Sad about TFF going down like that for a bit. It means I've been waiting a whole day to post this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sasquatch
Remember this. "Right" and "wrong" are supposedly dictated by people, by society.
Not quite. The 'right' and 'wrong' we're talking of here are just the people's perceptions of 'right' and 'wrong'. And society does include all the homosexual people and their views on 'right' and 'wrong'. As well as all the heterosexual people such as myself who believe that homosexual people are indeed being screwed over on the basis of a society's views. Just as you're a part of a society, so is everybody else. Society can make laws to attempt to 'dictate' 'right' and 'wrong', but who really follows those laws when they can be easily broken at times for a person's benefit? Society's laws ARE it's perception of 'right' and 'wrong', and often people don't agree with several of them. People belonging to that same society. Often the people have no choice but to follow these laws as they've been around a lot longer than the people in question. Whether they like them or not...
Quote:
It can be, but it's still done, and it's considered "right" by the people that do it. And what's to disrespect? Most religions believe that when a person dies, their earthly body becomes a lump of flesh anyway. Just because your opinions differs from their opinions doesn't mean you should force your beliefs on them. Just because our society differs from their society doesn't mean we should call them "wrong".
And I'm not. If their beliefs entitle them to eat each other's bodies then fine. My argument is just that if a person doesn't want their body consumed after they die, they should have the right to say so. I would see it like organ donation. Some people are more than happy to give their bodies, others would prefer they rot in a hole.
Quote:
It's still seen as "right" by some people, so how is it wrong? The same argument could be twisted to say that homosexuals must not be right in the head, or they wouldn't be homosexual, just like some children must not be right (or "developed") or they wouldn't enjoy/accept being molested. Just because your opinions differs from their opinions doesn't mean you should force your beliefs on them. Just because our society differs from their society doesn't mean we should call them "wrong".
I say that 'right' and 'wrong' in cases such as these are ruled by a single person's or group(society)'s perceptions. Just because a person perceives something as right or wrong doesn't make it so. A clear example can be that I see denying homosexuals the right to marry as wrong, and you see it as 'right'. Or at least seem to. As far as I'm concerned a person should be free to do as they please so long as it does not cause a decent amount of grief to others. And by grief I mean decent financial loss (not involving a double standard of some kind. Heterosexual marriages do incur costs too remember), physical harm, psychological harm or some other form of harm. Whether or not a child enjoys being molested or not it has been documented to cause emotional harm (If I wanted to say it as they do on television I would call it 'emotional scarring') and can cause physical harm. A child isn't fully grown and their body can be damaged from several kinds of molestation.
Quote:
But, according to the people who believe it cures AIDS, it betters society. It would be "wrong" to prevent them this "gratification" because of this. Just because your opinions differs from their opinions doesn't mean you should force your beliefs on them. Just because our society differs from their society doesn't mean we should call them "wrong".
And who says my opinions do differ from theirs? If there's consent and an understanding of what could actually happen, I have no issue with it. Rape would imply that the sex was forced upon a virgin, and that the same virgin may have suffered emotional and quite possibly physical harm. Even with your argument you did neglect to mention any of the private organisations trying to benefit their societies through what many other societies now know of AIDs. They try to educate people, and chances are it could make a difference.
Quote:
According to the people that support these issues, it's "just a fetus", "just a woman", or "just a negro", and it doesn't matter much anyway that they get hurt/killed. These issues were/are still not "wrong". Because society dictates right and wrong, remember.
Society does not dictate 'right' and 'wrong'. Through your own words, you're giving society a good deal too much power. Societies are not infallible. Many have crumbled and are lost to the world, leaving only a little of what they once had. And look at mob mentalities. You get a large group of people together and things can get quite irrational...
Are the things an enraged crowd, an at times (if they share interests and/or beliefs) temporary society always 'right'?
Quote:
Rarely is the argument made that people shouldn't be in a relationship because the objective of every romantic relationship is procreation. But remember this argument.
Ummm.... It's remembered. And rare or not, it's valid. :lol:
Quote:
First, it's not a "weaker set of genes" that's the problem, it's the increased likelyhood of non-dominant genes becoming dominant because both sets of chromosomes possess the same genes -- because of this, genetic disabilities that are usually "overruled" by the better gene pair up and become dominant. But second, and more importantly, refer to the last comment. Your last comment -- the one you wrote. If you don't want to look up a few inches, I'll cite it back -- "There are people capable of having a relationship with no actual sex. Oh, and I'll drop two words from a fair few straight relationships. 'Birth control'."
I stand by what I said. They can cause disabilities as you have said, and it is the fault of the same bad genes combining as they do. Oh it's not going to be definite the children will have any problems. It just means there can be a higher chance of such a thing if the genes are present. And yeah, there can be couples who aren't into sex. But homosexuals are not capable of sexually reproducing with each other at all, making the argument you were trying to raise not very strong in my mind. And just to clarify, when referring to birth control I was referring to one thing that may have been an argument against homosexual marriage. The inability to reproduce and if by chance you're religious, any complaints that may be raised by the loss of life in the wasted semen. Straight couples don't always want kids themselves you know.
Quote:
Female humans may be impregnated as young as 12 or 13, or younger in some cases. According to some people, that's all it takes. This is one reason why the age of consent in some countries is 13, or even 12.
And their bodies may not be fully ready for it. Neither a male nor a female's body is close to fully maturing at that age, and especially in the case of females, physical harm to the body can be the cost of sex with an underdeveloped body. It can cause incontinence, loss of reproductive functions and several other unwanted side effects at times. I'm also going to mention that most if not all children at 12 or 13 would be able to emotionally cope with all things that sex can entail. And no, that's not just my personal opinion. It's also one of the many things that I now store in my mind that I learnt from reading books by qualified professionals. Just to clear things up with yours truly.
Quote:
I read a blog or some sort once from a man who was convinced otherwise. I don't know where he lived, but he "knew" that he loved a dolphin that lived near the beach outside his home, and he "knew" that the dolphin loved him -- and yes, he and the dolphin had sex on a regular basis. Seems "wrong" to me, but hey, if "right" and "wrong" have no set meaning at all, who am I to say that this guy was a friggin' sick, twisted bastard?
And who's to say he wasn't? Maybe he was right and the dolphin did understand things. They are known for their intelligence after all...
Oh I'm not saying what he did was 'right', just that I do not have any of the background information on the case in question and cannot make a decent judgement call on what he did being 'wrong'.
I've read the blogs of some people from religious minorities that can seem quite crazy/fanatical to me. Are they wrong? Not necessarily. We just hold different views.
Quote:
Says who? This may be your opinion, sure, but I'm sure the people who participate in such practices think much differently, or they wouldn't do it. The same could be argued that having more than one child shows a lack of respect and appreciation (not to mention a decline in parenting) compared to parenting one child.
Says me, observing several people I know who 'get around'. Where I live and hangout I see some other parts of western societies. I'll admit that there may be cases where there is a good deal of respect shown, but either way the partners would receive divided attention which to my way of thinking isn't the full and undivided respect they deserve.
And onto the other point, often children aren't really respected by their parents anyway. Not until they've earned the respect later on usually. Either way, parents often have a wide range of views on their children. A lot of children aren't even wanted by their parents. Where's the appreciation there? And I'll tie this more into the topic too. If a gay married couple wants kids, then they might be able to provide a loving home to some of the unwanted kids. Marriage does serve to tighten a relationship between a couple through showing a bond between the two involved. If that bond may be able to provide a stable home for a child or two who would otherwise be without one, isn't that a good thing? But I'm getting a little carried away here...
I digress...
Quote:
And again, according to some people, neither do marriages between adults and children, animals, relatives, or multiple partners.
Except that I already covered those. And went into further detail already in this post. But yeah as you were saying before:
Quote:
Rarely is the argument made that people shouldn't be in a relationship because the objective of every romantic relationship is procreation.
Some might not involve sex, but a good deal might. And if not sex, possibly some form of molestation. Adults with matured bodies can make the wrong decisions, but ultimately they're seen as more capable of making decisions as their minds have also matured more through experience that typically comes with age. Children can be harmed psychologically and physically through any acts that may follow marriage as can animals. Relatives do increase the chance for bad genes to be passed down, even if it's not a definite. And multiple partners I myself don't really have too much of a problem with personally (that said I'd never take multiple partners myself if the opportunity reared it's ugly little head), so long as it's something that all the people involved want, BUT I still believe the issue of respect, especially in terms of how much attention the single person gives his/her partners can be 'wrong' for those in question. It's a perception I hold, yet it does make sense...
Quote:
The point was brought up that it is a financial issue as well as otherwise. As "minimal" as it may seem to you, the amount is not an issue.
But is it really worth making a fuss over? There are several things such as heterosexual marriage that would also call on a person to pay money, and the number of heterosexual people is almost always greater than the number of homosexual marriage. Should we stop all marriage? Or maybe just all the entitlements so no qualms about taxes can be raised? Either way, people get screwed over to some extent. A couple dollars a year is more than justifiable to ensure a person's freedoms are in effect in my eyes. And no, it's not just my eyes, there are many who share the same view.
Quote:
I ask, why should I pay money for somebody else to have special rights available to them?
I'd say because they're not that special. Other groups in society can marry, so why not homosexual couples? If they love each other than what's the issue really? Despite everything in this thread, the only thing I can see stopping it really is discrimination. And yeah, though I number myself as a Christian I don't believe in persecuting another over their actions. Especially over something as trivial as this. While homosexual sexual activity can be seen as a sin by the Christian God, did Jesus shun sinners?
Quite frankly, denying someone the same opportunities as another is discrimination, regardless of how some may want to word it.
Quote:
You've yet to hear of a single homosexual divorce? Frankly, your ignorance of the subject -- and the lack of sources of factual information on it -- does not constitute an absence of homosexual divorces. The argument was made, or attempted at least, that heterosexual marriages -- "most if not all", if I remember correctly -- end in divorce. I'm just asking for information on homosexual marriages to provide comparison.
And where are your factual sources? Where I cannot find sources I use my observations. I know several homosexual couples and I see less strife between them then I do with most heterosexual couples. I have first hand experience as I have a fair few both heterosexual and homosexual friends.
Quote:
Ah, because "The Church are the real criminals, the real slime of the earth" and "bible-humpers and thick headed homophobes" is so very open-minded.
Your words, not mine. I'm a Christian myself, but I do confess to seeing a lot of them as hypocrites. Especially those who advertise themselves as being honest, caring, tolerant people and then discriminating against certain people as they do. Either way, just like some (though far from all) people heavily into science, those who are heavily into religion can be among the most close-minded of people. I look at a crowd neutrally and judge them on their actions rather than any preconceived ideas I hold about them. The only exceptions are those who insist on getting more personal. Those kinds annoy me and are thankfully small minorities.
Quote:
Oh that's right I almost forgot, I actually just got back from leading my church's youth group around, beating up homosexuals. I have the Saturday morning group, but I'm hoping to switch to the Saturday evening group, because there are so many more opportunities then.[/sarcasm]
Whatever floats your boat. But sarcastic or not, there are a lot of homosexuals victimised severely by heterosexuals in most societies. Almost every day I run into a case or two. Because while most people seem somewhat tolerant there are a lot of assholes in the world, and there are some severe negative connotations of homosexual people floating around that a lot of people are willing to use to victimise a homosexual person for whatever reason.
Quote:
I've never seen "many" heterosexuals "oppressing" any homosexuals. The few isolated incidents I've heard mention of are just that -- few in number, and rare. And, having lived in quite a few places in my life, I've never seen a "region" where the majority of the people were oppressive. Unless you're talking about somewhere outside America, like the Middle East, where homosexuals are stoned to death, or some places in Africa, where their genitals are forcibly removed.
No, just several hundred if not thousand workplaces in most western countries where homosexual people and those others who are different in some ways are regularly harassed. Oh, and the playgrounds where even straight people can be beaten up because some other kid called them gay. And some of the little 'college clubs', whatever they call themselves who are into partying, sex and victimising gays. And then look at all those "churchy" types who wave signs around and protest at the activities homosexuals and homosexual communities hold. It's not all Christians (in fact I rarely see any of the Australian ones protesting here), but it's enough that it is a real problem.
Quote:
But wait. If a lot of people tease, and a lot of people think it's "right" to tease, wouldn't that make it "right", since "right" and "wrong" are completely dictated by society anyway?
Your words not mine. As I said above in this post, the 'right' and 'wrong' here are just the perceptions of an individual or group. And does society in general hold positive or negative connotations for teasing? Last I heard it was negative. It's just some people are assholes, plain and simple.
Quote:
I would agree. It may not be right, but it happens anyway. We all get teased for different things, and we can either live with it and move on or curl up into the fetal position and rock back and forth in the corner of the room for the rest of our lives.
I'm glad you agree. ;)
Quote:
That also happens on an extremely rare basis, despite the huge amount of media attention that such cases attract. The one that got the most attention was the dragging and murder of a homosexual man in Texas, which was made into an anti-Bush political commercial where the man's daughter spoke about "when Bush refused to sign such-and-such hate crime bill into law, it was like he killed my daddy all over again". (Of course, the political commercial didn't mention that all four of the bastards who participated in the incident were given maximum or near-maximum sentences anyway.) This reminds me of The Office, where the boss crusades against rabies.
And just because the men were sentenced harshly, doesn't mean the girl will ever see her dad again. It's most often better to be proactive in terms of solutions rather than reactive. If there was no hatred against homosexual people than the man would still be alive and those men wouldn't be where they are now. But the men perceived homosexuality as wrong, took matters into their own hands, and look at the situation now...
Quote:
So society dictates what is "right" or "wrong", but what they perceive as "right" and "wrong" should have no bearing on freedoms?
Society doesn't dictate what's right and wrong...
Oh, it can try, but people will refer more to their perceptions of 'right' and 'wrong' as well as what a society perceives as 'right' and 'wrong' over what the laws of a society are. So called 'Victimless crimes' are a prime example of that. If a person can justify such an act that society finds illegal, he may see it as 'right'. If societies really had the authoritative presence to dictate anything, would crime or things it didn't agree with even exist in the world?
Quote:
And before they changed to what they are today, they dictated the freedoms for the time -- for all time. Not all change is progress.
All change is progress really. It either works well, or allows people to learn from their mistakes. And why isn't homosexual marriage a change for the better? I'm not seeing any real thing at all to support that it isn't.
Quote:
First off, as has been mentioned, the amount is not the issue. Second, you must not understand the tax structure of the United States if you believe somebody paying five thousand dollars a year in taxes can afford what they want. Sure, all of us "have enough money" to spare a nickel. The question isn't "why should we not", it's "why should we".
For the freedom of your country's citizens. I really couldn't care if you miss out on the metaphorical cheeseburger I mentioned in a previous post. Is a small amount of money worth a person's freedoms? I hear a lot of talk about the United States valuing freedom. It's in most propaganda I see advertising the USA. So I really do wonder how some can see the loss of some pocket change worth some of that freedom. Seriously.
Quote:
That's what insurance is for, and being financially responsible enough to have insurance. Despite what Michael Moore says, the American healthcare industry isn't terrible. And it's a hell of a lot better than many socialized healthcare programs. But let's not stray from the topic.
And what about those who can't afford private insurance? You did bring the point up first...
Quote:
Socialized medicine is an entirely different can of worms, but for the record -- most people don't say they don't want it because it'll "raise taxes", but because it will charge uniformly for a low-quality service. Not because it will "slightly" (pshaw) raise taxes, but because it will do much more damage than it would help anything. But if you want to compare the two subjects, they are both alike in the aspect that they cost taxpayers money without providing anything decent back.
All I argued was that it was a good thing as it would benefit those who could not afford private insurance in some way. I look at the current US economy when I say this, but I'm guessing there would be a fair few without private insurance. Shouldn't they be offered care too?
Quote:
The Greeks had a very sexual culture. There wasn't much for strait-up homosexuality, just general sexuality. And democracy wasn't "unacceptable", just not implemented.
Either way, there was a decent amount of homosexuality mentioned. Hell, I think some encyclopaedias *cough* Wikipedia *cough* even have several sections relating to different forms of homosexuality the Greeks employed. As for democracy, I'm pretty sure it deprives it's roots from several areas of Greece such as Athens, doesn't it? I could be wrong but I think the word itself comes from 'dēmos' meaning people and 'kratos' meaing rule or strength or something. Been a while...
Quote:
Answer the same questions regarding marriage to children, relatives, animals, or multiple spouses. None of which are legal.
I believe those questions were in regards to heterosexual people who had something against homosexual people. It was designed to make you think about why you dislike the idea of homosexual marriage as opposed to making you think about bestial orgies with child relatives. Either way, gay marriage has little impact on any of those forms of relationships. It does not in any way condone them.
Quote:
"See it my way or you're wrong," huh? But of course, it's those Bible-thumpers who are the closed-minded ones.
Yeah, pretty much. Some of those 'Bible-thumpers' are never wrong, right?
Regardless it's how some act at times.
Quote:
Oh, the ignorance. Before we get to your incomprehension and misunderstanding, let me ask how many Bible verses have been quoted in this thread, and how many times a member here has mentioned that they take their stance on the topic solely from their religion. Moving on, I will assume you're referring to Christianity and its "holy book", the Bible. In which case, the three comments you made -- giants, talking snakes, and slavery being "okay" -- are all either incorrect or grossly incorrect. There are differences between giants and big people (unless you're just using the word "giants" to discredit the issue), and not only have the bones of big people been found, we still have big people today. There are no "talking snakes" in the Bible that I'm aware of, and I would assume you're referring to the serpent in Exodus. Serpent/snake, at that time there was a difference -- do a little research on the subject. And while the Bible mentions, briefly, how slaves should act, nowhere does it condone slavery, and a slight knowledge of the Bible would tell you -- no, you know what, you can look it up if you want to know. Why did Moses leave Egypt? The first time, I mean, before the whole "let my people go" thing.
I agree with you in a way, but I think El Wray was more just trying to show how much some people believe in everything the bible says literally. He didn't say it in the nicest way, but yeah some Christians can seem ever so slightly deluded at times.
Quote:
"Normal", sure, but "right" and "wrong", despite how each society may view them, don't change from place to place.
Exactly. BUT how can one be sure what they see as 'right' and 'wrong' is really what is 'right' and 'wrong'? Different societies hold different perceptions as 'right' and 'wrong' are very much loose terms anyway. Gov's point was merely that as she said, different societies held a different sense of 'right' and 'wrong'. Which is also very much true.
Well a lot of people have seen it in the media and either been involved or know some people who were involved. It doesn't take a soldier in the depths of combat to tell how horrible some wars actually can be.
Quote:
"Freedom" can be a general and specific term. We have "freedom" without having the "freedom" to do certain things. And possessing "freedom" to do anything we might possibly want doesn't exactly help anything.
There's nothing loose about the word freedom. It's merely having no limits or restraints. And to that extent, no-one in this world is truly free, just more or less free than others. True freedom with no boundaries would be utter chaos, and far from what's best, but a great deal of freedom can often keep people happier and feeling in more in control of their situation.
I'll finish with a hypothetical Sasquatch. Say in some bizaare incident homosexuals became a larger group and Christians became a minority. Say the roles were reversed and homosexuals had the right to marry, but Christians now didn't. Would you as a Christian fight for your right to marry?
