be a lot fewer women with it than there are.)
1) I believe that the only morally acceptable way to make love is within marriage. This requires a man and a woman so homosexuality is doubly wrong.
What about cultures where polygamy is acceptable? There you have two women in marriage. Now what?
Retreats to the Peanut Gallery. I'm bringing the deli tray.
Peter, with all due respect, you are the biggest fukkin moron ever to walk the face of this earth and I hope a plane carrying a Christian Coalition group explodes and lands on your house.
Peter, the most offensive part of your post,"right thinking people"?
Thanks, Frank Chalmers, for your intelligent opinion. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were Brian Webber. :)
Peter, while I agree with you that homosexuality is a moral wrong, there are a few flaws in your argument:
(1). Matthew's right--heterosexual sex, at least in the States, is really chalking up its part in AIDS. I remember that big scare back in the early 90s.
(2). You seem to have some strange homophobic thought in your brain that all homosexuals are nefarious perverts that wait behind schools to rape schoolchildren. I don't know how it's done over in Britain, but I see little difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals (aside from sexual orientation) in the States. You can't oppose a sin by outdated stereotypes.
(3). You say that you doubt anyone would choose to be gay. Well, obviously, people do.
(4). I hate to say it, but Hitchens scares the living •••• out of me. His writing style is shrill and panicked--he offers no sources for his information, and he comes out like a paper of Dr. Goebbels' propaganda from WWII. The most compelling reason that I feel homosexuality is a sin is from the Bible.
(5). SLUGBUG! (punches Matthew in the arm)
(6). I guess I just have a question for you, Peter. The only reason I feel homosexuality is wrong is because of my religious faith. It seems that you oppose it because you find it distasteful. Please rebuke me if I am wrong.
AIDS is spread primarily by homosexual sex and so this act endangers lives.
Not anymore. Get your facts straight. AIDS doesn't discriminate and is spread by different ways other than sex.
I also believe that sodomy is digusting. I think most right thinking people would admit that there is something a little strange about what men do together.
You do realize, don't you, that 1.) this is only a matter of personal opinion, and that; 2.) quite a few women like it up the ol' poopshoot themselves? Even some lesbians, although they'd use certain rubber or hard plastic items to do it with, but still, sodomy isn't just done between two or more men.
Increasingly, in offices, public places and restaurants, smokers are treated as pariahs.
As well they should be. California has some of the strongest antismoking laws in the US, if not the strongest ones.
...condoms are unreliable things in the prevention of pregnancy...
Like any form of birth control they're not 100% effective 100% of the time, but they do prevent an awful lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Peter, ScottN is Jewish but he wasn't asking his question from a Jewish standpoint. He was just asking what was felt about those societies where polygamy is practised. And it wasn't too hard to figure out that "pen¡s" was censored in the above passage you quoted.
BTW, MikeC, if you can you'll want to correct the spelling of Homosexuality in the board's title.
Not that I'm presuming to know what you'll want, that is. *S*
...condoms are unreliable things in the prevention of pregnancy...
Like any form of birth control they're not 100% effective 100% of the time, but they do prevent an awful lot of unwanted pregnancies.
I recall the figure being something like 97% effective if they're used properly. Okay, so I said I'd stay out of it. I just couldn't help quoting a semi-obscure statistic.
There is nothing medically, as far as I know, to suggest that the physical practice of gay sex causes AIDS to be spread any more quickly than the physical practice of heterosexual sex. In other words, the disease is just as easily spread by gay sex as by straight sex. The reason gays are a high-risk group is because they got the disease first.
Fair is fair: he comes out like a paper of Dr. Goebbels' propaganda from WWII +1 in The Game
On the other hand, smoking has been physically harmful since day one, while gay sex has only become physically harmful since the arrival of AIDS, and for that matter now heterosexual contact is equally harmful because it also spreads AIDS. The analogy is a very bad one.
What's that trap door doing in the peanut gallery? Is that roaring you all hear? Heh heh heh...
Trap door? Is that what I had welded shut? I was just afraid the flames might get through and damage the stereo.
I got the idea, Peter, because you said homosexual people were just waiting to "bugger" schoolboys.
If it's hormones, then they can't help it. I don't think that's the right idea, though.
I feel that I have to be religious to really have a definite opposition to men kissing in public. If I was not a Christian, I would be in support of gay rights because I would have no reason to be against it. Just because it is not in the "norm" does not make it a sin. I feel it's a sin because of what my faith tells me.
(img src="http://media.voicesofunreason.com/VOU_Images/vou_logo_top.gif" border="0" width="277" height="77" alt="logo top")
Replace information as appropriate.
Regarding your figures, the author says:
(emphasis mine)
Quote:only 63 were heterosexuals who had no contact with the main risk groups. . . a mere 161 have been heterosexuals not exposed to a high-risk category, such as drug abusers or
bisexal men
That's a silly assumption--with no moral basis, how can you assume that homosexuality is "deviant behavior"? You can't, and it purely comes down to personal distaste, which is no real reason for disliking anything. Back in the '50s, there was a personal distaste for interracial couples. Now, as it should be, it's treated normally. I'm not equating homosexuality with that, but I'm just saying you can't oppose it with that kind of thinking.
::That's a silly assumption--with no moral basis, how can you assume that homosexuality is "deviant behavior"? You can't, and it purely comes down to personal distaste, which is no real reason for disliking anything. Back in the '50s, there was a personal distaste for interracial couples. Now, as it should be, it's treated normally. I'm not equating homosexuality with that, but I'm just saying you can't oppose it with that kind of thinking.:: MikeC
Exactly. The reason they assume it is deviant is because they think that homosexual activity occurs only in humans. That's simply been proven false as far as I can tell.
Chips and salsa, and deli trays, are quite welcome, Matthew and Scott. I've got plenty of desserts stocked in the fridge, and lots of drinks too.
*Leans forward to watch the start of the flames* Either of you wonder why Peter keeps referring to homosexuality as being prevalent in males only? I wonder about that myself...
*Flips on the loudspeaker* Hey, Peter, what's with the constant implication that homosexuality occurs only in males? *Flips off the loudspeaker*
Hold up, Morgan, I'm joining you on the Bad Parents list (and I know you're going to invite me to the wedding, too ;). Not that I intend to become a parent or anything...but I'm going on that list because of the following:
I'm not Christian. I don't believe two consenting adults engaged in sexual activity is deviant, whether the couple in question be both male, both female, or one of each. I personally don't care whether my (nonexistent) children see homosexual or heterosexual kissing. My kids wouldn't ask me "Is that deviant, Mommy?" - I assume they'd ask me "Do they love each other, Mommy?"
I also believe that this sexual phobia most everyone has is ridiculous. Sex happens whether we want it to or not. Snakes and spiders haven't been eradicated because of phobias, so why should sex?
*Has an idea, and flips the loudspeaker on again* Hey, Peter, am I also some nefarious pervert if I have one of my fictional characters be bisexual? I'm not going to detail any scenes, naturally, but I'm intending on making him like Sariya of Nalia. *Flips the loudspeaker off again, and grins widely*
Let's watch the flames!
::Chips and salsa, and deli trays, are quite welcome, Matthew and Scott.:: M Jenkins
What exactly goes on a deli tray?
::Well I don't say that, but gay women can't really do anything so it is not the same. AIDS certainly cannot be spread by lesbians.:: Peter
Wrong....yes it can, but it is less likely. If it were true, no lesbian would have AIDS.
Would you want your future stepson to turn out gay? Would you really not care what he decides? Would you want any children you have in the future to be gay? Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Patient Zero--the first American to have AIDS--was a gay pilot. Gay people in the United States got it first, before it spread to the rest of the population. If I find the time I'll go find the old Time (or was it Newsweek?) profile of Patient Zero.
AIDS certainly cannot be spread by lesbians. Says who? AIDS is present in vaginal fluids, and can be spread through vaginal oral contact.
Now, about the statistics: it still says that people with no contact with high risk groups are less likely to get AIDS. What about people who engage in unprotected heterosexual contact with IV drug users? They are at as high a risk to get AIDS as gay people. The danger is not gay sex, it's contact with a high-risk individual of any sexuality. Gay sex is not inherently more dangerous, but in the United States more gay people have (or at least had) a greater chance of having AIDS because Patient Zero was gay.
I have to say that I do think good parents always want the best for their kids, and being indifferent to whether or not they become gay is not wanting the best for them. That is not the same as banishing those who turn out gay, but I do think parents should want their kids to be heterosexual.
Peter, I'm going to give you a bit of advice here. And if anyone recognizes where this comes from... you have even less of a life than I. "As smart as you are, as much training as you have, as much of the world as you've seen, you still are only sixteen years old. You only have sixteen years of experience. Having more experience doesn't mean making difficult decisions are easier, but it does let you know that sometimes the tough decisions must be made."
Fact is, you really have no business commenting on whether or not parents who are indifferent to their child's orientation have the child's best interests at heart, because you are not a parent and you have little to no experience with raising children.
Of course, now I'm going to turn right around and give my thoughts on the matter, because an opposing viewpoint just has to be heard here. I think that what truly is best for a person isn't always what someone else thinks is best for them, and that if someone is perfectly content being gay, and has no regrets because of this choice, I see no reason why his or her parents should oppose this. After all, would that choice not be best for them, since it leads to a minimum of suffering?
Deviance is defined as "a departure from the norm". So either homosexuality is deviance, or it is the norm. Which?
I am uncomfortable with this definition. What if you're one of the only black kids at a particular school? Does that make you a deviant, because the "norm" for where you are is to be white?
*Flips on the loudspeaker* Hey, Peter, what's with the constant implication that homosexuality occurs only in males? *Flips off the loudspeaker*
*Dodges flames, calls back*
Well I don't say that, but gay women can't really do anything so it is not the same. AIDS certainly cannot be spread by lesbians.
Fine, then. I've noticed something of a pattern here. Whenever you refer to the immorality or distastefulness of homosexuality, you only mention gay men. Whenever you bring up the issue of gay couples having rights like marriage or adoption, you only mention lesbians. Might I ask why this is so? Would not both examples work equally well in both cases?
It is not about phobias, it is about morality and decency. You cannot simply dismiss everyone with moral concerns about christianity as sick in the head. I am am sure nearly everyone is against it, they are just afraid to say so.
The problem is, you cannot just push your morals on someone and expect them to obey them without question. It's been tried. It hasn't worked. Morals have to be a strictly personal thing. Teaching by example is fine and all that, but you can't simply say that a thing is immoral and expect all to agree.
Also, "I am sure nearly everyone is against it, they are just afraid to say so," strikes me as being suspiciously similar to, "Most gay-bashers are really just guys who, deep insider, aren't sure of their own orientation." See my point in the preceding paragraph as to why you can't make a statement and expect it to apply to everyone.
I think I've officially left the peanut gallery. Oh well. Been too long since I've been in a real discussion here.
** Well I don't say that, but gay women can't really do anything so it is not the same. **
Obviously Peter has never watched any pr0n!
Pron? What is this pron? Is it like prawn? Or perhaps you mean porn?
Peter, the insinuation I get from your argument is that since lesbians can't spread AIDS, then why bother with them? That bothers me.
Deviant--defining from the norm. My point is, how do you know what the norm is without some sort of moral code telling you it is so? The answer: You don't.
You then say: "It is not about phobias. It is about morality and decency." What moral code are you referring to? You frequently mention God and the Bible, but I don't think you said you were a Christian or Jewish. I'm not meaning to pick on you: I'm just trying to make a point. Without some established moral code (no matter what religion), it is impossible to attack homosexuality as deviant. Deviant from what?!
If gays are okay, can we still attack paedophiles and necrophiliacs equally vehemently?
NO, because homosexuality is between two consenting adults! Paedophily (is that it?)and necrophilia are not because the other person did not consent!
Put simply, it is wrong to sleep with someone to whom you are not married.
WHY? Why, why, why, why, why??? Can you at least make an argument against it without bringing religion and God into it? Because until we are certain God exists (to borrow a line from the abortion topic, "until we are certain life exists"), no one can be certain that what He says is the rule!
I also, before I take my first trip to the peanut gallery, would like to point you to this Open Diary, written by someone known as "Homophobia Sucks":
http://www.opendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A207162
In Peanut Gallery: Hey guys! I brought Milky Ways. Anyone want any? (At this rate, everyone'll be in the gallery and Peter will be left arguing with himself.)
Msmith.
*q*
Well already gay campaigners want complete equality for themselves, meaning effectively that they want the law to permit them to b*gger schoolchildren.
*/q*
So what you are saying is, that heterosexuals have the right to bugger schoolchildren?
Methinks someone needs to look-up "equality" in the dictionary.
*q*
There is a good chance that when a man goes to bed with a woman he will one day marry her.
*/q*
And in the states, divorce her in one year's time, in 60% of the cases.
Not to even mention that 5% does NOT seem that "good a chance of marriage" to me.
*q*
Put biologically and perhaps rudely, the vagina is designed for sex, the anus is not. When the latter is used, blood often flows and this permits the quick spread of AIDS.
*/q*
OUCH! Err... Have you /ever/ heard of lubricants? The average person is not masochistic, so I don't see why gay people should be any different.
*q*
Neil goes on to write that there could be plenty of contact as regards the other 63 - the government just could not find them. So about 0.9% of cases involve non-gay non drug takers. Do you really think this would suggest homosexuals do not spread AIDS more?
*/q*
IMO, it would suggest dodgy statistics. *g*
Statistics are unreliable as it is [did he actually say who did the statistics and where you could read about them yourself?], but if you start off with a prejudice towards the topic you research, it bodes bad times.
And as I have 8 years of biology behind me, and I actually studied the life cycle of the HIV virus and how it and other viruses are spread... Well, no comment. Oh, BTW, given the fact the virus was originally the FIV virus, that carried over from cats to baboons/monkeys, who carried it to humans when the locals ate their flesh... How is it a gay disease? What, a gay lion bit a gay monkey and the monkey was eaten by a gay human? *g*
But the statistic is as ridiculous as the statement one person once made on a mailing list I subscribe to: "I am against homosexuality, since I cannot be for anything that would cut a man's lifetime almost in half".
Hm. Yes. And swamp mist causes malaria.
*q*
Well condoms do not prevent some unwanted pregnancies. Now, if you believe that sleeping with someone once causes AIDS then surely condoms would spread AIDS a lot.
*/q*
I assume this was just a poorly put statement... I doubt condomes themselves spread the disease. :)
*q*
Particularly as the chance of conception is about 5% without a condom.
*/q*
No, the chance of a condom not working is 3%... But unless you've very unlucky, the chance of getting pregnant the first time you have proper sexual intercourse without protection is quite small aswell [some couples ned months, and those are the couples that do NOT have fertility problems]. I'm not sure what exactly the chance of getting HIV is, but it's definately not 100% [I remember that much from that study].
But as far as the plague part is concerned... Er... Have you looked out the window lately? HIV •••• near /is/ a plage. And In Africa? No comment. Let's just say your theory suggests there are a very homosexual bunch down there.
*q*
Well I don't say that, but gay women can't really do anything so it is not the same. AIDS certainly cannot be spread by lesbians.
*/q*
Can't do anything? That'd nice,... So how do they exist them? By your theory, homosexuality is caused by sexual perversion [or there about]. How can the inability to do anything be so attractive to 15% of the female populous? :)
And I /really/ urge you to go read about AIDS from places other than that author. You know. The guys called "scientists" might actually have some clue about what they've been working on for decades. :)
*q*
Yes, but what I meant was that they do not choose to feel the way they do about members of the same sex, the decision is made by the hormones.
*/q*
Hm. True, to a certain degree. But they do that in heterosexual bodies aswell, why should that be any better? Sexuality has been more than a breeding factor in human society for millennias now, you'd think people would accept it by now. As fas a homosexuals go, ancient Greeks were way ahead of us... Actually, they still are. Look at Indian culture, you see few such strong sexual taboos there. Or even better, look at Japan. The manga they sell there [comic books, for those who might not know] contain quite a lot of sexual content, even the mainstream ones [at least by Western standards]. Children read comics with sexual situations since age of 6... The result? Things like rape and sexual violence is almost non-existant in Japan [if you think hiding things from little children and forcing your adults to supress their feelings and emotions is a good thing... Well, may your chosen God help you and give you a good socialogy book to read].
*q*
It is not about phobias, it is about morality and decency.
*/q*
Aaah, now that makes ALL the difference! A thick black book says gays are bad! KILL THEM ALL!
...so sayeth the flock...
*q*
You cannot simply dismiss everyone with moral concerns about christianity as sick in the head.
*/q*
Let's just say some of us like to make up our own mind and not follow the rules that were written up to 2000 years ago. In the meantime, we had a whole lot of religious wars, religious whitch hunts and a period with the church in top power and corruption reigning high... And in all this time, the Bible content was never once affected by men whose views were heavily misguided even by modern Christian standards?
Quite.
*q*
I am am sure nearly everyone is against it, they are just afraid to say so.
*/q*
Or maybe they know what tolerance means beyond its dictionary meaning. First we had gender, then we had race, now we have sexual orientation... I wonder, what /will/ be the religious witch-hunt of the future? Pink hats? Personally, I hope for Telletubbies.
*q*
Deviance is defined as "a departure from the norm". So either homosexuality is deviance, or it is the norm. Which?
*/q*
Hmm... Norm? A rather risky ground when it comes to social structure of society. Only a small percentage of people smoke pipes. They deviate, burn them!
I don't think so. And given the fact 10%-15% of the world's population is gay, is it really a minority? 900 000 000 seems like a rather big figure to me. So, in a wordly sense, is Europe a minority? And if so, does that give anyone the right to treat it as less?
More to the point, why should being different be a bad thing? All looking the same, all thinking the same... Ah yes, Orson would have been so proud.
Also, kudos to MikeC... Alas, I hear too many Peters and too few of the likes of Mike to have a very high tolerance towards "it's against morality!" speeches, especially when it concerns the "throw the first rock" religion we all know and love.
No God means no law and order.
Sorry, no, and this is the type of situation that The Game was invented for.
Voice over loudspeaker: "Lesbians are no better than homosexuals" ?? Naw, Peter, lesbians ARE homosexuals!
The Game only comes into play if someone tries to say that all atheists are evil because such and such an atheist did this or "when atheists were in charge, this happened." I really need to revise and expand that Game, it's a keeper.
As for deviance from the norm (how...statistical of you) I hereby commit myself to the category of deviants. I am skinnier than the norm, therefore I am a deviant.
Want to limit it to behavior? Most people are not readers of science fiction. The norm, worldwide, is not to read science fiction. Therefore my behavior makes me clearly a deviant.
Of course, reading SF doesn't hurt myself or anybody. But it's a deviance. Time to check myself into rehab.
I follow the philosophy that if it doesn't harm others it's none of my business. Yes, that implies if you try to kill yourself that's none of my business. I avoid this by saying self-immolation is the only exception to the rule. But gay people do not harm others just by being gay, the way a pedophile or a necrophiliac clearly harms others. And by the by, if smoking only harms the smokers I say, puff away, bub. Adults only, mind you.
Addendum:
I am am sure nearly everyone is against it, they are just afraid to say so.
Let me shout if from the rooftops, from every corner of the globe: I FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALS!!!!
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
Keep your unwarranted assumptions about my ethical guidelines to yourself in the future.
P.S. MikeC--please delete the AUTHENTICATION ERROR message, it royally messes with the "last day" tool.
Ah yes, Orson would have been so proud.
Nit. It's "Orwell".
Oh, and Peter? Congratulations. You're a deviant. The norm for humanity as a whole is oriental.
DARN IT! I came out of the gallery... Oh well, we needed some more bread anyways.
Oh, and whoever asked, a deli tray is the lunch meat platter you find at buffets...
And for any vegetarians in the gallery, I'll pick up a veggie platter while I'm out.
Sorry, Peter, there is a complete series of tests you must take before you can enter the peanut gallery. That includes bloodtyping, Rh typing, DNA tests, retinal scan, voiceprint, fingerprint, mugshot, physical examination, three separate pieces of picture ID, and you must also walk through five separate metal detectors. Did I also mention the psych testing too?
Anyway, onto the more mundane things:
1) Lesbians are homosexual.
2) I have no problem if any of my children become homosexual. I have no problem if either of my brothers become homosexual. I have no problem if any of my friends are homosexual (Lee notwithstanding).
3) It is about phobias. Most Western cultures have this phobia of sex. Why, I've no clue. But look at all this: no sex in movies, no sex in art, no sex in books, no sex on TVs, no sex, no sex, no sex. It's a sex phobia, and it's utterly ridiculous and immature.
4) My moral code and my sense of decency tell me that it is not any of my business to force everyone else to abide by me. My moral code and my sense of decency tell me "To live and let live."
5) I have no problem with saying I have no problem with homosexuality. Another reason I don't get along with a certain parental unit: he's homophobic too. Also why I kinda sorta clash with The Boyfriend (not mine, Crisa's). He's homophobic too.
6) I'm also a deviant, in many ways. I'm Wiccan. I'm interracial. I'm so far left wing, I'm almost in the right wing section of the circle. I'm a reader of SF and fantasy. I write fantasy. I practice masochism, since I keep coming here for another dose of flames. I am not against homosexuality. I am not against interracial marriage (for obvious reasons). I am not against interreligious marriage (also for obvious reasons). I do not want children. I do not center my life around finding a mate and getting married. None of this hurts anyone but me...hold up, Morgan. I wanna check into your deviance clinic too.
7) Sariya of Nalia is one of my most infamous characters. She's a bisexual, and she's the Queen of Nalia. Never married, no children, prefers men, but will take women. Looks and acts flighty, but she's smart and cunning. And she had the really infamous words: "Pleasure is pleasure. Whether it comes from a man or a woman is irrelevant." (Due to such a negative response to Sariya and her whole attitude, I eventually deleted her story and dumped her into the recesses of my imaginative little mind. I may bring her out later. Yes, she's pre-Taundra.)
*Note: If you're really truly desperate for the whole story of why Sariya said what she did, email me and I'll tell you. It's too long and irrelevant here.
Anyone up for a whole luau in the gallery? We got the people, I can get the pig, we got the flames...
But there is. Society keeps "one man" from forcing his opinion. (Though I could invoke Godwin's Law and The Game, by mentioning certain dictators of the 20th century or others of the 15th who purported to be Christian...)
G-d is not required in the societal compact that says, "It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal." It seems to me that the Constitution of the US Constitution in the (in)famous Fifth Amendment, does not need to invoke G-d to state that "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...".
Seems to me that that's pretty much saying "Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong", without invoking G-d.
To quote that really annoying teen pop queen... "Oops! I did it again!"
One of these days I really *WILL* stay in the Peanut Gallery. Honest!
Oh, could someone help me with this pumpernickel loaf and this veggie tray? I've got rye, sourdough, and egg bread as well... Who brought the mustard?
*Can't help herself. Really, truly tries to, but just can't do it* You thought I said that a Wiccan leader said Sariya's infamous words?!
*Falls right through the window of the peanut gallery, hits the arena ground hard, and continues to laugh hysterically*
I distinctly remember saying that it was Sariya of Nalia who said that, Peter! In the Political Musings board, if memory serves!
NEVER a Wiccan! That'd just cause way too much trouble!
*ROTFLMAO*
RE; "Right thinking People" Those would be the ones who think as you do? Are you(peter) looking for arguments Against your Posted homophobic rants? Disguising them as Morally Superior "Right" thinking, Religiously Sheathed absolutes on the Christian indoctrinated Bigotry?
If so, I must admire the lengths you go to enjoy your own Sarcasm. If you truly Believe what you post, well, GOD does have 2 places to go when you Die. *S*
SLUGBUG! (punches Peter in the arm)
Now, regarding the usage of God in this thread, since this is Religious Musings, we can discuss God and religion in each thread.
Peter's response to my argument ("How can you label homosexuality wrong without a moral code to say it is wrong?") is once again flawed. "Yes you do. Gays cannot have children and they are a small number of people with strange feelings. That is not the norm. Using your logic, it is only morality that stops paedophiles from being normal."
I say, again, without a moral code telling you so, what does children have to do with anything? What are "strange feelings" if we don't know what the norm is in the first place? How is pedophilia wrong?
As another discussion has proposed, you need something telling you so. I won't even be presumptuous and say you need God. You need a moral code, a starting point in which something tells you something is wrong. I'll even give the "opposition" a bone, and say that murder and pedophilia can be automatically judged to be wrong because it hurts other people. But homosexuality does not. Thus, it cannot be labeled wrong purely by visible "common sense". It goes back to the starting point, the moral code, which in my instance, is the Bible.
HEY, Nothing in the Bible Prevents Playing SlugBug on long Road trips. Maybe the authors Played Slug the heathen pulling a cart full of wheat?? I profess that morality needs no outside Influence. Only rule needed is the Golden one, do unto others. Do we really need a GOD to tell us it is wrong to kill & to Hate? Or more to the subject, do we need a GOD to tell us WHO to hate? Personally I hate Camaros & Firebirds, but I do not Think they shouldn't be allowed to be built.
Religious or not, they would want their children to remain innocent about that...
Innocent, or misinformed?
I do think parents should want their kids to be heterosexual.
Parents should want their kids to be happy first, regardless of their sexual orientation. Many parents who were against homosexuality have done a total 180 when their kids came out, and in fact still love their kids greatly and are extremely supportive of them, even some going so far as to join the kids in gay pride parades and functions. Why are you so fearful of gays, anyway? It's not as if they're checking you out everywhere you go, is it? Or perhaps...are you a closeted gay man that's ashamed of it, and full of self-loathing, and so you lash out against them to hide it? That's very common amongst the strongest anti-gay folk.
So either homosexuality is deviance, or it is the norm.
It's normal, of course, cuz God created sex, and the human sex drive, and he really doesn't give a flying fig if someone's gay, straight or bi. Know why? Cuz it's his will! So, if you want to deny that that he created sexuality (homo, hetero, etc.) then you're denying God and if you're denying God then you're an atheist, and have no right to criticize his will at all. Man, I really love using that point up to newbies!
AIDS certainly cannot be spread by lesbians.
Not being a lesbian, how would you know? Again, get your facts straight.
It is not about phobias, it is about morality and decency.
Whose morality, whose decency, and who's to decide which opinion to use and make a solid example of?
Gays cannot have children...
Apparently you've never heard of sperm donors? Melissa Etheridge and her lover, Julie Cryer, have used the same one twice now.
...and they are a small number of people with strange feelings.
As opposed to a large number of mentally imbalanced, self-delusional religious fanatics with strange feelings?
No God means no law and order.
No. No God means no religious fanaticism running, and ruining, our lives, but unfortunately that's just not gonna happen now, is it? At least not for many lifetimes to come yet.
Gay people adopting children are as bad as terrorists killing people? That's one heck of an analogy. +1 for a version of "When the terrorists wrote the Constitution, bad things happened. The US is acting like a terrorist-run nation."
So you really aren't defining deviant behavior as any deviation from the norm, you're defining it as "unnnatural." What is "unnatural", and how do you define "natural"? Are you relying on a Biblical definition? Or are you saying "natural" is "whatever most right-thinking people agree is natural"? How do you define "right-thinking"? As a liberal atheist, am I doomed to a life of destructive hedonism, even if I follow a societal compact without reference to God?
*ROTFLMAO*
What does that mean?
How did I know that he was going to ask that?
Peter, you really should read some books somewhere about the 'Net. That one's been around for at least 20 years...
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A** Off.
Here's another topic I never quite see how there can be a "debate" on.
Several religions condemn homosexuality - they don't give an explanation for the condemnation, they just condemn it. Many of these religions also condemn adultery, mixing meat with milk, take the Lord's name in vain, and working on the sabbath.
So..if you're a follower of your particular religion, it's a "sin" --end of story. No getting around it.
And if you're NOT a follower of the religion, it's my understanding that there are ZERO studies, statistics, etc. that show there's anything wrong with homosexuality (wrong in the sense that it's harmful to the participants or non-participants in any way).
So it seems to me that if you "oppose" homosexuality, you either condemn it because it's a sin, or you oppose it without basis.
So what's the argument?
Also: assuming you choose to oppose it on religious grounds, surely you concede that people who are not followers of your religion should not be bound by its tenets- right? And: uou don't equally condemn people who work on the sabbath or take the Lord's name in vain- do you?? And assuming you don't, aren't you themn hypocritical for only condemning people who commit the sins that YOU personally find offensive?
Once again, Len, you offer an astute, capsule description of why I "oppose" homosexuality.
Peter, of course, as a person I am opposed to pedophilia. But the only way to know if it is truly "wrong", is to have a moral absolute. You yourself have said this on occasion
well Mike..I odn't know if I quite agree. I think there ARE studies that show that children who have sex with adults have psychological problems. I don't have the stats at my fingertips- but I guess I could look if there are those who don't take this as a given.
I believe that there are NO similar studies concerning homosexual behavior. I would venture to guess that the major psychological harm that comes from homosexuality is caused SOLELY by the CONDEMNATION of intolerant people (i.e. those who condemn because it violates THEIR religious beliefs or out of plain insecurity in their own sexuality).
Doesn't matter. Peter's a deviant. See This Post.
Len, no need, I was just using it as an example.
I also agree with you that homosexuality does not cause physical or psychological damage. I refuse to oppose it based on outdated stereotypes that say it is unhealthy or dangerous. Maybe this makes me intolerant, but I oppose it based on my religious faith. I really don't see how calling names, pointing fingers, or screaming about it will do anything. If homosexuality is really a sin, then why isn't it treated like a sin by the Christian community, instead of treating it like some uncurable disease? Instead of having Christian leaders denounce homosexuality and threaten them with eternal destruction, why not have peaceful outreaches with the Gospel preached and glorified?
Why indeed Mike? But I must say it's refreshing to hear the voice of a theoretically tolerant religion being expressed tolerantly.
Thanks.
A liberal athiest type cannot do that. If he does not believe in forcing his opinions on others (and without God, the belief that murder is wrong is only an opinion) then he cannot justify punishing murderers, because only in his eyes is murder wrong.
There are two ways around this. The first is to say that that certain rights (such as the right not to be murdered), should be protected by law. But again, this is simply an opinion, so if you believe that this right exists and someone else does not who is to say you are right and he is wrong? Who says harming someone is wrong? Isn't that just your opinion?
I take it you’ve never read Hobbes & Locke? (oh..sorry..that’s college freshman history 101 :^) Societies make laws so that they can exist. One of the duties of the society is to protect its members. Anti-murder laws accomplish this goal; anti-homosexuality laws do not (I’m speaking from a CIVIL, not religious standpoint). Are you seriously proposing that the idea that harming people is “wrong”??
So clearly you need moral absolutes that are more important than public opinion. You cannot defend a moral absolute unless it is inspired by a God, so without God you canot defend any legal and moral codes, and society will descend into anarchy.
This is incorrect. Or, at a minimum, unproven. There is no historical proof that governments based on religion are more stable than those based on civil laws. In fact, the fact that civil governments predominate our globe can be viewed as proof that religious-based govts are more unstable, and in a Darwinian world, are in a distinct minority.
I believe life is harder to enjoy if you are gay, which is why my first reaction is sympathy, rather than hate or fear as some claim.
The ONLY reason it is more difficult is because of intolerant homophobes. There’s nothing about being a homosexual per se that could lead to your conclusion.
Peter, there’s NOTHING in your post that counters the points I raised above. The bottom line: your sole leg to stand on in taking an anti-gay stance is that it violates your religion. And to try to make others who are NOT part of your religion conform TO your religion is, simply, improper in a society that claims to allow religious freedom.
And to the extent that you harangue against "sinners" who offend your personal sense of wrong (ex. homosexuality) while saying not a word against "sinners" who don't offend your personal sense of wrong (ex. sabbath breakers), you're hypocritical in saying you're doing so becasue of your religion.
*q*
I believe murder is wrong. Now as far as I am concerned, I am right because God tells me that.
*/q*
No, it doesn't. A big black book tells you that. Now, WHEN I see a big shining arm, reach down, casting lightning, then I will take that argument a bit more seriously. And even then I'll wonder if it's really God or just Zeus, showing off.
It must be so easy to have an absolute, but not only have it, have it in hard copy. Thinking things over by yourself? Nah, why, when it's just so much easier to get that absolute truth from your desk drawer.
How really do you argue with someone who is 100% sure he/she is right? The Bible has more nit holes in it than my sweater, but still there are people who seem to refuse the responsibility that comes with individuality. Let's reference to the book again, shall we... Now, the 10 deadly sins. They are supposed to be the ultima when it comes to sinning. Let's see, we have gluttony, killing, jealousy etc etc etc... Can you honestly not be hypocritical and say you never fealt at least the wish/need to commit one of them [after al, not only sinning, but thinking of sinning is also a sin]? And if you have... How can you, the sinner of the ultimate sins, dare preach to someone who is, by your view, a sinner only because of an anecdote? I'm prolly oversimplifying it here, but really... Next point. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Hm. Sorry, but denying homosexuals the equality in society is loving the sinner? I think not. And ultimately, wasn't it supposed to be God that is the one that punishes the sinners? If so... Could someone quote a paragraph from the Bible that says "and thus I give thee, the blind follower the right to act in my name"? I mean, does your god actually give you the right to punish sinners in his name? The deity is supposed to be just, and have "everything planned out in strange ways". If so, how do you know you're not working against his will when you're working in his name?
Oh, and a general question concerning the old and the new testament. In the old one, God is mentioned as only one of the gods [Egyptian gods are mentioned, no? False gods or whatnot, but still, as gods], but then the new testament seems to refer to him as the one and only God? Hm, someone clear this up for me.
*q*
Athiests cannot say the same. They can only say that in their opinion murder is wrong.
*/q*
Err. It's in your opinion aswell. Just because you believe you're right by whatever reason does not make it more than a personal opinion. If I say I believe into the god of Hallabeluga, who tells me all killing is wrong, except when it comes to killing his followers, does it make me right? I mean, this is my deity I'm talking about, my one and only master.
*q*
I think it is a fact because a divine being has revealed this to me through the Bible.
That gives me te right to force this view on others - I can stand up and say "Murder is wrong and that is a fact because it is God's word. If you commit it I will execute you."
*/q*
No, it does not. You are not God, therefor YOU cannot decide what he would do in your place. If I am a judge, I can say "killing is wrong, I will trial you", but to let anyone who agrees with me do my job for me would be anarchy. What gives you arrogance to believe yourself aware of what God has in store for other people than yourself? If it's all his one plan, then it is HIS plan, not yours. I know that if I were god, I sure as hell wouldn't want someone thinking he's as good as I am and acting in my name. Adjust your moral views according to whatever you choose to believe, but nothing gives you the right to enforce your views on others.
Hm, why is the law we use any better than any other single individual's opinion? Well, because that single one individual may be a complete social retard, with views that favour himm, but not others. Yes, granted, there are laws that act like that aswell, but through time we're fixing them. You see, unlike your previous absolute, laws are flexible. They're human-made, and can be human-adjusted to fit needs of the time. This can be abused, but the advantages far surpass the bad things in the long run. Take ecology for example... The Bible mentiones ecology not. And the animals are there to support/serve humans in the first place, right? So in a Bible-ruled world, there'd be no wild-life conservation. The BigBookOfAbsoluteTruth doesn't say "take care of your planet", does it? And so you would not, you'd wipe out one species after another, populating the world until it overflows with married couples, having children.
Now, before you go all foamy-at-the-mouth about it, I just made this statement to demonstrate what YOU are doing.
"Without someone telling you how to live your life you'll be a phychotic pedophile, who kills young virgins and drinks their blood for breakfast".
You must have a really low opinion of humans there, if you believe we only behave like we should because of someone telling us to do so [don't judge otehrs by yourself]. Yes, the morality WE ourselves have is an opinion. Are you implying it's something less than yours? Sorry, not in this world. That is why we have laws, to limit your personal opinions so that they do not harm others.
A lack of a moral absolute does give you freedom to act on yourself, yes. But unlike heavily-religious nuts, we have to live with it ourselves.
"Forgive me father, for I have killed."
"10 hail-Maries, Lord Bless you."
Not so easy for us, sorry. THAT is how /our/ apparently insignifican personal opinion is formed. We have noone to forgive us. We have to live with our actions without someone who never sees who you are forgiving us in 10 seconds` time.
Anyone who suggests a human mind, free to decide on its own without pre-set boundaries would become a psychotic killer, has my pity. Because everyone judges other people, at some basic level, by his or her own physhe [we only know others think because we know WE think]. You think you'd become a complete nut if not for the Bible? My regrets.
Oh, someone explain to me how Church understands evolution? Because I either see total rejection ["God planted those bones there to mislead us!"] or... That "he created man in his own apperance" means that God looks like a single-celled organism.
...which would make a lot more sense actually. What good is a beard or eyes or ears whenyou're an almighty, all-hearing, all-seeing deity?
*q*
A liberal athiest type cannot do that. If he does not believe in forcing his opinions on others (and without God, the belief that murder is wrong is only an opinion) then he cannot justify punishing murderers, because only in his eyes is murder wrong.
*/q*
That is why we don't enforce opinions, we enforce LAWS. You may have an opinion and believe whatever you want, just as long as it does not hurt anyone else and/or break any existing laws. They're not perfect [way too rigid], but compared to an absolute truth, they're jello.
*q*
I would have thought that at least most people would want their children to be able to reproduce themselves, something gays cannot do, of course.
*/q*
Reality check. There are over 6 BILLION people in the world. Without the accomodations of modern technology [does God even approve of technology? After all... It's not "natural"]. 2/3 of the world population would be starving. Calculations show that in 20 years` time, one third of the world will be siffering from lack of pure, clear water, out of their sheer number.
The purpose of procreation is to help the species to survive. Purpose achieved. Personally, I don't have a very strong desire to actually have my own child, but I do find the idea of adoption a much more interesting one. Interesting that:
"Birth control is bad." +orphans
"Abortion is bad." +orphans
"Adoption by gay couples is bad." not -orphans
Hm. Anyone see something really sick in this or is it just me?
Wouldn't it be fun if they finally decided to make gay marriage legal in most countries? I wonder how the Christian argument would change then. I mean, they WOULD be having sex and be married.
*q*
Actually God permitted free will, meaning people could put their sexual organs wherever they chose to. That is not the same as approving of all the places you can put them.
*/q*
And disapproving does not mean enforcing your opinion either. If you'd care to notice, you'll see that most people that are pro gay rights and such are intellectuals. And you'll also prolly notice that there are not many "kill religious people!" marches either. Yet there are massive protests against gay rights and I don't dare thing how many gay people are killed every year by selfrightous maniacs, or how many doctors are killed by these same people for performing abortion.
I doubt further comment is necessary.
Oh, someone explain to me how Church understands evolution? Because I either see total rejection ["God planted those bones there to mislead us!"] or... That "he created man in his own apperance" means that God looks like a single-celled organism.
Although not a religious person myself, I DO believe in God- and the way *I*'ve always reconciled the bible with evolution is simple:
If I were an all-powerful supreme being, how would *I* create man? I know! I'd take a single celled organism and evolve it, through the process of evolution, into Man (tm., accept no substitutes). Perhaps I'd even describe the process metaphorically (ex. 7 days) or perhaps at the begining of creation with no Man around to mark time, I'd consider a "day" to be several 100 million years (which to my perceptions, as an allpowerful being, and the only sentient being around, would be akin to 24 hours to my newly created "Man").
So there's no inconsistencies between the bible and evolution in *my* humble opinion! :^)
Hello, people.
Excuse me for intruding -- I arrived here by following a random URL, as it happens, and ended up taking interest in the discussion.
Your posts, Peter, were indeed thought provoking. I'll try to sum it up.
Actually, I could probably point out that your statistics about AIDS are, how could I put it... a bit biased. Condorcet would definitely have found a lot to say about them. For one, they state that there's a very low number of heterosexuals not in contact with the main risk groups who caught AIDS. As if it was odd that people not in contact with the main risk groups were generally not infected! Besides, it would probably be easy to build a mathematical model, for example based on Lotka-Volterra's system, to demonstrate that once the infection is started among a minority (as was stated in the case that interests us by Mark Morgan), it'll spread among that minority for a while before leaping significantly to other groups.
And then, the first rule of all statistics is: correlation isn't causality. I don't think I'll explain further for now, since I don't have that much time on my hands. Either you understand, and then so much the better, or you don't, and if so, either you'll try to understand, or you won't care. Which will, in itself, be interesting, either way.
Well. It would definitely be possible to point out that the only thing your statistic prove is that if you're biased when establishing them, they will demonstrate strictly nothing. Period.
I could also point out that you seem to have a lot of things to learn about biology, and in particular, about how HIV is spread. You seem to think that only anal intercourse as opposed to vaginal or oral intercourse is really dangerous where AIDS is concerned. If so, you might want to get your facts updated. If not, you might want to word your thoughts more accurately when you post.
I could also point out that since you don't choose to be homosexual, no more than you choose your gender or the color of your eyes, shielding your children's eyes when two men are kissing is completely pointless. Worse, ignorance can cause much doubt, and thus, much suffering in your kids, if they have homosexual tendencies, and it won't prevent them from being what they are.
I could tell you how I first discovered homosexuality. I could tell you how that friend with haunted eyes, always alone, once invited me, because, he said, he had something important to tell me. I could tell you the pain in his voice when he told me about him, about his suffering, about his shame for what he was, about how many so-called friends he lost because they were like you, my dear Peter, and wouldn't accept him for what he was, about his attempt to commit suicide because he couldn't bear the loneliness society forced him into because he's homosexual. I could tell you how he begged me not to leave him alone, and to accept him, because about everyone he knew in that small, prim town had dumped him. I could tell you the shock it was for me, and the days of pondering it generated in my at that time rather homophobic mind. I could even tell you how this horror was too big for me to handle, and how I handled it nonetheless: I grew. And I could tell you that from that moment, I decided never to judge people for what they are, because it wouldn't be fair. For the records, the simple fact that I finally accepted him for what he is was sufficient to make me one of his best friends. It was so, so terribly simple, and so difficult, at the same time; but I'm endlessly glad that I got my personal ethics to grow beyond the psychologic immaturity of pre-set morals.
And I could tell you a lot more, but I don't think you'd understand, and not only because you don't seem to want to understand. Here a direct quote from one of your posts. It was about polygamy:
Those cultures that allow it are wrong.
Wrong. What a fine word.
I don't think you ever wondered why if things are wrong to your standards, other cultures do it. If you actually did, it's all the more monstrous, but let's not go there. Because the answer is so very simple: to their standards, it is not wrong.
Which brings, of course, the question of relativity of morals. Of course, your believing in God dictates how you should classify things as wrong or right according to the Bible. It's most definitely your right. Nevertheless, I didn't think it was possible to apply Chomsky's Thesis to morals instead of formal systems, but it seems that it is: no moral is self-sufficient when opposed to the others, or more simply, to the reality of the world, because they're based on unprovable beliefs. It is your right, my dear Peter, to believe that a God created the world and said that this is right and that is wrong. As well as it is anyone's right to believe that everything started when Mardouk recovered the Tables of Laws from Tiamat. Or anything else, for that matter.
You can't prove that your God exists, Peter, and you can't force people to accept your views on the world, because to other people's standards, your views are wrong. You may feel entitled to fight whoever you'll label as pagan, due to the strength of you faith, but be aware that there are 6 billions human beings on this planet that will fight you right back for exactly the same reason.
Please note that I don't condemn your faith, not in the least. I question your right to deny other people a right to think different.
And that's about all there is to say, once again. Maybe you're just a twink, Peter, though I don't think so. Maybe you've just had a very strict education. I don't think that you based your personal ethics on personal reflections, did you? There are a lot of countries that didn't base their constitution on belief in God, and they don't seem to be doing too bad, thank you.
And deprived of the convenient shield of religion, what could you say, Peter? Probably not much. You seem to make dangerous assumptions about things you obviously don't know well. Your comment about bisexual men sodomizing women really made me laugh. You seem to restrict homosexuality to anal intercourses. Just so that you know, I do know perfectly straight couples who enjoy anal intercourses now and then.
But what's the point? I don't think you'll ever actually sit down and think for yourself about the relativity of moral values, of beliefs, of faiths. Still, if I actually got you to reflect on yourself, then I'll not have wasted my time.
Whatever you think, Peter, things will go on, as they have done for millenia, as they will do as long as mankind will exist; and people will go on hating each other, fighting each other simply because of different beliefs. Mankind ages, and doesn't grow. The choice of your ethics is yours to make, Peter.
Mine is simple. Because whatever happens, in at most a few decades, wherever I am, that won't be on Earth; because life can be a path of pain, and the key to relief is in our human selves; because when you're in depths of despair where no God can help you, human beings still can; because when I'm no more, I want my memory to live on; because I'm free, because I'm human, I've decided to love whoever is worth loving, I've decided that I would always support my dearest ones, and that I'd give my life for them if needed, and I believe that it is fair, because it's fair to me and it's fair to the others.
Under the gaze of 6 billions human beings, do you think you are worth loving, Peter?
wow. Right on friend Zmaj! Eloquent and thought provoking.
There are "seven" deadly sins, and these are from the word of man, not from the word of God. Since I don't want to turn this board into "Everybody Attack the Bible", I'll really refrain from going into the points made by Unciaa, but I'll state that there are difficult passages in the Bible, that there are things hard for people to understand in the Bible (including Christians, sadly enough), and there are things downright ignored in the Bible. I think (he/she?) is confusing Christianity with the "Right-Wing Moral Majority", which claims to be Christian yet frequently suffers from a lack of Christian ethics, in my opinion.
Len, I don't really believe your hypothesis, but I'm open to it. It does God no discredit to say He used evolution to create the world.
Hi, Zmaj. I'm the moderator here at this humble site. Welcome to the board--hope you come back--you certainly have intelligent points, and I hope you'll check out the other boards.
*Finally pulls herself back together, and clambers back into the gallery* Sariya of Nalia is a fictional character my deviant and twisted mind created, Peter. End of story.
I don't see how homosexuals having children is bad. But I'm deviant anyway, since I happen to believe in Sariya's infamous words (which has nothing to do with the fact I'm heterosexual, btw).
I don't see how my kids' sexual orientations would make me happy or unhappy. I'd be a lot happier if they were happy or unhappy.
On another interesting note, my mother proceeds to tell me that I have this need to be different from the rest of society. What do I say? "What took you so long to notice?"
What Unciaa and ZMAJ said!!! 2 unpronouncable Names with Very well thought posts. (I am hearing echoes of my own thoughts & Feelings, Glad others are more literate than I) *S*
Now as far as I am concerned, I am right because God tells me that.
WOW! So God really talks to you? What does he say, huh? What? Gosh, I'm just dying to know! Maybe you could pass on a message to him for me, if it's not too much bother, that is.
I think it is a fact because a divine being has revealed this to me through the Bible. That gives me te right to force this view on others - I can stand up and say "Murder is wrong and that is a fact because it is God's word. If you commit it I will execute you."
NO ONE has the right to force their views on anyone else. Don't be so goddamned stup¡d or blinded by your religious views, Peter. Nothing was revealed to you thru the bible. It was by your own choice that you interpreted the bible as you wanted to. It didn't make you think or believe anything that you read in it. That was your choice, nothing more, nothing less. Wake up to reality. And BTW, don't even presume to speak for atheists. Then again, seeing as how you're so hypocritical and contradictory in your views I guess you can. (See my latest post on the Abortion board.)
But again, this is simply an opinion, so if you believe that [your god] exists and someone else does not who is to say you are right and he is wrong? Who says harming someone is wrong? Isn't that just your opinion?
Gee, Peter, it's so much fun turning your own worthless opinions against yourself cuz you just make it so damned easy to do.
You cannot defend a moral absolute unless it is inspired by a God, so without God you canot defend any legal and moral codes, and society will descend into anarchy.
Bullsh¡t! Bullsh¡t! Bullsh¡t! Again, this in only your opinion and it doesn't hold for everyone else. Why don't you realize that? Oh, yeah. You're a hypocrite, that's why.
I am not gay, no, and I do not know what you mean about hiding it, as I do not see how anyone could guess someone's sexuality from messages sent to political and religious debate boards.
What I meant was that there are many closeted gays that hate homosexuality and are full of self-loathing that they hide behind in the form of gay-bashing against others. It may be that they don't hate gays so much as they do themselves. I don't think you necessarily hate yourself. Just the opposite. You seem to be pretty much into yourself, which is pride, which is a sin, which makes you a sinner, but then, aren't we all?
I believe strongly in capital punishment, and banning abortion...
These are contradictory in that you've claimed to be both pro-death and pro-life at the same time. It's either one or the other. You can't have both. Choose one and stick with it. If you want to have both and at the same time argue against others who are prochoice or anticapital punishment then you're a hypocrite.
You should be ashamed that your country has become a safe haven for those who disobey the laws of their land in order to engage in a selfish desire to bring up children, however strange that upbringing will be.
Don't you even DARE dictate to me what or how I should feel about my country! I'm very proud that so many of us here are totally nonhomophobic, and that gays can have a better life here than you'd wish for them in your twisted views. Sure, they've still got a ways to go towards total acceptance but they are slowly being more accepted than you'd like them to be. Don't you realize that if we are all god's children, then your being so against anyone else for any reason goes against god who himself made us all as he wished? What's wrong with you, Peter, that you're so afraid of facing reality? What drugs are you on? I only ask cuz drugs and religion are for people who can't handle reality, so you must do an awful lot of both.
If so, how do you know you're not working against his will when you're working in his name?
Excellent point! The more they think (and I use that word very sarcastically, considering) they're doing God's work, the more they're really not.
I'm sick of the silly "pro-death" and "pro-life" argument. I am against abortion. I am for the death penalty. I cannot see how they contradict each other.
I'm at a computer at school right now, without cookie capability, so I'll have to wait until I get home in the afternoon to clear out the imposter messages.
I'm going to say it again: NO SWEARING!
Mark, why are you violently opposed to Peter saying a moral absolute is necessary in society, but you didn't get mad at me when I said it several times before? Love that insinuation that all religious people use drugs.
Well, first of all, my pardon on the Orson/Orwell slip... And the 10 sins one. Alas, when it comes to things my mind doesn't consider very important [like names and such] the connections it makes turn out wrong. I also tend to say logarihtm instead of algorithm, and so on and so on. *g*
Too many thing running through my head, so the minor things tend to slip.
I think I'll keep out of the Abortion/Death Penalty topic, since that's another board.
*q*
Since I don't want to turn this board into "Everybody Attack the Bible", I'll really refrain from going into the points made by Unciaa, but I'll state that there are difficult passages in the Bible, that there are things hard for people to understand in the Bible (including Christians, sadly enough), and there are things downright ignored in the Bible.
*/q*
Don't do to others what you wouldn't like done to yourself?
*q*
I think (he/she?) is confusing Christianity with the "Right-Wing Moral Majority", which claims to be Christian yet frequently suffers from a lack of Christian ethics, in my opinion.
*/q*
Although I do agree the two are separate, I'm only talking Peter-wise here. I did perhaps go a bit overboard for a few moments there, but every valve has its limit, and our dear own Peter was preaching almost stormfront.org for a moment there.
Alas, I've had much more exosure to the group that just uses the Bible to give themselves an excuse to punish a minority for whatever reason they see fit at that time, then to those who use it as their /own/ life guideline [as opposed to using it to try and steers otehrs` lives].
Still, believing that the Bible was untouched by intolerance to this day is quite optimistic [history is written by the victors, and books are rewritten by them], so although I have a lot of respect for a lot of its teachings, I think every follower should realize the book is still a personal intepretation. And as such, can choose which section were most probably affected by the writer's personal feelings, be they holy or not.
Point being, the intolerant parts are yours to accept or reject. Saying "the Bible says so" is not a strong argument, given how much of what the Bible says is already being ignored, due to the fact its severely outdated.
...much like a lot of US laws, come to think of it...
"Activating a thermonuclear weapon in the area of Manhatten will be be fined with $500."
Ah well. Come on Peter, another post, we have nothing else to do here. :)
Gays are some who should not adopt because they
could not hope to give the child a normal life. Having two fathers or two mothers is a terribly confusing thing for a child, particularly if the fathers wear dresses and make the boys wear women's clothing. A better way to warp a kid's mind I do not know.
Do you really think that gay man with a son would force his son to wear women's clothing? I thought your objections to homosexulaity were based on morality, not retarded stereotypes. Not all gay men are crossdressers you know. And, I also read a statisitic that a decent sized portion of crossdresser are, get this, STRAIGHT! And what about my friend Mandy? Remember her? The demonic bi-sexual freak? Well she has a child who live with her and her fiancee. Should that child, born to Mandy and her evil ex-husband (I like to call him O.J. on 'Ludes). True, she is a teenager now, but should she be taken away from her loving mother and her loving soon-to-be-step-mother? By your definition, this child will become immoral, and will not grow up normal. Well, too late. She acts with more normalcy and decency than any other teenager I've met! No drugs, no premature sex, she actually LIKES her parents, etc. Does this sound like the chiuld of deviants to you? Man, she's so nice she makes me look like, well, like you!
Do you really think that gay man with a son would force his son to wear women's clothing? I thought your objections to homosexulaity were
based on morality, not retarded stereotypes. Not all gay men are crossdressers you know.
Well maybe not all would force them, but they would probably do something equally daft like buy them two sets of clothing - one male,
one female - and let them choose which to wear
I've been watching this tread for some time now and have never really felt the need to add anything to it. The others have always done a better job of countering Peter than I could (not because I think Peters right, but because, as those that know me well enough know, I'm not good at getting my point accross)...but I seriously hope this is a joke on your part Peter. Never have I heard such a load of absolute . I have quite alot of gay friends through met through the internet and I can tell you that only one, yes thats right /one/, of them is a crossdresser and after getting to know each of them well enough I can categorically tell you that I don't think any of them would try to force anything on anyone that didn't want to do it. They are happy to believe that if someone thinks what they think then its up to them. Yes there will always be those that force people to do what they don't want to do, but that trait is true of many many Heterosexuals as well, its not a "gay only" thing you know...Come to think it it, Isn't that what your wanting to do in the end, force people to believe that if they are gay then they are perverted, wrong and immoral...well I'm sorry but IMHO that makes your views more wrong than anyone thats willing to live and let live.
I am against abortion. I am for the death penalty. I cannot see how they contradict each other.
Sure they do. Think about it. You think abortion is killing an unborn child, right? But you're against that, thinking that the unborn should be saved, so you call yourself "pro-life". But to say that you favor putting killers to death by the state is to advocate someone else's death, even if they deserve it, means that you're "pro-death". Doesn't that make sense to you, Mike? Doesn't that sort of make abortion retroactive? That's what my point was about not being able to be both. I've admitted before that I'm for the death penalty, too, although I wish it would be enacted much sooner than well over a decade after the person's sentence started. Totally not fair to the victims' families.
Mark, why are you violently opposed to Peter saying a moral absolute is necessary in society, but you didn't get mad at me when I said it several times before?
Probably cuz you put your views in much better, less intolerable ways than he has. You simply state your views without trying to draw anyone's ire, like he does. I'd rather discuss such things with you in an adult way than with him, had I my druthers. (And where did I put those darned things, anyway? I keep losing them.)
So you want to legalise murder, now??!?!?!?!
Where did you get this from? I totally didn't say this. That's just your misinterpretation.
Make your mind up, Mark. Either I am a self loathing homosexual or an egomaniac heterosexual. I can't be both.
*Sigh* I also didn't say this. Again, it's just your misinterpretation. Understand what I do say, not what you want to think I say, all right?
Love that insinuation that all religious people use drugs.
I never insinuated any such thing. I was only talking about those who choose to be so blinded by their faith that they don't deal with reality and therefore escape it with their religious views, just as drug addicts use drugs to not have to deal with reality themselves. That's all.
By goodness, you love that word.
By goodness, you really fit that word.
To believe that the innocent should die however and the guilty should live, as you seem to do, by supporting abortion and opposing the death penalty really is inconsistent.
You make it really easy to not like you, don't you, Peter? For the third time, this ain't what I said, so stop misinterpreting my words.
Anon, you've said that quite well, especially your last sentence. Peter reminds me of that old saying, "None are so blind as those who will not see," or exactly however it goes.
And Peter, don't try using that quote against me cuz I'm nowhere near as blind as you in such matters as you go on against. Why are you so against gays? How many have you ever known? How have they treated you? How have you treated them? Why do you speak such BS against them when you don't know what you're talking about? Get to know some gays first, and what they're all about. And no, it's not just sex. That's just a small part of it, but obviously not in your eyes. In fact, the problem isn't that gays have sex with people of the same sex. The problem is intolerance from people such as yourself. If you took the time to befriend some gays then believe me you'd have a much better, more open outlook towards them. They could be some of the best friends you'd ever have. If you think gays are perverted, then consider this: Straights make up the vast majority of the world's population, as we all know. Therefore, they commit a hell of a lot more crimes than gays, including sex crimes, especially against kids! Some of them are much more perverted than gays overall, so don't think they're the only ones who do sex crimes or at least who do most of them, cuz they don't. Now, before you go misinterpreting my words again, let me clarify. I'm not saying all straights are pervs, of course. Hell, I'm one and I wouldn't say that about myself! I'm just saying that since there are so many more straights, many more straights commit crimes or actions that you could accuse gays of doing.
Peter, as I've said before, I'm not opposing homosexuality only by silly stereotypes--it is only by moral grounds.
Mark, I oppose abortion because it is the killing of an innocent life. I support the death penalty because it is the punishment of a guilty life.
Think of this as well Peter, this might actually be more suitable for another board but since you are going on about having "Only one mans opinion" to go on without having God involved. Think about this...
God only exists because you and many others have an "Opinion" that he/she/whatever does. Whats so different about Man making up laws by "Democracy" (i.e. Majority rule rather than the current one where Politicians and Religious leaders (try?) tell us what to do) and you using God as a moral groundbase for whats right and wrong. Whos to say he actually exists? Its only your and others opinions, I see no physical proof that he exists, he doesn't exactly hold pep rallies or anything (Before you get on at me as well, I don't believe in God. I believe in the /possibility/ of a God tho. But not nessacerily yours). Therefore IMHO your opinions are also based on nothing more than "Your Opinion" so how are they any more valid than mine? They are not is the answer. But thats the price we would pay for not having someone (or group) dictate to us that this is whats right and whats wrong.
Better than "Brian Webber, a woman" I think.
Or "Brian Webber, a person of indetermine gender."
woman? indetermine? My god it's junior high all over agains!
*starts running around screaming*
BTW, is there a peanut gallery at the movie board? I have a feling I'll be needing it.
Why? Is that Todhunter weirdo screwing up the place?
It's even better than "Brian Webber, a person of no gender."
Signing off, M Machiko Jenkins. A woman.
Mike: nah. I'm just getting ready to write a rant that's bound to p!ss a few people off.
Well, hell, Brian, don't restrain yourself. Go for it, dude!
Hasn't stopped you before. :)
What we need here is a good old-fashioned flame war!!! Oh wait, that's what we already have... never mind...
I've been gone from this board for a couple days and at work made an Emily Latella joke, then I come back to here and someone else has posted an Emily Latella joke! I love it! Could it be serendipity? Coincidence? Telepathy? Great minds thinking alike? Take your pick or make up one of your own. *S*
[!---Begin smart answer---] Emily Latella is the one who, on Monday, September 11, 2000, at 1134 am EDT, made the follow statement: "What we need here is a good old-fashioned flame war!!! Oh wait, that's what we already have... never mind..."[!---End smart answer---]
I just don't see what the big deal about homogenized milk is! If you don't want to drink low fat, then... oh, what that? It's not homogenized, it's homosexual?? Oh. That's very different. Never Mind!
The American program "Saturday Night Live" featured Gilda Radner as a character named Emily Latella, who would always do an editorial on some issue that due to her poor hearing, always came out in a comical manner ("violins on television", "busting schoolchildren"). After a few minutes, the "anchorman" (originally Chevy Chase, but Jane Curtin is the most remembered) would stop and correct her. If it was Chevy, that was about it--Emily would say "Never mind." If it was Jane, she would usually add a cold remark to Emily to get her facts straight, and Emily would respond with a word that would be beeped out here.
A similar character was Gilda's Roseanne Roseannadanna, who would ostensibly be the consumer affairs reporter, but would always get bogged down in some odd issue (hanghails, saliva) in the course of her discussion, and would be stopped by a disgusted Jane Curtin halfway through.
Ah, Roseanne Roseannadanna. Gilda, how we miss ye.
In news relevant to this topic, there was a huge article in the paper today about how the lower legislative body of the Netherlands passed a law granting homosexuals the official right to marry. (They already had most of the legal protections offered with the exception of adoption rights.) Thoughts, comments, ruminations on the downfall of Western Civilization because of this act?
If the world ever needed a Ubermatt, this is that time...
OVERPOPULATION DEBUNKING: The world is NOT in immediate threat of overpopulation.
1. Not enoght land?
A. Sorry, if you pull out a population map, you'll see most of the world is either empty, or sparsely populated. Most of North America is still wilderness. What?, you say that's mostly desert? Well does Los Vegas ring a bell? A city can be built almost anywhere. Sooner we will have terraforming.
2. Food? Okay, go to the store, what's the price of food? a hour's worth of work for a decent meal? sounds like a big shortage. Again most problems are in either statist countries, or underdeveloped countries. No industrialized country has these problems.
3. Population is growing. Sorry, but thanks to the blood of the innocent almost every industrial nations has a negative growth rate. In fact, Japan will ceast to exist in 250 years. This will also lead to 1:1 social security pyramid, so we get screwed for our crimes. Every country with a overpopulation problem, is in the third world.
...so? How in the world is this supposed to address the issue presented? Nobody ever mentioned overpopulation as a reason for anything.
I reallylike the argument that if atheists are allowed to marry, then homosexuals should be allowed to. After all, neither group goes along with the wishes of the Christian groups that influence policy. Yet one is allowed that legal status and one is not. Why?
Nice, logical position, and it neatly sidesteps a great deal of religious arguing.
peter: Once again you are using right wing propaganda to justify what is at the core, Bigotry.
Well that link works Peter. Got a 404 myself. Very well argued it as too. :p
I nottice you still have not countered my previous two posts yet, rather you have ignored them.
Again though, morality is down to personal opinion. I won't go into it again because someone already did on the No2 board but morality can be dicated by Societys feelings. Heres a hypothetical question for you. You repeatedy say you are for the death penalty. God says "Thou Shall Not Kill". Where does it say "Thou Shall Not Kill, Well..Unless its a Tuesday or the person killed another"? The point I am trying to make with this is that you repeatedly say that Homosexuality is against your Gods will. So how do you justify your support for Capital Punishment? In my opinion you can't. So unless you follow the Bible to the letter how can you claim that morality has been lost through allowing Homosexuals to marry when you yourself are doing this as well by supporting Capital Punishment?
Just because you claim to have God behind you does not make your own personal "opinions" any more right than mine and as such any morality you claim to support does not hold any more water than those countries who are more sensible and listen to the overall majority.
Capital punishment for murder was very specifically advocated by the Lord with the words "punishment should be dealt an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc.
Thats a bit of a conflicting statement then isn't it really. It really ought to be updated like they did with when they re-wrote the New Testiment (How exactly can they re-write Gods word anyway? And where was the big guy during all this? Did he give consent for it to be done? Weren't the people who re-wrote it using their own personal morality as a basis to do it?). "Thou shall not Kill. Unless its in revenge for murder."
I don't claim to have God behind me, but even you must admit that the Lord's morality should be followed rather than your own.
Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that the only fact for me that makes God exist is that you say you believe in him. Therefore your morality is based on your own opinions, you just take a longer route to that outcome than I do. If God does exist without you believing in him, then why did he take so long to intervene in the workings of Man in the form of Jesus. Was he off on his Holidays?
I'm not saying you shouldn't believe in God. If you feel he exists and that gives you comfort and meaning then all fine and well, I have no objection to that. What I do object to is you and others like you using the argument that "Its against my Gods will" to generally persecute other members of society who are "Different". Were in fact they are no different (appart from sexual bias) from you or I and the vast array of Heterosexuals.
Anonymous, remember that although Petey believes in "Thou Shall Not Kill", and capital punishment on the one hand, he also believes that it's ok to kill doctors and workers in abortion clinics in order to "protect the innocent". Extremely contradictory, don'tcha think? That belongs more on the Abortion board, I know, but since it was brought up here, well...
Capital punishment for murder was very specifically advocated by the Lord with the words "punishment should be dealt an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" etc.
The same passage also says that you get to make burnt offerings, and stone people that disobey the law (any law, not just the big ones), and sell your daughters into slavery. If you're going to keep the law, it seems that you have no right to insist that others keep all of it if you are not willing to keep all of it yourself.
Again, I'm maybe not making myself too clear. I am trying to sort out how Peter can say "Accept one Deviance accept them all" when his own God says "Thou shall not Kill" (which says to me Bar None. Its a pretty unambiguous statement.) yet supports Capital Punishment. Which of Gods commands take presidence over which? Do you Peter take an "Eye for an Eye" over "Thou shall not Kill" or the other way round?
To me I see in no way why allowing Homosexual marriges etcetc to be legal will undermine any countries morality. If one person loves another regardless of gender, whats the problem?
For your furture information as well Peter. I live in the UK as well.
Technically, the Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Murder". At least, that's my understanding of the original Hebrew.
That's true. The Bible says that "whoever sheds the blood of man, will have his blood shed by man" or something to that effect. That is never removed in the New Testament, but while I advocate capital punishment, I am not insanely for it, and feel very strongly about the concept of mercy.
What about the "Turn the other cheek" from the New Testament?
::"Thou shall not Kill. Unless its in revenge for murder.":: Anonymous
Capital punishment is not revenge, it is justice. The person has done something to deserve it, the fact that they committed murder.
::The same passage also says that you get to make burnt offerings, and stone people that disobey the law (any law, not just the big ones), and sell your daughters into slavery. If you're going to keep the law, it seems that you have no right to insist that others keep all of it if you are not willing to keep all of it yourself.:: Matthew Patterson
He's not insisting that. He's saying that he believes that ONE part.
::Which of Gods commands take presidence over which? Do you Peter take an "Eye for an Eye" over "Thou shall not Kill" or the other way round?:: Anonymous
"Kill" in that verse does not mean kill as in end any life at all. It means MURDER. Since God says not to murder people, there has to be a punishment for murder, that being capital punishment through the "eye for an eye" verse.
::What about the "Turn the other cheek" from the New Testament?:: Margie
"Turn the other cheek" is for personal offenses, not murder. You yourself can't exactly forgive the person who murdered you because you're dead.
::"Thou shall not Kill. Unless its in revenge for murder.":: Anonymous
Capital punishment is not revenge, it is justice. The person has done something to deserve it, the fact that they committed murder.
::The same passage also says that you get to make burnt offerings, and stone people that disobey the law (any law, not just the big ones), and sell your daughters into slavery. If you're going to keep the law, it seems that you have no right to insist that others keep all of it if you are not willing to keep all of it yourself.:: Matthew Patterson
He's not insisting that. He's saying that he believes that ONE part.
::Which of Gods commands take presidence over which? Do you Peter take an "Eye for an Eye" over "Thou shall not Kill" or the other way round?:: Anonymous
"Kill" in that verse does not mean kill as in end any life at all. It means MURDER. Since God says not to murder people, there has to be a punishment for murder, that being capital punishment through the "eye for an eye" verse.
::What about the "Turn the other cheek" from the New Testament?:: Margie
"Turn the other cheek" is for personal offenses, not murder. You yourself can't exactly forgive the person who murdered you because you're dead.
The point brought up was "How can you argue the moral wrong of homosexuality from the Bible if you do not follow everything in the Bible?"
First of all, this point was addressed to Peter, who has rarely argued the morality of homosexuality from the Bible.
Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree with the point. However, it is equivalent to arguing this in a murder case: "How can you argue the moral wrong of murder from the legal code if you do not follow everything in the legal code?" That wouldn't fly in a murder case, and it can't fly here. Not to say that it isn't a good point, however (I disagree on capital punishment, though).
I apologise if my posts can be interpreted as inflammatory. They were never intend to be as such, mearly to try and get a better understanding of the ground that Peter himself seems to (as far as I understand it) stand on.
Jwb52z:"Kill" in that verse does not mean kill as in end any life at all. It means MURDER. Since God says not to murder people, there has to be a punishment for murder, that being capital punishment through the "eye for an eye" verse.
Ok, I can see the logic in that statement. But I am still against capital punishment myself. I see it as the easy way out for the murderer. I'll probably drag this place even more off topic with this next statement but....So God is sanctioning murder then? Even if it is in Punishment for killing someone else by your own definition the person doing the execution is murdering in the name of punishment by "Spilling the Blood of Man". I personally fail to see the distinction.
MikeC:First of all, this point was addressed to Peter, who has rarely argued the morality of homosexuality from the Bible.
Again correct me if I'm wrong, but I was assuming thats what he was basing his argument on by quoting the Sodom and Gomorrah story way back? I.e. He was approaching the point from a biblical perspective. He also regularly states thats its against Gods will which, as I understood it, is what is set out in the Bible.
MikeC:However, it is equivalent to arguing this in a murder case: "How can you argue the moral wrong of murder from the legal code if you do not follow everything in the legal code?" That wouldn't fly in a murder case, and it can't fly here. Not to say that it isn't a good point, however (I disagree on capital punishment,
though).
Good point. Very good point. I initially got away from the point that I was initially trying to make with that argument and agree with what you say. My point in the beginning was that as Peter has pointed out in his opinion without a God behind you your own personal morals hold no water. From my own personal perspective God only exists because he (or anyone else that does) believes in God. So how is my personal opinion any different from his? He just took a longer route to an opinion and can say "God said that" when things he personally agrees with. I still hold the fact that I think those who say that all morality will be lost are wrong. It will only change over time to accept that which should never have been "unacceptable" in the first place.
What things basically boil down to is each person has a personal belief. My belief is based on what God revealed in His Bible. Others have beliefs driven from different things. Over time, we may change our beliefs, we may not. But not until the end will we know everything.
Sorry if that didn't make much sense, I'm not in a good mood today.
This should be fun... :)
*q*
OVERPOPULATION DEBUNKING: The world is NOT in immediate threat of overpopulation.
1. Not enoght land?
A. Sorry, if you pull out a population map, you'll see most of the world is either empty, or sparsely populated. Most of North America is still wilderness. What?, you say that's mostly desert? Well does Los Vegas ring a bell? A city can be built almost anywhere. Sooner we will have terraforming.
*/q*
You need water for terraforming. Water needs to some from somewhere. If you take it from one place, it will not be in another... [destill fog and collect the moisture? You'll make the air drier and prevent teh water from reaching its usual deposition places, like mountain ranges and the forests that grow on them]. Which is very nicely seen in your given example. Las Vegas` water consumptions is creating MAJOR problems for the population that lives anywhere around it [where the water is taken from]. I can't exactly remember how it went, but there was a documentary made just for this issue.
*q*
2. Food? Okay, go to the store, what's the price of food? a hour's worth of work for a decent meal? sounds like a big shortage. Again most problems are in either statist countries, or underdeveloped countries. No industrialized country has these problems.
*/q*
Ooooh, alright then! Hell, 3/4ths of the world are starving? Not our problem, we live in the industrial countries! Any hungry Somalians on the Board? Noone? Ah well, they don't get a vote then.
*q*
3. Population is growing. Sorry, but thanks to the blood of the innocent almost every industrial nations has a negative growth rate. In fact, Japan will ceast to exist in 250 years. This will also lead to 1:1 social security pyramid, so we get screwed for our crimes. Every country with a overpopulation problem, is in the third world.
*/q*
Yes. And third world countries are over half the world population. The population of Africa is said to doubled in the next few decades. The fact that the population of the industrial world is dropping doesn't help a lot, since the industrial world would have to completely disappear in the time period of 15 years, just to sustain the population at its current number.
*q MikeC*
Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree with the point. However, it is equivalent to arguing this in a murder case: "How can you argue the moral wrong of murder from the legal code if you do not follow everything in the legal code?" That wouldn't fly in a murder case, and it can't fly here. Not to say that it isn't a good point, however (I disagree on capital punishment, though).
*/q*
Good point, but I rate law in just the way I described. I follow the important parts [thou shall not kill / no person will do any phsicial harm to another yadayadayada] and ignore the idiotic old laws that perhaps had a meaning 50 years ago ["it is illegal to listen to Hard Rock music in one's bathtub" ...wish I could remember the state *g*], but are completely obsolete now. AKA, the important parts are for you to follow, the smaller are for you to decide on your own, aka they are at your own discression. And I seriously doubt the Bible has dedicated an entire can't-hold-without-support-arms-not-strong-enough part of itself to gay=bad issue.
::So God is sanctioning murder then?:: Anonymous
It's not murder when it is a punishment. Simply ending life of something and ending the life of a human with malice and ending the life of a murderer are 3 different things. The 1st and 3rd are killing. The second is murder.
But where does punishment end, and murder begin?
Murder is an act to end a life that did nothing to deserve it and almost always with malice. Capital punishment is ending a life that did something to deserve it, thereby harming someone else, usually murder.
But who is to say that murdering someone automatically means that the murderer needs to die?
My main problem with the death penalty is that it's a government operation. We don't trust the government to select the right schools for our children. We didn't trust the government when they told us that nothing was going to happen on Y2K. (Well... most people didn't.) Why in the world to we place our absolute trust in them to select, without mistakes, who lives and who dies?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the people who are for capital punishment are also against suicide and euthanasia for the reason that it is wrong for us puny humans to decide when to end a life that God created. If we can play god with a murderer's life, why is it immoral for a person to make that decision about his/her own life? I will never understand that.
Matt Pesti, your antiabortion stance is perfectly respectable (well, it would be more respectable in the abortion thread), but your insistence on using Japanese population statistics to support your position is getting annoying. You seem to have no clue about how Japanese society really works, so IMHO you are in no position to interpret the meaning of those statistics. I have statistics that predict that the population of Japan will dwindle to 87 percent of its current size in 50 years. So what. The figures for Spain and Italy are 82 percent and 74 percent repectively. These are countries with a strong Catholic presence. How do they fit into your equation? Answer: they don't. Machiko and I already told you the real reasons why Japan's population is declining. Please go back and review.
Also, I wish you would refrain from saying that Japan will "cease to exist" in 250 years. Sez who? Is the whole archipelago going to up and dissolve in a puff of smoke? It may be amusing for you to keep saying that Japan is going to evaporate, but please remember that people actually live here, okay? Would you dare to tell a Japanese person to her face that her country was going to disappear? Do you think that the Japanese people are going to stand by and watch their population dwindle to zero just because you have a book of statistics that says it must? Anyway, if you want people to think you are smart, you are going to have to start being more precise. Try this: "If Japan's population continues to decrease at its current rate, it is projected to reach zero in the year 2250." Much better.
Of course all this stuff belongs in the homosexuality thread. Sure it does....
LMAO........ Decreasing population in The Technologicaly Superior Countries? Personal opinions on the HEALTH of the world? and how Humans are Causing the Decline in the Global environment?
Certainly seems to me That HOMOSEXUALITY is the CAUSE of ALL Earths ILLS,, imagined or not. EYE for an EYE, The GAYS Destroy OUR world, We Destroy THEIRS!!!!! Too Bad it is the Same World. When Will this becom the NONISSUE that it is?
OK Peter. I want you to try something. And please, I am trusting you to use the honor system on this.
Imagine you live in a world where people who believe in God are the minority. Imagine that because you believe, you are hated, verbally assaulted, and evemn threatened with death just because you want to believe. Imagine that you are discriminated against because you believe. Imagine your government tries to come up with a bill that would protect you and other believers, but it is shot down. Imagine that your parents, being non-believers, consider you abnromal and shut you out, not caring about your happiness. Imagine all these things, and even worse.
Now you know how atheists, Wiccans, neo-Paganists, bi-sexuals, and homosexuals feel every day. Now that you know what kind of suffering I and they put up with, how can you continue to hate us?
I think you made a good point, Brian. The only problem is that Peter is so attached to the idea of "normality" that he probably wouldn't be a Christian in a world they weren't in the majority in his country.
If you find this offensive, Peter, I refer you back to your comment on another thread about atheists not being normal or something like that, which I personally found offensive.
Peter, I am decent, but I won't apologize for my post. What I meant by it was the dichotomy of someone saying that they can't say they're pro-life while also condoning the death of those who work in abortion clinics or supporting the death penalty. I do support the death penalty myself, and if someone breaks into your home and you kill him, especially if he's armed, then more power to ya! He deserves it. Unfortunately, in the US, if you shoot someone who breaks into your house and only injure them they can sue you and possibly win. It happens.
Capital punishment is not revenge, it is justice.
I agree. I only wish it was carried out much more expeditiously where the accused was/were actually the culprit(s).
"Kill" in that verse does not mean kill as in end any life at all. It means MURDER.
Kill and murder are the same thing, regardless of why one person ends the life of another's. Check them both out on Webster's site. You'll see that there's really no difference, even if you're only talking semantics.
Since God says not to murder people, there has to be a punishment for murder, that being capital punishment through the "eye for an eye" verse.
Sure, but unfortunately there are those who think that cuz of their beliefs they're justified in killing others who work at abortion clinics, are gay, another race or different in so many other ways that the killers don't like. They think they're doing God's will. Well, sure, but only the god they created, not the one that most others believe in. Otherwise, they're putting themselves above God cuz they obviously don't think that he's perfectly capable of doling out justice himself. Or maybe they think he's just too busy and needs lackeys, er, disciples to do his work for him. With such blind faith, it's no wonder they call themselves his sheep and he the shepherd. Wasn't it also for them that Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."? I mean, he meant the people of his time who killed him but his words could also be interpreted as meaning for such people of all times, right? (I swear I'm not becoming a bible-thumper! EGAD! What a thought!)
> Wasn't it also for them that Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."? I mean, he meant the people of his time who killed him but his words could also be interpreted as meaning for such people of all times, right?<
Thank you, Mark. If Jesus could forgive the people who were murdering Him (and torturing Him also!), who are we to say, "Die, murderer, die!"?
(MarkN quoting the Bible? Yikes! What is this world coming to?) :)
Addendum: (to use MarkM's term) I just realized that although murder is killing, killing isn't necessarily murder. If you're driving in your car and the brakes go out and you go over a high cliff and die as a result, that's not murder (although it does make for a rather trite movie plot). But if you drink and drive and hit and kill someone, then that is a form of murder cuz even if it wasn't intentional to kill that person you did make the decision to drink and drive and risk both your life and those of the others on the road. People are killed in so many accidents that have absolutely nothing to do with murder, such as if you're a gun owner and you're so stup¡d as to clean one without checking out if it's loaded first and it goes off and kills you or someone else.
I don't play games.
1. Water. Okay, either we can 1. recycle waste water, recycle sea water, or create water. Last I remember, Oxygen and Hydrogen are easy to obtain.
2. Problems in food aren't created because of lack of it, either it can't be delived, or in those countries, it can't be grown (Evil Military Governments). But we are not in a world wide famine. Or problems that could be better solved with agriculture.
3. The Industrialized nations are stableizing like other nations will when they hit the industrialed world. Africa has more problems than overpopulation. Population growth is not a bad thing either. The quality of life today is still better than it was ever.
Japan: I cite it because it is 1. true 2. a Concern of the Imperial government, 3. and is statisical posibility.
Suicide is murder of oneself.
Brian W. Uh, Christians HAVE been persecuted and killed by all of those groups. Being submitted to paternal frowning, and angiest for joining a group intended to anger and shock people, is hardly comprable to being thrown to beasts, speared, hanged, crucfied, tourtured, jailed, shipwrecked, thrown to gulags, Concertration camps, imprisoned in Chinese death camps, threatened with death, shot by marxists and demonized.
I think that at times (and I made a vague reference to this on the main board) that Christianity is too often in America becoming "normal". This is so wrong as it means that Christians are blissfully sitting by and doing nothing but preaching sermons, reading the Bible (but not acting on it), and singing hymns. This is not what Jesus would have wanted, as in His day, Jesus was anything but normal, as far as the status quo was concerned.
I don't believe capital punishment is murder, and there is obviously a difference between murder and killing (all soldiers would then be considered murderers, as would police officers). I do believe that the capital punishment system is in great disarray at this time in our country, but that's the fault of the system, not the concept.
Matt, as for Japan and the abortion issue, I would like to comment on it in more depth in the abortion thread, but for the benefit of everyone reading here: Matt does not know what he is talking about; abortion has very little to do with Japan's negative growth rate. Thank you.
Suicide is murder of oneself.
'Fraid not. Suicide is killing of oneself.
Murder is the "unlawful killing of one human being by another." Unless of course you define murder as, "A form of killing that the church has deemed 'bad,'" like abortion, suicide, or euthanasia. Interestingly, God never "murders" people in the Bible, he "smites" them.
And as a daughter of Japan, I will second Juli's statement about Pesti.
On the other hand, I find it fascinating that he has this strange obsession with the Land of the Rising Sun. Maybe he finds us attractive and sexy and just oh so beautiful, Juli?
MJ: Wiccan, writer, employee, stockholder, aunt, greataunt, sister, daughter, niece, granddaughter, friend, heterosexual with homo/bisexual friends, mentor, samurai daughter, interracial, loner, amateur psych, professional psycho, schizophrenic, and Queen of the PRC (Well, my other personality is).
M Jenkins, I know you know this, but there are very few ugly oriental women.
Brian W. Uh, Christians HAVE been persecuted and killed by all of those groups. Being submitted to paternal frowning, and angiest for joining a group intended to anger and shock people, is hardly comprable to being thrown to beasts, speared, hanged, crucfied, tourtured, jailed, shipwrecked, thrown to gulags, Concertration camps, imprisoned in Chinese death camps, threatened with death, shot by marxists and demonized.
Matt, while you are technically correct in pointing out that Christians have also been the victims of persecution in the past (you forgot to mention Tokugawa-Period Japan, by the way. I'll give you that one since you like Japan so much), Brian was talking about conditions that exist in the world of the PRESENT.
Also, when you say that "Christians HAVE been persecuted and killed by all of those groups," which groups are you talking about? The ones Brian listed were:
atheists, Wiccans, neo-Paganists, bi-sexuals, and homosexuals.
I don't know my history as well as you do but I am willing to learn. Could you please point me to some literature that documents the persecution of Christians by these groups? (If you are thinking of saying that Marxists and Chinese = atheists, you are really reaching.)
One more thing. What exactly do you mean by "a group intended to anger and shock people"? Do you think we believe what we do for the sole purpose of pissing people off? Is that why you believe what you believe? Because what you say shocks and angers us sometimes, too.
One more one more thing. Where does all the money come from for making new water? Wouldn't it be better not to ruin the old water in the first place?
Maybe he finds us attractive and sexy and just oh so beautiful, Juli?
I'm afraid I'm not Japanese, MJ, but my husband is and my children will be. Maybe all that "sexy and attractive and oh so beautiful" stuff will rub off on me if I live here long enough....
Hate to disappoint you, Jwb, but there are about as many ugly Asian women (and men) as there are ugly Western women (and men). : )
Maybe he finds us attractive and sexy and just oh so beautiful, Juli?
Well, I know you are most certainly beautiful and sexy, MJ. But of course I'm biased. *S*
Jwb, as much as I'd love your statement to be true (especially considering my sister-in-law is Japanese), you've never met each and every single Japanese woman, so you really can't say that most of them are beautiful, although I sure hope it is true. I think you're just talking about young women, anyway (not that there's anything wrong with that), cuz every person of either gender looses their looks as they age, even the most beautiful people, although some lose their looks more slowly than others. Myself, I was such a cute little booger, but then I hit puberty and, well, puberty hit me back even harder. Oh, well. Such is life. One thing I greatly admire about Asian women (or any woman for that matter) is how so many stay looking so young for so many years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the people who are for capital punishment are also against suicide and euthanasia for the reason that it is wrong for us puny humans to decide when to end a life that God created. If we can play god with a murderer's life, why is it immoral for a person to make that decision about his/her own life? I will never understand that.
Well most people - oh goodness, better not use THAT word - a great number of people, maybe more than 50% (that should do) would think that the murderer's life is not of equal value to an innocent person's life. Any ideas about punishment would not make much sense if this were not believed. The other thing is that suicide was forbidden in the Bible and capital punishment was demanded. I do not support euthanasia (without doubt the most boring issue in political history) because it has been horrible in all the countries where it is practised, with doctors deciding how much money keeping a person alive will cost and pulling the plug accordingly, and those old people who can speak for themselves feeling they must demand death rather than place an "unnecessary burden" on their children. I think a demand for euthanasia is usually supported not by those who have seen relatives suffer pain, but those who want to believe that no one who is unproductive has a right to live, which is why politicians tend to support it far more than ordinary people. Of course, if you believe in abortion, it is virtually impossible to argue that people should not be executed once they become unwanted or useless. Why kill those under five if not those over sixty? The absolute right to life exists or it does not, so of course without euthanasia you can't have abortion, which is why lefties like the idea, happily believing they too will deserve to die once they get to a certain age, and can no longer work, and would rather be murdered than be a burden on others.
OK Peter. I want you to try something. And please, I am trusting you to use the honor system on this.
Imagine you live in a world where people who believe in God are the minority. Imagine that because you believe, you are hated, verbally assaulted, and evemn threatened with death just because you want to believe. Imagine that you are discriminated against because you believe. Imagine your government tries to come up with a bill that would protect you and other believers, but it is shot down. Imagine that your parents, being non-believers, consider you abnromal and shut you out, not caring about your happiness. Imagine all these things, and even worse.
Now you know how atheists, Wiccans, neo-Paganists, bi-sexuals, and homosexuals feel every day. Now that you know what kind of suffering I and they put up with, how can you continue to hate us?
Brian, I have said a hundred times that I do not hate anyone or advocate hatred. I just don't think homosexuality is right. Gays do not suffer any discrimination. They can't have kids because they are unnatural, so why should they get someone else's kids? They can't marry so why should they be given married couple's pay? In Britain, for example, it is economically sensible to be a gay or a single parent, as the tax system discriminates against the family.
Peter, I am decent, but I won't apologize for my post. What I meant by it was the dichotomy of someone saying that they can't say they're pro-life while also condoning the death of those who work in abortion clinics or supporting the death penalty. I do support the death penalty myself, and if someone breaks into your home and you kill him, especially if he's armed, then more power to ya! He deserves it. Unfortunately, in the US, if you shoot someone who breaks into your house and only injure them they can sue you and possibly win. It happens.
I cannot believe anyone can be this st*pid. You are clearly pretending not to understand simple phrases either because you are scared of debating with me properly or because you enjoy making accusations without basis. Now LISTEN VERY CAREFULLY - I CANNOT MAKE THIS ANY F*CKING CLEARER:
I have not advocated murder ever. I have not supported, condoned or wished for the death of abortion clinic workers.
I have not advocated murder ever. I have not supported, condoned or wished for the death of abortion clinic workers.
I have not advocated murder ever. I have not supported, condoned or wished for the death of abortion clinic workers.
Perhaps someone else will explain this to him. I get the feeling three times is not enough.
I support the death penalty because murderers are guilty of a serious crime. I am against abortion because unborn babies cannot kill anyone. As I said before, I will go on supporting the death penalty and opposing abortion until someone can prove to me that all unborn children are murderers. Until then I will not accept that they should die, or that my beliefs are inconsistent.
THANK YOU! :-|
Peter.
Gays do not suffer any discrimination.
Your Honor, we would like to introduce this as People's Exhibit A in the case of Peter v. Nitcentral, on charges of being completely out of touch with reality.
::Hate to disappoint you, Jwb, but there are about as many ugly Asian women (and men) as there are ugly Western women (and men). : ):: juli k
NO!!! I refuse to believe this. I've never seen an ugly oriental woman. Maybe it is just me....
::Jwb, as much as I'd love your statement to be true (especially considering my sister-in-law is Japanese), you've never met each and every single Japanese woman, so you really can't say that most of them are beautiful, although I sure hope it is true. I think you're just talking about young women, anyway (not that there's anything wrong with that), cuz every person of either gender looses their looks as they age, even the most beautiful people, although some lose their looks more slowly than others. Myself, I was such a cute little booger, but then I hit puberty and, well, puberty hit me back even harder. Oh, well. Such is life. One thing I greatly admire about Asian women (or any woman for that matter) is how so many stay looking so young for so many years.:: MarkN
I don't think people get ugly just because they get old. Look at Sophia Loren, for example.
Peter:They can't have kids because they are unnatural, so why should they get someone
else's kids? They can't marry so why should they be given married couple's pay? In Britain, for example, it is economically
sensible to be a gay or a single parent, as the tax system discriminates against the family.
I believe this question was asked on this board before but none against Homosexuality ever answered it. So if a child was in an abusive heterosexual family where the child was mentaly and physically tortured and the Social Services wanted to get that child adopted but the only couple was a homosexual one where both aprtenrs loved oneanother and the only thing that was "wrong" was that they were of teh same sex, you would rather the child stayed with the heterosexual couple? Simple yes or no answers please.
Gays do not suffer any discrimination.
Maybe they won't in the distant future when humans learn to stop hating each other, but right now this simply isn't true.
I wonder what you think of me Peter. Well, if it will provide a little insight into my character, I suggest you go on over and visit my website. http://members.fortunecity.com/bdwebber/porch.htmlIs this the website of an ammoral person?
Just curious... what happened to ignoring Peter?
It wasn't as much fun *grins*
You want a serious answer to that question, Brian? :)
Sheesh. A few comments as my time is limited (um, probably no updates tomorrow, BTW. Sorry, but there's more important things to be done)
1. Swearing does not convince people you are not a psycho. In fact, it is the opposite.
2. I have not seen very many Asian women, so I cannot comment. Being an Asian male, I have never heard anyone say that I am particularly handsome, but I digress. :)
3. Peter, your logic is...odd...but I agree with you in the long run--I am for the death penalty, and against abortion. I cannot quite fathom your reasoning to come up with this based on your post, but you appear to be rather angry, so I'll wait until you calm down.
4. There's a great deal of discrimination against homosexuality and Christianity alike. Different ways and means, though. Off the subject a bit, the show "Will and Grace" has won an American Emmy Award, and it's been said that this is a big breakthrough for the homosexual community. I personally compare this to saying that "Amos and Andy" was a big breakthrough for the African American community. From the episodes I have seen, the show is doing more to reinforce gay stereotypes than anything else, and I predict that in the future, it will suffer the same fate of "Amos and Andy"--forever classified as a politically incorrect program. Or am I wrong?
::2. I have not seen very many Asian women, so I cannot comment. Being an Asian male, I have never heard anyone say that I am particularly handsome, but I digress. :):: MikeC
Just for digression sake, am I the only one who didn't know this fact about MikeC?
MikeC I think that what they mean when they talk about "Will and Grace" is that being recognized with an award, since their show has openly gay characters, is a step in the right direction.
I didn't know that fact about Mr Moderator either. What country, mi amigo?
And now I'm hopelessly confused. What, exactly, is your racial background? (Tell me to shut up if I'm prying.)
Since I'm half Japanese, am I only half beautiful? Does anyone else know that Mark2 thinks I'm beautiful and sexy and all that? I would never have guessed...;)
And no, Peter, you can say Brazilians are all ugly if you want. That's just a personal opinion. There's a distinct, but very fine line between personal opinions and racism.
M Jenkins, I never said you were half beautiful or half anything for that matter. I simply have never have seen any ugly women who had Oriental ancestry. Maybe I just have a fascination with Oriental women? Who knows.....
The problem with saying "all Asians are beautiful" or "all Brazilians are ugly" is not one of racism, it is simply one of being to willing to make generalizations when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Ooooo...does that mean that Mark2 has a challenger now?
In all honesty, if you ever see me on my normal days, you'll go running and screaming. My hair is always back away from my face, I never wear cosmetics, I have these glasses that make me look nerdy, and no one likes freckles anyways. I'm what most folks classify as "ugly."
(Not really, but it's fun to say that.)
MikeC: Off the subject a bit, the show "Will and Grace" has won an American Emmy Award, and it's been said that this is a big breakthrough for the homosexual community. I personally compare this to saying that "Amos and Andy" was a big breakthrough for the African American community. From the episodes I have seen, the show is doing more to reinforce gay stereotypes than anything else, and I predict that in the future, it will suffer the same fate of "Amos and Andy"--forever classified as a politically incorrect program. Or am I wrong?
You're wrong. While Jack does indeed act a stereotypical homosexual male, hell, so does Karen! :-) Will is non-stereotypical. In fact, if not for his references to "sharing" George Clooney with Grace, one would not realize he's gay.
Peter: Brian, none of my comments are meant personally. I certainly have not said you are immoral or been able to make such a judgement. I liked your site, particularly the quotes page, and I found the anti-scientology page you gave a link to very interesting but I don't see how I am supposed to guess from it whether or not you
are moral.
Hmm. Good point. Maybe I was just plugging my page again. Well, glad you liked the Quotes section, and I'm glad to see we are in agreement over Sicentology.
NOTE TO MIKE: Scientology section? Possibly.
I don't think people get ugly just because they get old. Look at Sophia Loren, for example.
Or Raquel Welch, who just turned 60 recently. She gives me one serious oedipal complex! (I'm kidding people! I loves me mum but not in that sense!) Remember what I said in my post, Jwb: ...although some lose their looks more slowly than others. Those are two perfect examples that we mentioned, don'tcha think?
Just for digression sake, am I the only one who didn't know this fact about MikeC?
Nope. It's news to me, too. And having the last name Cheyne can really throw you for a loop! Unless Mike's adopted or his dad's nonAsian and Mike took the family name.
MJ, I like a little sprinkling of freckles, like Lucy Liu's, but of course, she's a far distant second to you in looks.
Scientology section? Good idea. I wonder if any will come there and defend their religion. However, if they do, I guess we can expect quite a lot of arguing with them. MarkM, get your friends ready.
Now, how's about we all please get back to the subject of this board and stick with it, ok? (He said with tongue in cheek. OW! I juh bih muh tun!)
I think we must convince M Jenkins that she is beautiful. Now we just have to figure out how. :)
I am adopted--I'm from South Korea originally with Korean parents. My adoptive parents are of Scottish and Dutch heritage--Cheyne is a Scottish name. You're not prying, I'm proud of it.
Brian, I agree with you that Will is a well-rounded character, but look at it this way. If a show featured a well-rounded African-American character and a stereotypical African-American character nowadays, that show would be run off the air in a rail. If that happened forty years ago, it would be praised as a step in the right direction. Get my point?
Opps, that adoption question ignore by all again. Guess we'll never know.
When did Jwb ever see a picture of me? I'm so confused...;)
Okay, Mikey. Got it now. Yupyup. *Nods*
When are we gonna start posting on Part II again? After all, isn't that it's there for? (I'd say this tongue in cheek too, but I don't wanna bite my tongue again. *S*)
M Jenkins, you described yourself and it sounded very nice to me. For example, I think freckles are cute.
*hmmss*..Three days an still no answer to that adoption question..seems people don't want to answer it.
I thought that was in reference to Peter only, Anon.
No. As in, turn the child over to the more loving couple.
Jwb, flattery gets you everywhere with me...;)
MJ, your post officialy kicked this board into the 400 club! No wonder Morgan avoids the place like the plague.
Admitedly it was aimed mostly at Peter, but it was aimed at all thoes who are against Homosexuality and the fact that "morals would die if they let them marry" crowd.
http://www.humor.org/j/ajoke/000000064
Link for those that want a laugh. Its vaugley related to this thread so. I expect I'll burn for this, but seeing as how I'm probably already going there because of my beliefs, what the hey.
Thats not what I asked you. I was asking you and others in the strictly hypothetical situation where there was only and I mean only a homosexual couple who could adopt. What would you do?
Gee, Peter. How could you be so stup¡d as to not see that?
Sarchasm - The gulf between the person making the remark and the person its aimed at.
Wish I could take credit for that......
The kid would go to the homosexual couple, of course, as long as that couple was not abusive either.
*chuckles*..anyone else not get the joke? It is rather obvious.
Give the guy a round of applause. For you Peter I shall explain. Sarchasm is a made up word sent in by someone to a local newspaper who ran a competition where their readers had to make up new words by adding one letter to an existing word. Sarchasm was a runner up and is intended to convey the gap (By using the fact that Sar"casm" is only one letter away from Chasm..see it now?) between the person making the Sarcastic comment and the person its aimed at not understanding it.
And thank you for your answer... It speaks volumes.
Such a situation would never arise, but if it did I would not condemn an innocent child to be brought up by a couple of gays.
Why? You do realize that homosexuality is probably not learned, but rather genetically determined. And what could be the harm in allowing the child to be brought up to tolerate other people instead of suggesting that we eliminate their rights, force them to do things we don't want to do ourselves, etc?
::Why? You do realize that homosexuality is probably not learned, but rather genetically determined. And what could be the harm in allowing the child to be brought up to tolerate other people instead of suggesting that we eliminate their rights, force them to do things we don't want to do ourselves, etc?:: Matthew Patterson
I almost wish we could verify that this was true for sure. It would verify a sin one way or the other since sin has to be a mental choice.
Hypothetical solutions are fun to play along with, but since real life never is that neat and clean, they're pretty much worth jack squat in the real world. When, exactly, will there be a situation when the ONLY people willing to adopt a child from an abusive heterosexual couple are a homosexual couple?
Its also proving the point that Peter would rather risk the health of a child rather than give up his fear of homosexuals. I personally don't believe its anything other than his own "opinion" and that hes doing what the vast majority of religious people do namely (I hesitate the use the word but I can't think of a better one atm) hiding behind their God. In my own opinion had any God wanted his followers to follow his words exactly then he wouldn't of given them Free Will. Without free will any religion is just a cult in my own personal opinion.
I see any religious texts as being mearly guidelines rather than rules, the big guy/gal/whatever upstairs says "Heres what I think now you make up your own mind". Which brings me back to a point I raised earlier and was never answered either. If Gods words are the be all and end all of it no arguments may be entered into....why do we have the New Testament? I heard nothing about God being involved in its re-write so how come its unsinful to re-write a Gods words without his consent? Why re-write the Old Testament so that its more suitable to today's morals when God it 100% correct all the time. Why would he off been flawed the first time, hes God after all? Also, whats to stop it being re-written again further into the future o again account for things that are not wrong. Would you, Peter, still be a Christian if they re-wrote the Testament to include the fact that homosexuality is normal?
Maybe I'm straying back onto my previous point that MikeC put so succinctly...but the overall point of what I'm getting at is still valid.
I believe that God did have a hand in writing the New Testament--"all Scripture is God-breathed". If God chooses to write it again, so be it...but the New Testament was only written to fulfill the prophecies of the Old. Note also that for the most part, the MORAL CODE remains fundamentally the same in both Testaments, it is merely the sacrifices, dietary habits, health code, etc. that is removed (but not discarded).
I would still be a Christian if God stated that homosexuality is normal. I don't oppose homosexuality because of personal distaste, I oppose it because of what God has said. I do not believe He would, though, since He would be a liar as He declared it sinful before. Once again, we're venturing into hypothetical territory again.
Ooba gooba.
Good enough for me.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with a nice hypothetical discussion every once in a while. As long as it doesn't get too out of hand. (See, "What if we altered the brain chemistry of convicted murderers and used them like the Founders use Jem'Hadar?" for an example of a loss of control... assuming there was ever some sort of control in the first place.)
Matthew, they already put criminals in some states on work detail, so why not use them for something useful like when we need war soldiers?
Jwb, meet Peter. You two have a lot in common.
Short answer, war needs to be fought in the manner that will be hardest on the regular line soldiers, lest we forget just what it's supposed to be about. Long answer, see "Why has no Earth Government created a Jem'Hadar" over on Political Musings. Bring a snack, it'll take a while to get through.
Its also proving the point that Peter would rather risk the health of a child rather than give up his fear of homosexuals.
I don't know if it proves that point exactly, Anon. But indirectly it does bring up the question of why a lot of religious people obsess about sexual "sins" like homosexuality that don't harm other people. They might reply that they talk about sexual sins a lot because they offend God. Well, I would think God would be very offended by child abuse, which is running rampant in our country to a far greater extent than homosexuality, yet you never hear the anti-gay people mention it, except in the context of erroneously linking pedophilia (another sexual crime) with homosexuality.
The only possible conclusion to draw from this is that sins that don't involve sex are simply too boring to talk about.
Spare the Rod and Spol the CHild. Thats what the Bible says. You all are athiest liberal scum and your parents didnt beat you hard enouhg.
Nice one, Anon. Great parody of the Vargo/Pesti perfected style. Although it could have used a few more citations of obscure philosophers with misspelled names.
::Short answer, war needs to be fought in the manner that will be hardest on the regular line soldiers, lest we forget just what it's supposed to be about.:: Matthew Patterson
Imagine......here I was thinking that the point was to resolve the conflict as quickly as possible withe least death and destruction.
But what would be the point of that? If war is seen as only a minor inconvenience, we'd be in the middle of it all the time. And eventually, it would escalate, to the point where probably no side would win and all would be in ruin. That can't be allowed to happen. War ought to be kept as terrible as possible to remind all of what it truly is: an extreme last resort.
I know it's trite, but see "A Taste of Armageddon" from Star Trek. That's carrying "painless war" to the extreme.
Matthew Patterson, you didn't get my meaning. If we want to keep it from escalating to the point of everything being in ruins, we must end it as soon as possible. However we do that, it must be ended as fast as possible, which is best for everyone involved. I am not advocating taking the terribleness out of war. I am advocating doing whatever we have to to end them as fast as we can.
Looks like my evil twin escaped again :)
I'm having a think about what I want to say next but just before that, the other Anon at 10:25pm there wasn't me before anyone pounces on that :P
Jwb, I don't think you get my meaning. The point is to do whatever wehave to do to get it over with, not get people we view as subhuman to do it for us. If it has no real affect on us, how long could we keep believing that it was really such a bad thing?
Matthew Patterson, criminals are not subhuman, but if they're in jail doing nothing it would be a better use of them or their time to fight wars in my opinion. At least that way they would still be useful to society. How useful to society is a criminal in jail? Maybe that would be a good way of rehabilitating some criminals. Who knows? Maybe murderers would fear being forced to fight in a war more than the death penalty. Only those who are not right in the head will think that war is ever good.
::I believe violent criminals are subhuman:: Peter
Being bad does not make you subhuman. That's not logical to think that it does.
::What is so wrong with war anyway?:: Peter
War is an uncivilized way of resolving a conflict. War causes needless death when people could simply talk about things if they would get over their own egos and biases.
::Why is nobly fighting for the salvation of goodness and justice in the world, and making history by risking ones life, so much worse and more meaningless than working at a desk or in a field for forty years? Peace is overrated. As long as we have the authority of good and justice behind us, war will not be wrong.:: Peter
Yes, I agree that dying in a war is a noble death. I do have a problem with the "for the salvation of goodness and justice in the world" part. LOL, that's just too funny. Making history shouldnt' be a goal of war. That's just plain ••••••. The problem with your idea is that what is just and good is an OPINION, no matter how much you think it is not. Just because war is sometimes a necessity, due to •••••• egocentric biases, doesn't mean it is good. They are called necessary evils, Peter. I assume you'll understand this once you are an adult.
Matthew Patterson, criminals are not subhuman, but if they're in jail doing nothing it would be a better use of them or their time to fight wars in my opinion. At least that way they would still be useful to society. How useful to society is a criminal in jail? Maybe that would be a good way of rehabilitating some criminals. Who knows? Maybe murderers would fear being forced to fight in a war more than the death penalty. Only those who are not right in the head will think that war is ever good.
I would have no problem with having them do it... if they consented to it and were ruled as mentally stable and all. (Something would need to be done to make sure that it wasn't all an elaborate escape attempt, though.) Peter's idea whas to chemically alter them, possibly permanently, so that they became enhanced physically and downgraded mentally to where they would be no better than our slaves. Again, I refer you to the "Jem'Hadar" thread on Political Musings, as it's been a while since I read it myself. Forcing anyone to participate in a war against their will is, I believe, wrong, and it is doubly wrong to permanently alter people to suit one's own purposes. Whatever else you might think, criminals are 100% genetically human beings, and they deserve humane treatment just as everyone else does.
Matthew Patterson, why should they have to consent? They're in JAIL. They've given up their basic rights by breaking the law to the point of being put in jail.
They've given up their basic rights by breaking the law to the point of being put in jail.
Basic CIVIL rights. Not their basic HUMAN rights.
ScottN, one of the civil rights, except in times of drafts in the US, as I see it, is to be able to choose or not to go into military services. Please explain how choosing or not to go into the military is a "human" right.
I don't think that prisoners should be forced into going to fight (what's the point? They'd just desert), but there's certainly no harm for going to mentally stable prisoners and asking if they'd fight in the war, perhaps for a reduced sentence or pardon after the war. Sort of a "Dirty Dozen" sort of thing.
Please explain how choosing or not to go into the military is a "human" right.
Tell me, do you understand the words "chemically altered?" That's the argument here, not whether or not they should be made to fight in the war.
Of course, the observation has been made that anyone that is forced to join the military isn't going to be as effective as someone who volunteered to go, and it is therefore more beneficial to recruit volunteers than conscript convicts.
Yes, I know what "chemically altered" means, but if chemically altering them to make them better able to fight would help get the war over faster., I have no problem with it, IF the chemical alteration could be undone during times of peace.
Aren't there various laws banning medical experimentation on prisoners, though? Wouldn't this fall under that category?
Besides, they're still human beings. If you wouldn't want it to be done to you, don't do it to someone else.
Matthew Patterson, I would say that that doesn't totally apply to criminals since they have already done things to people that they wouldn't want done to them.
So? Are you the criminal in this situation? Just because they've done bad things doesn't mean that you have the right to do bad things to them.
No offense to anyone, but this conversation is starting to play like a Marvel comic book script.
"Ahh, so, Herr Skull, what is your secret plan for ending der accursed war wit the Allies?"
"Exceedingly simple, brainless one! We shall take from our prisons sub-humans to be turned into super-soldiers!"
"Ach der lieber, Herr Skull! Himmel!"
"Silence, you pathetic fool! Not even Captain America himself can defeat the Skull Soldiers!"
"I wouldn't be sure about that, Skull!"
"Mein Gott, Herr Skull! It ess der accursed Amerikaner, Captain America!"
"I know that, you brainless idiot! Shoot him!"
"Ach der lieber!"
Matthew Patterson, in this circumstance it wouldn't be bad, because they're criminals.
So? I reiterate: What gives you the right to do bad things to people who have themselves done bad things? Take this example: Suppose, when you were little, there was one kid who always picked on everyone else. Maybe not you specifically, just everyone in general. Would that make it right for you to pick on him? Multiply the situation by about a thousand, and you get our present impasse.
"Ahh, you schveinhundt Captain America, you insist on trying to stop Herr Skull's plan to eliminate the verdammt Allies?"
"You can't get away with it, Skull! Don't you have any decency!?"
"Nein, my dear Captain. It was destroyed long ago. Good riddance!"
"Heil to der Red Skull!"
"Not so fast!"
"Bucky! My loyal sidekick!"
"Ach der lieber! Himmel!"
I'm tempted to continue the argument just to hear the end of the story.
::So? I reiterate: What gives you the right to do bad things to people who have themselves done bad things?:: Matthew Patterson
The very fact of their having done bad things the point of having to be put in jail tells me that they have given up the right of having that same courtesy toward them while they are in prison. The only things I believe we must do for prisonersis keep them alive, ie. give them food and shelter and the VERY most basics of health care. Other than that they deserve nothing as I see it. BTW, bullies deserve what they get as well if it is in defense of others, but then again, bullies are not criminals, so it isn't the same situation. I am only speaking of criminals.
"Achtung! Bring der guns to eliminate the young Amerikaner! Schnell! Schnell!"
"Idiot! Captain America is free!"
"Himmel! Der Fuhrer will be furious, Herr Skull!"
"Sorry, Otto, but your goosestepping days are kaput!"
"Schvienhundt! You dare to insult the glorious Reich! OOOOF!"
"The party's over, Skull!"
"I'm afraid Captain America, that nothing is over...aside from both of your lives!"
"Enough fancy talking, Cap, let's get that crimson heil-Hitlerer!"
"Careful, Bucky--I have a feeling that he's not just whistling Dixie."
"I shall treasure your caustic comments, American, as they shall be your last! Super-Soldiers, awaken!"
"Super-Soldiers?!"
"HEIL TO DER RED SKULL!"
To Be Continued--next issue, but as part of a company crossover, to truly understand next issue, you need to buy X-Men #394, Spider-Man #20, The Adventures of Drom the Backwards Man #1, Iron Man Annual #17, and What If? #49.
LETTERS PAGE
Dear Editor, I really admire your latest series, "The Red Skull and his Super-Soldiers". But why do all the Germans speak English?
Egad! You have just qualified for a No-Prize!
The very fact of their having done bad things the point of having to be put in jail tells me that they have given up the right of having that same courtesy toward them while they are in prison.
Have you ever had pets, Jwb?
Two wrongs make a right? When did this happen?
I knew I was a reclusive hermit and all, but geez...last I heard, two wrongs don't make a right.
Matthew Patterson, pets are not criminals. They have done nothing wrong.
M Jenkins, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but when you are talking about criminals, it's not exactly the same as talking about your non criminal.
That wasn't my point, and you didn't answer my question.
Matthew Patterson
I didn't answer it because it didn't have anything to do with criminals, which is what I was talking about. I don't see the two as related enough to be discussed in the same discussion.
Forcing anyone to participate in a war against their will is, I believe, wrong...
Yes, it is and thankfully we no longer have the draft, although I wouldn't doubt it's being reinstated at some time or other, but I hope not.
As for forcing criminals to fight in wars for us, well, who in their right mind would really want to put high-powered, rapidfiring weapons or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of mentally unstable people who'd have a rather strong disregard for authority and really wouldn't have any compunctions about turning those weapons on their superiors?
If we let mentally stable prisoners fight in a war, who's to say they also wouldn't turn their weapons on their own teammates? Of course, then their teammates would mow them down but still you'd have some good soldiers die a worthless death during a war just cuz the government took the risk of letting some convicts fight in the war, and that ain't good. Mentally stable or not, convicts shouldn't be made to fight in a war, although it's a nice thought, especially for such as murderers and rapists. After all, if they died who'd miss them, other than their families, if even them?
BTW, just wondering, but what the hell does all this have to do with homosexuality anyway? Can we please stay on topic? I'm almost afraid of what the nanobots are planning to do if we don't stay on-topic.
I didn't answer it because it didn't have anything to do with criminals, which is what I was talking about. I don't see the two as related enough to be discussed in the same discussion.
I'm leading up to something. Now answer it.
::As for forcing criminals to fight in wars for us, well, who in their right mind would really want to put high-powered, rapidfiring weapons or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of mentally unstable people who'd have a rather strong disregard for authority and really wouldn't have any compunctions about turning those weapons on their superiors?:: MarkN
This is why there would have to be some kind of medical mental and physical conditioning before you send them done.
::So? I reiterate: What gives you the right to do bad things to people who have themselves done bad things? Take this example: Suppose, when you were little, there was one kid who always picked on everyone else. Maybe not you specifically, just everyone in general. Would that make it right for you to pick on him? Multiply the situation by about a thousand, and you get our present impasse.
I'm leading up to something. Now answer it.:: Matthew Patterson
My answer is that a bully is not a criminal although both are not nice. I don't believe that it is the same thing so different actions would apply although both would be a form of punishment for their actions. I say again, a bully is not a criminal.
I say again, answer my question about the pet, which you have spliced onto the end of a completely different post.
And once the war is over, what do you do with your pet killing machines?
"Ahh, Captain, you now contend with FLUFFY THE NAZI KILLING MACHINE!"
"Meow! Meow Meow!"
"Ach der lieber! Himmel! Der vicious feline will make mincemeat out of der schveinhundt Amerikaners!"
"Shut up, Wolfgang!"
::I say again, answer my question about the pet, which you have spliced onto the end of a completely different post.::Matthew Patterson
Alright, I'll answer. I had a dog in the seventies, but I starved him and kicked him for a year, before chemically improving his strength. Then I sent him off to Vietnam to sort out the commies. He never came back.
If you don't intend to discuss this seriously, then don't. I have a point here, but it's clear that you're not willing to listen to it.
That was not me posting that time. Someone has impersonated me. I was not born till 1978.
SOMEWHERE IN VIETNAM, 1985
"Achtung! I must inspect my loyal aide!"
"Heil to der Red Skull!"
"Quiet, you fool! I want these Communist simpleton to think that I am working for them!"
"Ach der lieber, Herr Skull, what if you should fail?"
"SILENCE! You think that the Red Skull can fail?"
"Nein. It boggles der mind!"
"Quiet! Do you hear that?"
"Ach der lieber! It's, It's--"
"SUPER HOUND! THE FIGHTING CANINE MACHINE!"
Nit: And in your self defense, you still haven't answered Matthew's question.
M Jenkins, I gave it the answer I think it deserves. Look at my post on the 24th at 2:20 PM.
Some completely irrelevent statement about criminals and bullies?
Oh, I'll bite.
Matthew, yes, I've had pets. Two dogs in a span of three years (both were turned over to the county for having mean streaks). Three fish that Kenji killed back when he was three or four.
Oh, and I've had the requisite pet rocks.
Well, for those of you that have had pets... When they did something bad, did you discipline them by beating them repeatedly and/or drugging them?
Pets are not humans. They have no conscience, soul, and are not bound by human laws.
However, I can see your point. If a pet misbehaves, though, it must be corrected or reprimanded or else it will do it again. Humans must be punished for wrongdoings or else they will do it again. That does not mean torture them or drug them.
::Some completely irrelevent statement about criminals and bullies?:: M Jenkins
Oh all right, nevermind, I guess I don't know how to say what I mean any other way. I shall not try on this issue any longer.
BTW, thank you MikeC, for making my point for me in a way that Matt and M Jenkins should understand. At least, I think we're thinking the same thing, a little.
Obviously MikeC has never been to peta.org :-)
Pets are not humans. They have no conscience, soul, and are not bound by human laws.
*look of shock crosses my face* I don't like you anymore Mike! What a thing to see on my day off fromw ork! *cradles adorable kitty Meg in arms*
Well, I didn't say anything about soul, conscience, or being bound by laws. It's merely a matter of discipline. If the punishment is out of proportion to the crime, the punishment becomes disconnected from the crime and inspires feelings of resentment and hatred toward whoever inspired the punishment. Beating your pet because it dug up your flower beds isn't an acceptable punishment. Neither is drugging a criminal and forcing him to fight a war for you. Neither of them will produce the desired result (i. e. not wanting to do it again.)
Let's look at my comment, Brian:
*Pets are not bound by human laws. I'm sure everybody will agree to this.
*Pets have no consicence. While this is debatable, I think it can be established. You can't say that an animal is murdering another if they kill each other because the animal knows nothing of murder. Humans are somewhat born with an instinct that hurting others is wrong.
*I knew that soul comment was going to cause trouble. I should have taken pains to indicate that this was a religious belief.
None of this indicates I'm not a pet lover, Brian. I just got a new dog Saturday!
Matthew, I agree. I just wanted to clarify myself a little.
Of course I have a soul, you blithering ninny.
That's right, Mr. Peabody!
Quiet, you!
"Ach der lieber, Herr Skull, it ess a dog wit glasses and a little ••••••-looking Amerikaner child!"
"Today, Sherman, we will visit Nazi Germany, the home to many interesting people of the 20th century."
"Golly, Mr. Peabody, who's that?"
"Wolfgang! Eliminate these fools!"
"Heil to der Red Skull!"
"That, Sherman, is the Red Skull, one of the Fuhrer's--"
"Gee, Mr. Peabody, what's a Fuhrer?"
"I was getting to that, Sherman."
"Sorry, Mr. Peabody."
BANG! BANG! RATATATATA! BANG!
"Mr. Peabody, they're shooting at us!"
"Correction, Sherman. They've hit you. I'm afraid you're a goner."
"I think you're right, Mr. Peabody! Gulp!"
"Ha ha, der Amerikaner swine child ess finished!"
Jees, what happened to this place. You take a few days off and things just go nuts...ahh well. Now where was I...
I think JK has got to the hub of what I was try to get at in her post on the 23rd Sept 05:26 onwards on the front board to this place, the fact that there can be morality without a so called God. All that it comes down to is you own personal opinion, which according to Peter, isn't allowed to hold any weight in these matters therefore why should his claim of having a God involved with his decisions hold any more weight than mine simply because he "believes" theres a higher power involved.
Yup. Through the wonders of Internet Explorer, I finally got to see this thread.
Yup. Not worth it at all.
"Silence, Schivenhund! The Reich will rule the world!"
"Shut up, Wolfgang!"
Yup. Through the wonders of Internet Explorer, I finally got to see this thread.
Ahahahahahaha! The last owner of Netscape Navigator has defected at last. Now my evil plan will finally come true. Imagine the anarchy as I turn Interet Explorer off. Goodbye civilisation. Hello anarchy!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
William Gates III.
Dear Mr. Gates,
You forgot to put your email address on that one.
So here it is: billg@microsoft.com.
Sincerely,
Your friends at the Department of Justice
MikeC, it is spelled "Schweinehund". Woof.
(Hey, my Netscape can even eat more than 600k!)
Hey guys. It's out of date and I'm not going to update it. But you can check out my homepage at:
http://members.aol.com/jwb5 2z/index.html
I have a link to the Young Male Stars Homepage.
This link was not my doing as far as posting goes. I have links to actors I like and that's why that link is on my page. I don't know who would have done this to me again posting in my name.
Tom? A couple of things. First, assuming this is considered "Board 1", then the Add a Message field is still active.
Second, the Related Topic in Political Musings, Related Topic in Legal Musings (1), and Related Topic in Legal Musings (2) links are dead.
Third, the Main RM board does not have such a field, which is why I'm posting this here.
Lastly, the See Also: Political Musings and See Also: Legal Musings links on the RM Main board are dead.
Thanks.