Quantcast
Locked: How will homosexuality will affect us in the future,Are you happy about it?

Forums - General Discussion - How will homosexuality will affect us in the future,Are you happy about it?

The Ghost of RubangB said:
Wait, so your argument is that we can't make our own laws?

It's either:

A) We get laws from an objective authority (in this case, a super being).

or

B) We can't have any laws because they'd make us hypocrites because we'd want to disallow things that hurt and allow things that don't?

Why not allow:

C) We make laws against things that hurt. We allow everything else.

?

 

I vote for C



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
ssj12 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Wait, so your argument is that we can't make our own laws?

It's either:

A) We get laws from an objective authority (in this case, a super being).

or

B) We can't have any laws because they'd make us hypocrites because we'd want to disallow things that hurt and allow things that don't?

Why not allow:

C) We make laws against things that hurt. We allow everything else.

?

 

I vote for C

I vote for D)  We make laws against things that hurt others.  If people want to do stuff to hurt themselves it's their own perogative.

 



Kasz216 said:
ssj12 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Wait, so your argument is that we can't make our own laws?

It's either:

A) We get laws from an objective authority (in this case, a super being).

or

B) We can't have any laws because they'd make us hypocrites because we'd want to disallow things that hurt and allow things that don't?

Why not allow:

C) We make laws against things that hurt. We allow everything else.

?

 

I vote for C

I vote for D)  We make laws against things that hurt others.  If people want to do stuff to hurt themselves it's their own perogative.

 

 

Dammit, that's what I meant.

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.  However, my own nose or the nose of a consenting adult is game."

 



Million, your whole view on existentialism is grossly flawed, and further more you rely on a slippery slope argument that is even more flawed. I'm guessing you must be in high school or something (maybe an introductory class to philosophy in college), and stumbled onto something you thought was neato.

First of all Morality doesn't come from the bible, we as a society leave out the nasty bits to make it more culturally acceptable. According to your god, the source of all virtue, if a woman is raped in the city she is to be executed, if a man is to sleep with both mother and daughter they are all to be set on fire, God demanded the execution of all women and children of foreign nations (except virgin women, they could be taken captive, forced to shave their heads, sent to the mountains for a month, and then forced into marriage, where if the man wasn't satisfied with her he could divorce her for no reason, unlike his other many wives who he could only divorce if they had sex with some one else, which would result in their death), cruel and unusual punishment was used for even the most minor of sins. Ask yourself if you'd be willing to beat one your your friends to death with rocks because he set a broken bone of one of his children on the sabbath. The hebrew god is one of the most horrifying figures ever written into literature. If you want the scriptures where he demands these things I will gladly look them up for you. Jesus through in some lovey dovey parts, but that doesn't excuse the atrocities he commited and demanded of his people.

Now that biblical morality is officially bunk, where does that leave us? Where does morality come from? Societies define morality as time goes on, each one having different definitions, some refusing morality outright. The Chinese group known as the legalists in I think around 500BC actually said that Ethics was a worm that gnawed at the state. They believe that laws did not exist for moral reasons, but merely to create order among the state, and that morality was not even a consideration. That was their way of defining morality.

Most developed western nations use a morality based on freedom and liberty for the individual. I believe that it was Plato (some one who gave us many ideas about ethics and morality) that said that humans were basically good, and that government should exist to allow people to thrive and become their best, rather than quash and control people who will only harm themselves and others as the legalists and other more harsh societies believed.

As such, the pursuit of liberty and happiness is the basis of US morality and most other developed nations. To that end things we try to give as many equal rights to individuals, and only hinder the rights that are damaging to others which would infringe on their liberty and right to happiness.

Morality is relative you are right. But even the bible's morality is grossly flawed, and useable within a society if you leave out the nasty bits. I don't think there is a person here willing to live under the mosaic law that your perfect god created himself. I'm not going to use some one that burns children alive and executes women for the sin of being raped as my moral compass. You can argue that pedophelia is ok, but few civilizations will agree.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Edited by mod



 

Around the Network
Torillian said:
I've always hated the argument about homosexual marriages ruining "the sanctity of marriage" as though straight marriages are so sanctimonious. When a straight couple can get married in Las Vegas after just meeting each other, get divorced after they find out how dumb their decision was, and yet at no point is their marriage question on a legal basis, and they get all the tax breaks coming to them, then there is no sanctity of marriage. Why hold gay people up to a higher standard for marrying one another then we hold ourselves?

 

You are absolutely right. Marriage isn't sacred in this society. With shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionare" or "The Bachelor" where people are pawned off on others for television ratings is simply pathetic. Anyone who thinks the U.S. still treats marriage like it is sacred needs to wake up and look around them.  It is just a weak argument people use to try and fight against gay marriage/civil unions.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

ssj12 said:

The Bible also is nothing more then a historical story book, thats right I said it. The Bible's stories are twisted stories of either what really happened, example the Plagues, or stories of faith, example Noah's Arch. A book and religion that has changed and been rewritten hundreds of times holds as much truth in it as the Harry Potter books.

The concept of Religion is hope based. Without a belief of a higher being, or afterlife, or next step, there would be no belief in and of hope in this world. Without hope for even a better day then today, for example, would make this a very depressing world.

In general, you put the belief of what is right and wrong based on what a book told you. You have not allowed yourself to freely believe what you want. You are not letting your own thoughts freely understand the world around you and what is really right and wrong.

 

Careful now, you're backing your knowledge on the topic based off of what? What a bunch of fans of the Crow-turned-athiest post on their blogs? Its a modern thought, what you state, but it is backed by no evidence whatsoever beyond opinion. All the Anne Rice fans who fell in love with Interview With a Vampire would surely agree with you, but attacking a structure of a religion or faith without solid documented fact that proves otherwise to circa de 33 AD is not making you out to be anything beyond either A - ignorant or B - intolerant.

That said, I will concur that there are some misinterpretations throughout Biblical translation, such as the one line in which it says "Do not keep company with with sorcerers and fortune-tellers", as it was in the Greek version "poisoners and assassins".

It is common of neo-Athiesm to claim the Bible to be nothing more than a storybook, but again, people do such with no fact, only contempt with the faiths associated with it. It's sort of like attacking MGS4 as being the worst game ever without ever having even touched a PS3.

 



wareagle372 said:
Edited by mod

Wow. You are a troll. How interesting. Bye.



fkusumot said:
wareagle372 said:
Edited by mod

Wow. You are a troll. How interesting. Bye.


Wow. That was fast :) Didn't even have time to report it before he was banned.

bardicverse said:
ssj12 said:

The Bible also is nothing more then a historical story book, thats right I said it. The Bible's stories are twisted stories of either what really happened, example the Plagues, or stories of faith, example Noah's Arch. A book and religion that has changed and been rewritten hundreds of times holds as much truth in it as the Harry Potter books.

The concept of Religion is hope based. Without a belief of a higher being, or afterlife, or next step, there would be no belief in and of hope in this world. Without hope for even a better day then today, for example, would make this a very depressing world.

In general, you put the belief of what is right and wrong based on what a book told you. You have not allowed yourself to freely believe what you want. You are not letting your own thoughts freely understand the world around you and what is really right and wrong.

 

Careful now, you're backing your knowledge on the topic based off of what? What a bunch of fans of the Crow-turned-athiest post on their blogs? Its a modern thought, what you state, but it is backed by no evidence whatsoever beyond opinion. All the Anne Rice fans who fell in love with Interview With a Vampire would surely agree with you, but attacking a structure of a religion or faith without solid documented fact that proves otherwise to circa de 33 AD is not making you out to be anything beyond either A - ignorant or B - intolerant.

That said, I will concur that there are some misinterpretations throughout Biblical translation, such as the one line in which it says "Do not keep company with with sorcerers and fortune-tellers", as it was in the Greek version "poisoners and assassins".

It is common of neo-Athiesm to claim the Bible to be nothing more than a storybook, but again, people do such with no fact, only contempt with the faiths associated with it. It's sort of like attacking MGS4 as being the worst game ever without ever having even touched a PS3.

 

 

Other side of the fence is no better as far as coherent arguing goes.  If you've ever talked to someone about religion while not believing in God or what the Bible says then their argument is just rediculous.  It's just a bunch of bible passages being regurgitated back at me without anything to back them up beyond that.  Both sides have no evidence, because obviously if we had evidence the choice would be real damn simple.



...