By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Gay Rights - Why is this an issue?

akuma587 on 19 January 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
See akuma, you're speaking a different language now. Your morality and his do not coincide, so when you say "This is why this is right" and it makes perfect sense to you, is complete nonsense to him.

He's a moral objectivist that believes that only christians can be morally objective, and so if you impose anything other than christianity on others you are a hypocrit because you think no moral objectivity exists and are imposing objective morality.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with social freedom.

There are plenty of things that I support as a right people can enjoy that I am morally opposed to.  The social freedom we should allow people to have is a completely separate realm from morality.  I'm not trying to combine the two, while he is.

I'm not trying to impose an objective morality as morality isn't a sound basis for what society treats as right and wrong.  It can incorporate ideas of morality, but it shouldn't be based on morality, especially when that morality conflicts with other people's rights.

So yes, society as a whole can arbitrarily decide what is right and wrong.  Is that always a good thing?  No.  Is there a better way?  Probably not.

 



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

Around the Network
MaxwellGT2000 on 19 January 2009
rocketpig said:
d21lewis said:
I say we forget our illogical biases (sexual orientation, sexual preferences, race, etc.) and create some new totally outlandish reasons to discriminate.

Humanity has already been doing that for years. All one has to do is look at what the Belgians did in Rwanda with the creation of the Tutsi caste to see an example of illogical biases at work.

I doubt I will ever understand why people care so much about what others do in their free time or in their bedroom. Today, it's gay people. Tomorrow, who knows? Could be me.

One thing I do respect though is the church's ability to protest gay unions. While I don't agree with it, any infringement on church rights should be respected when (not if) homosexuals are granted the same rights as the rest of us. No church should be forced to accept something they believe to be fundamentally wrong (no matter how fiercely I disagree with them on it).

 

I have to say you hit the nail on the head, in doing so a Church should have full right to turn the couple away if they want to get married, it might not glamorus but getting married by a judge is all the same. 

Now to add to this thread in the best way I know how.  "Help a gay, eat a congressman"

(honestly my personal opinion I don't see how anyone could be gay as women are great :D and men... well stink and particually disgusting myself included)



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

The_vagabond7 on 19 January 2009
akuma587 said:
The_vagabond7 said:
See akuma, you're speaking a different language now. Your morality and his do not coincide, so when you say "This is why this is right" and it makes perfect sense to you, is complete nonsense to him.

He's a moral objectivist that believes that only christians can be morally objective, and so if you impose anything other than christianity on others you are a hypocrit because you think no moral objectivity exists and are imposing objective morality.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with social freedom.

There are plenty of things that I support as a right people can enjoy that I am morally opposed to.  The social freedom we should allow people to have is a completely separate realm from morality.  I'm not trying to combine the two, while he is.

I'm not trying to impose an objective morality as morality isn't a sound basis for what society treats as right and wrong.  It can incorporate ideas of morality, but it shouldn't be based on morality, especially when that morality conflicts with other people's rights.

So yes, society as a whole can arbitrarily decide what is right and wrong.  Is that always a good thing?  No.  Is there a better way?  Probably not.

 

 

I think that's why fundementally you are speaking a different language. From the hardcore christian mindset morality defines social freedom, there is no plurality. For you, if you dislike something you would not restrict some one else from doing it as long as it doesn't harm another and to you this is right. To a hardcore christian if somebody is doing something that they disagree with they must be stopped or else hell is a consequence. But why am I playing devils advocate so much? Especially when the figurative devil is present to speak for himself.

@ apolose

I know you're not saying he's wrong because your belief in christianity is right. I'm saying you're using reductio ad absudum to conclude that there is a contradiction and thusly the premise is incorrect. I'm saying there is no contradiction because he isn't against moral objectivity. Just because he doesn't believe in the bible doesn't mean he's a nihilist that thinks there is no such thing as right and wrong. And so my using nihilism to show why you're stance is incorrect would be just as misplaced as your attempt to do so with him is. For you Murder is absolutely wrong because the bible says so. For him Murder is wrong because it infringes on someone's right to...live I guess. He's as morally objective as you are, he's just using a different dogma as it were. There is no hypocrisy involved...unless of course you're a nihilist.



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.

Hawkeye on 19 January 2009
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Too bad Jesus didn't even worry gays and didn't address the issue. Its amazing how many Christian people will use quotes from the Old Testament to justify the most ridiculous things in the world but then when you use a quote from the Old Testament that is clearly full of crap, like that people lived to be over 800 years old, they will just explain it away.

Its unbelievable, and I say that as a Christian.

Funny think is the bible even has something in it about that...

After a certain point in time god says Man shall not live more then 125 years or something like that.

Which is...


A) odd... since if you follow the normal historian view of things... people didn't live past 40.

B) oddly spot on accurate.  That's about the max age someone can live... I believe someone hit 122 and that's about it?  I think 125 is the theoretical "oldest" someone can live... like by scientific studies.

 

EXACTLY

I actually wrote about this in a paper comparing the flood myths of different cultures (what you quoted was right after the flood myth, and in a Sumerian flood myth one of the Sumerian gods does the same thing after the flood occurs, he sets a maximum age limit for humans).

I think the Bible has a lot of profound things to say, but way too many people think they are an authority on the Bible.  Likewise, they love to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they "believe in" for arbitrary reasons.  Why are they eating pork!  The Old Testament says you can't do it!  But wait, Jesus said you could.  But they forget that Jesus didn't even consider persecuting gays an issue as his message was much broader than that.  But what do you know!  They hate gay people!

Its one thing if you are consistent, if you have done your homework on the Bible and are intimately familiar with the historical formation of the Bible and which books of the Bible scholars hold in higher regard than others.  Most people don't even know that a lot of books were excluded from the New and Old Testament, some of which the Catholics still include in their Bible.

People love to think they are an expert on religion even if they don't even read their Bible.  Its obscene.

 

I have no idea if I am right, but I have my theory. Sme religious people think of gay vs staright as "us vs them". I think that Old testemant vs now is more "us vs them". The advice to not eat pork, not to drink milk with dinner ect was directed at old testemant people and how to live their life; pork was likely to get people isck, and if people spilled milk on their wooden bowls it would become infected and the pople eating on those wooden bowls/plates would eventually die.

I think God sent Jesus to tell people again how to live their life as society advanced, and since Jesus is the latest we have heard from God we should follow that. Also, the Old Testament is so old that it could have been mis translated or have some other problem, so I don't take it literally and instead think, "how can I apply the MESSAGE of this passage to my modern life?" If I can't, I igrnoe the passage.

I don't really know how Mohammed is supposed to fit into Christianity, but it seems highly pluasable that God used Mohammed as a messanger to effectivly spread Chrisitanity to another region of the world, so in essense Islam and Christianity are different flavors of the same thing. I don't really know and I don't think I'll be able to find out, but thats my thought. I don't see why Jews and Crhsitsans and Muslims want to fight each other; we all belive in the same God, we have just been taught different things about him.

Religious wars don't really make sense to me. If someone is following the wrong religion in your opinion and is doomed to go to hell, why not let them die and go to hell? I could see trying to convert them, but why start a war and try to kill them, risking your own life in the process? Makes no sense. Crusades I understand, but even that is a little strange.

 



Hawkeye on 19 January 2009

I personally feel gay people should be allowed to estabish legal uninos for protection like visiting people in hospitals ect but it should be differentiated from marragie but still do the exact same thing. Just have a different name but the same legal statues.



Around the Network
MaxwellGT2000 on 19 January 2009
Hawkeye said:
I personally feel gay people should be allowed to estabish legal uninos for protection like visiting people in hospitals ect but it should be differentiated from marragie but still do the exact same thing. Just have a different name but the same legal statues.

 

South Park:  [gay and straight protesters get a hearing from the Governor of South Park on gay marriage]
Governor: I believe that I might have come up with a compromise to this whole problem that will make everyone happy! People in the gay community want the same rights as married couples, but dissenters don't want the word "marriage" corrupted. So how about we let gay people get married, but call it something else?
[everyone listens quietly]
Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.
[long silence]
Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...
[makes quote with his fingers]
Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...
[makes quote with his fingers again]
Governor: ...butt buddies.
Mr. Slave: We wanna be treated equally!
Governor: You *are* equal. It's just that, instead of getting engaged, you would be... butt buddies. And everyone is happy!
Woman: [from the lesbian crowd] Well, what about lesbians?
Governor: Well, like anyone cares about f**kin' dykes!
[the crowd goes into an uproar]
Governor: [embarrassed] Oh, God, I was sure that would work.

 

My thoughts on that :P



MaxwellGT2000 - "Does the amount of times you beat it count towards how hardcore you are?"

Wii Friend Code - 5882 9717 7391 0918 (PM me if you add me), PSN - MaxwellGT2000, XBL - BlkKniteCecil, MaxwellGT2000

akuma587 on 19 January 2009
Hawkeye said:
I personally feel gay people should be allowed to estabish legal uninos for protection like visiting people in hospitals ect but it should be differentiated from marragie but still do the exact same thing. Just have a different name but the same legal statues.

Just like separate but equal schools that aren't "really" the same but "are" the same?

@ your other post

Yeah, you've got it mostly right.  Judaism was formed as a largely nationalistic religion.  It is a lot about us versus them.

Christianity wasn't even originally intended to be a separate movement per se, it was intended to be the fulfillment of Judaism.  The Christians, or Jesusbewegung as they are appropriately called until the Christian church came into its own, began to differentiate themselves from Jews more and more as time went on until they had completely separated.

There were a lot of disputes in the early Church about how rigorously Gentiles and the Jews should adhere to the Old Testament.  Paul got into a huge argument with a lot of other early Christians about whether circumcision was necessary, with him believing that it is not and that imposing all the laws of the Old Testament on the Gentiles was fundamentally against what Jesus stood for.

I'm not gonna touch on the Islamic religion because I know very little about it.

In some religions, it actually does make sense to wage war, like in Judaism and Islam.  Christianity though is about as pacisifistic as a religion as you can get.  Don't tell that to the people in this country though.  Its just all about what that religion stands for historically and at its core.

I'm not saying I approve of waging war in the name of religion, but it does make sense given the history and nature of some religions.  But it certainly does not make sense justifying war in the name of Christianity.

 



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

akuma587 on 19 January 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

 

I think that's why fundementally you are speaking a different language. From the hardcore christian mindset morality defines social freedom, there is no plurality. For you, if you dislike something you would not restrict some one else from doing it as long as it doesn't harm another and to you this is right. To a hardcore christian if somebody is doing something that they disagree with they must be stopped or else hell is a consequence. But why am I playing devils advocate so much? Especially when the figurative devil is present to speak for himself.

@ apolose

I know you're not saying he's wrong because your belief in christianity is right. I'm saying you're using reductio ad absudum to conclude that there is a contradiction and thusly the premise is incorrect. I'm saying there is no contradiction because he isn't against moral objectivity. Just because he doesn't believe in the bible doesn't mean he's a nihilist that thinks there is no such thing as right and wrong. And so my using nihilism to show why you're stance is incorrect would be just as misplaced as your attempt to do so with him is. For you Murder is absolutely wrong because the bible says so. For him Murder is wrong because it infringes on someone's right to...live I guess. He's as morally objective as you are, he's just using a different dogma as it were. There is no hypocrisy involved...unless of course you're a nihilist.

Not to mention you will be hard pressed to find any belief system that doesn't have quite a few inherent contradictions in its moral ethos.

I take the Nietzschean attitude towards contradictions, that contradictions are an inherent part of the human existence because life is too complex for it to not be contradictory. 

Just because something contradicts itself doesn't mean it is wrong.  A moral ethos is not a logical argument, so who in the hell expects it to conform to the confines of a logical argument to begin with?  Assuming that contradictions invalidate a moral ethos would invalidate more or less every moral ethos known to man.

 



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

appolose on 19 January 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
akuma587 said:
The_vagabond7 said:
See akuma, you're speaking a different language now. Your morality and his do not coincide, so when you say "This is why this is right" and it makes perfect sense to you, is complete nonsense to him.

He's a moral objectivist that believes that only christians can be morally objective, and so if you impose anything other than christianity on others you are a hypocrit because you think no moral objectivity exists and are imposing objective morality.

What I am talking about has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with social freedom.

There are plenty of things that I support as a right people can enjoy that I am morally opposed to.  The social freedom we should allow people to have is a completely separate realm from morality.  I'm not trying to combine the two, while he is.

I'm not trying to impose an objective morality as morality isn't a sound basis for what society treats as right and wrong.  It can incorporate ideas of morality, but it shouldn't be based on morality, especially when that morality conflicts with other people's rights.

So yes, society as a whole can arbitrarily decide what is right and wrong.  Is that always a good thing?  No.  Is there a better way?  Probably not.

 

 

I think that's why fundementally you are speaking a different language. From the hardcore christian mindset morality defines social freedom, there is no plurality. For you, if you dislike something you would not restrict some one else from doing it as long as it doesn't harm another and to you this is right. To a hardcore christian if somebody is doing something that they disagree with they must be stopped or else hell is a consequence. But why am I playing devils advocate so much? Especially when the figurative devil is present to speak for himself.

@ apolose

I know you're not saying he's wrong because your belief in christianity is right. I'm saying you're using reductio ad absudum to conclude that there is a contradiction and thusly the premise is incorrect. I'm saying there is no contradiction because he isn't against moral objectivity. Just because he doesn't believe in the bible doesn't mean he's a nihilist that thinks there is no such thing as right and wrong. And so my using nihilism to show why you're stance is incorrect would be just as misplaced as your attempt to do so with him is. For you Murder is absolutely wrong because the bible says so. For him Murder is wrong because it infringes on someone's right to...live I guess. He's as morally objective as you are, he's just using a different dogma as it were. There is no hypocrisy involved...unless of course you're a nihilist.

But he does say that Christians should not force their views on homosexuality, while he can force his views on anything else.  If he was saying "You can't force your views on someone because your views are wrong", then that would be something else entirely.  But I think he was simply saying "You can't force your views on someone", which would be contradictory without being nihilistic.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
The_vagabond7 on 19 January 2009

Alright, then let me add a fine distinction of terms, that social freedom is different from morality. Akuma isn't contradicting anything by imposing social freedom. Because in the case of imposing social freedom, nothing is being imposed. Nothing is being taken away, nothing is being forced. Morality can be imposed because it forces somebody to do something. Social freedom cannot be imposed because it doesn't force a person to do anything. So his saying "Let people do this if they choose" is very different from saying "Do not ever do this". One imposes the other allows.

He isn't saying "under no circumstances ever think to yourself that gays will go to hell" that would be imposing morality and would be hypocritical. What he's saying is "let them do as they please". Which isn't a restriction, which is what the ban imposes. One is a negative the other a neutral. Social freedom =/= morality



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.