justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 16, 2017 15:24:26 GMT -5
FWIW, I--and many religious conservatives besides--define sexuality purely by action. Hence a man who feels an attraction towards both sexes but who abstains from sex with other men (as well as pornography) is heterosexual (or "asexual", I suppose, if he remains celibate). The same standard holds for any other kind of sexual attraction. No. Someone who refrains from having sex is celibate.
You can be a gay person who gets married to someone of the opposite sex and has children, but you are still a gay person, just one that is living very deeply in the closet. It's possible to do this and even have a happy life, if that's what you choose to do, but gay people should not be obligated to either be celibate or marry 'straight' because the straight people have stigmatized them. I have a problem calling gay people immoral because the biological facts are that 10% of mammalian species (and some birds) are gay. This is not a liberal fantasy cooked up to encourage immoral behavior, this is just plain biology, and there is no moral/immoral to it. Imagine if I told you from now on you have to pretend to be gay and go marry a guy or spend the rest of your life celibate - as hard as that is for you to imagine, that's what you want gays to do.
I've always said if being gay is so much a choice, prove it to me by being actively gay for a year. The sputtering after than comment is usually funny.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 16:51:21 GMT -5
No. Someone who refrains from having sex is celibate.
You can be a gay person who gets married to someone of the opposite sex and has children, but you are still a gay person, just one that is living very deeply in the closet. It's possible to do this and even have a happy life, if that's what you choose to do, but gay people should not be obligated to either be celibate or marry 'straight' because the straight people have stigmatized them. I have a problem calling gay people immoral because the biological facts are that 10% of mammalian species (and some birds) are gay. This is not a liberal fantasy cooked up to encourage immoral behavior, this is just plain biology, and there is no moral/immoral to it. Imagine if I told you from now on you have to pretend to be gay and go marry a guy or spend the rest of your life celibate - as hard as that is for you to imagine, that's what you want gays to do.
I've always said if being gay is so much a choice, prove it to me by being actively gay for a year. The sputtering after than comment is usually funny. And yet an increasing number of millennials are doing precisely this, "branching out", "experimenting", engaging in group sex, and putting themselves into the same kinds of situations as the Greeks and Romans of old. The number of young girls/women turning to lesbianism in particular is a frightening demographic. The base appetites are there and always have been. Throw away the moral core of society, and human beings will have sex with most anyone or anything.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 16:57:49 GMT -5
Rather than argue about what "the science" does and doesn't say, I'll point out that one of the FRC's mandates is educating people on what the science does and doesn't say on the topic. One more reason the "hate group" designation is a travesty. happyhoix : Biologists don't label animals "gay" (to avoid anthropomorphism), and they talk about sexual interactions between same-sex individuals purely in terms of observed behaviour, to which they impute no motive. They certainly don't talk about "attraction". I have seen hypotheses about dominism, boredom, learned behaviour, and flat-out confusion, however. As for your definition of what is/isn't "gay", what should/shouldn't be stigmatized, you know as well as I do that we're not going to agree. The point of this thread is that the FRC should be able to present its case without being labeled a hate group. Ok, so lets talk about the sexual interactions between same sex humans in terms of observed behavior, like biologists do with animals, and not stick a label like 'moral' or 'immoral' onto it.
I appreciate that, in your religion, same sex interactions are immoral and must be guarded against, but that's your religion, and neither Canada nor the States are a theocracy (at least not yet) so, as secular nations, we have to stick with leaving same sex interactions as 'observed behavior' and stop criminalizing behaviors that two grown adults chose to participate in. Are we allowed to express our misgivings about the immorality without being labeled "hateful"? May we decry and condemn harmful behaviour, just as we would alcoholism, incest, adultery, or Sharia law?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 16, 2017 17:03:33 GMT -5
I've always said if being gay is so much a choice, prove it to me by being actively gay for a year. The sputtering after than comment is usually funny. And yet an increasing number of millennials are doing precisely this, "branching out", "experimenting", engaging in group sex, and putting themselves into the same kinds of situations as the Greeks and Romans of old. The number of young girls/women turning to lesbianism in particular is a frightening demographic. The base appetites are there and always have been. Throw away the moral core of society, and human beings will have sex with most anyone or anything. Assuming you believe that sexuality is binary. There are many that disagree with you. So the branching out and experimenting as you call it is actually just moving away from binary sexuality to what may be a more true view of it. Considering humans experiment in every other aspect of their life it's just denial to think that humans wouldn't experiment in their sexuality in different ways. Your last paragraph is just fucking ridiculous.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2017 17:12:41 GMT -5
Ok, so lets talk about the sexual interactions between same sex humans in terms of observed behavior, like biologists do with animals, and not stick a label like 'moral' or 'immoral' onto it.
I appreciate that, in your religion, same sex interactions are immoral and must be guarded against, but that's your religion, and neither Canada nor the States are a theocracy (at least not yet) so, as secular nations, we have to stick with leaving same sex interactions as 'observed behavior' and stop criminalizing behaviors that two grown adults chose to participate in. Are we allowed to express our misgivings about the immorality without being labeled "hateful"? May we decry and condemn harmful behaviour, just as we would alcoholism, incest, adultery, or Sharia law? There is a difference between expressing misgivings about immorality and filing an amicus brief with the Texas supreme court advocating that the State has the right and responsibility to criminalize same sex behavior.
This is how the FRC veered off into 'hate group' territory.
Anytime a group advocates for another group to be killed, discriminated against, or locked in jail that steps over simply decrying and condemning harmful behavior.
Check out Lawrence vs Texas if you think I'm pulling your leg.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 16, 2017 17:20:08 GMT -5
I've always said if being gay is so much a choice, prove it to me by being actively gay for a year. The sputtering after than comment is usually funny. And yet an increasing number of millennials are doing precisely this, "branching out", "experimenting", engaging in group sex, and putting themselves into the same kinds of situations as the Greeks and Romans of old. The number of young girls/women turning to lesbianism in particular is a frightening demographic.The base appetites are there and always have been. Throw away the moral core of society, and human beings will have sex with most anyone or anything. Well, with so many men treating women like objects that can be grabbed, fondled, and mounted like we're nothing but a bunch of plastic blow up dolls set on earth to amuse the humans with a penis, (including our dear POTUS) is it any surprise more young women are decided they can live without men?
(Just kidding. I'd love to see your scientific data on how many young women are 'turning to lesbianism' - since you don't actually 'turn' into a lesbian, you're born that way or you aren't.)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 17:44:55 GMT -5
Are we allowed to express our misgivings about the immorality without being labeled "hateful"? May we decry and condemn harmful behaviour, just as we would alcoholism, incest, adultery, or Sharia law? There is a difference between expressing misgivings about immorality and filing an amicus brief with the Texas supreme court advocating that the State has the right and responsibility to criminalize same sex behavior.
This is how the FRC veered off into 'hate group' territory.
Anytime a group advocates for another group to be killed, discriminated against, or locked in jail that steps over simply decrying and condemning harmful behavior.
Check out Lawrence vs Texas if you think I'm pulling your leg. We criminalize all kinds of consensual behaviour we deem excessively harmful. Unless you're willing to label every group advocating criminalization of some behaviour a "hate group", I fail to see your point here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:02:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 17:57:43 GMT -5
Girls have always been more fluid than boys, with less social stigma.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 16, 2017 17:59:28 GMT -5
Girls have always been more fluid than boys, with less social stigma. If anything society encourages it...ya know until she's eschewing men for good.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 17:59:33 GMT -5
And yet an increasing number of millennials are doing precisely this, "branching out", "experimenting", engaging in group sex, and putting themselves into the same kinds of situations as the Greeks and Romans of old. The number of young girls/women turning to lesbianism in particular is a frightening demographic. The base appetites are there and always have been. Throw away the moral core of society, and human beings will have sex with most anyone or anything. Assuming you believe that sexuality is binary. There are many that disagree with you. So the branching out and experimenting as you call it is actually just moving away from binary sexuality to what may be a more true view of it. Beam me up. (Just kidding. I'd love to see your scientific data on how many young women are 'turning to lesbianism' - since you don't actually 'turn' into a lesbian, you're born that way or you aren't. news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspxMillennials (1980-1998) 2012 - 5.8%, 2013 - 6.0%, 2014 - 6.3%, 2015 - 6.7%, 2016 - 7.3% Ramping straight up at 0.4% per year. Other generations: flat or decreasing. A decent baseline is the traditionalists, where LGBT identification is practically nonexistent. Not that you care, since you'll throw this away with "Oh, well, people are just coming out of the closet..." And how much do you want to bet the ramp continues up, up and away until we get back to Greece and Rome, where apparently more women than not were "born lesbians" for no explicable reason? I guess we'll find out, won't we?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:02:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 18:07:31 GMT -5
Girls have always been more fluid than boys, with less social stigma. If anything society encourages it...ya know until she's eschewing men for good. Also men have not traditionally been disagreeable to the idea...
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Oct 16, 2017 18:08:38 GMT -5
Assuming you believe that sexuality is binary. There are many that disagree with you. So the branching out and experimenting as you call it is actually just moving away from binary sexuality to what may be a more true view of it. Beam me up. (Just kidding. I'd love to see your scientific data on how many young women are 'turning to lesbianism' - since you don't actually 'turn' into a lesbian, you're born that way or you aren't. news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspxMillennials (1980-1998) 2012 - 5.8%, 2013 - 6.0%, 2014 - 6.3%, 2015 - 6.7%, 2016 - 7.3% Ramping straight up at 0.4% per year. Other generations: flat or decreasing. A decent baseline is the traditionalists, where LGBT identification is practically nonexistent. Not that you care, since you'll throw this away with "Oh, well, people are just coming out of the closet..." And how much do you want to bet the ramp continues up, up and away until we get back to Greece and Rome, where apparently more women than not were "born lesbians" for no explicable reason? I guess we'll find out, won't we? LGBT encompasses more than just sexual orientation. So your study is useless in arguing your point.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 16, 2017 18:13:45 GMT -5
I've always said if being gay is so much a choice, prove it to me by being actively gay for a year. The sputtering after than comment is usually funny. And yet an increasing number of millennials are doing precisely this, "branching out", "experimenting", engaging in group sex, and putting themselves into the same kinds of situations as the Greeks and Romans of old. The number of young girls/women turning to lesbianism in particular is a frightening demographic. The base appetites are there and always have been. Throw away the moral core of society, and human beings will have sex with most anyone or anything. You think everything is immoral, including Santa Claus parades.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 16, 2017 18:27:43 GMT -5
And yet an increasing number of millennials are doing precisely this, "branching out", "experimenting", engaging in group sex, and putting themselves into the same kinds of situations as the Greeks and Romans of old. The number of young girls/women turning to lesbianism in particular is a frightening demographic. The base appetites are there and always have been. Throw away the moral core of society, and human beings will have sex with most anyone or anything. You think everything is immoral, including Santa Claus parades. The activities I consider lawful and moral outnumber those I consider unlawful/immoral by 100,000 to 1. Moreover, the vast majority of activities I consider unlawful/immoral, you do too. I don't judge anyone for attending Santa Claus parades. What I've said is that Santa Claus parades--and Christmas in general--descend straight out of rank paganism (if you dispute this, let us know) and that Christians ought not have anything to do with them. Since this is the third time you've brought it up, I can only assume my anti-Santa view offends you, but I'm afraid I'm not going to reconsider any time soon.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 26, 2024 2:02:36 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2017 19:06:50 GMT -5
Can’t speak for anyone else. But I find your anti-Santa parades amusing. Not offensive ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Oct 16, 2017 19:15:04 GMT -5
You think everything is immoral, including Santa Claus parades.
(good one!)
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 17, 2017 7:37:21 GMT -5
Assuming you believe that sexuality is binary. There are many that disagree with you. So the branching out and experimenting as you call it is actually just moving away from binary sexuality to what may be a more true view of it. Beam me up. (Just kidding. I'd love to see your scientific data on how many young women are 'turning to lesbianism' - since you don't actually 'turn' into a lesbian, you're born that way or you aren't. news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspxMillennials (1980-1998) 2012 - 5.8%, 2013 - 6.0%, 2014 - 6.3%, 2015 - 6.7%, 2016 - 7.3% Ramping straight up at 0.4% per year. Other generations: flat or decreasing. A decent baseline is the traditionalists, where LGBT identification is practically nonexistent. Not that you care, since you'll throw this away with "Oh, well, people are just coming out of the closet..." And how much do you want to bet the ramp continues up, up and away until we get back to Greece and Rome, where apparently more women than not were "born lesbians" for no explicable reason? I guess we'll find out, won't we? Well, as a biologist I can't get too exited about 7.3% of women being gay. As I stated earlier, most mammalian species have about 10% of the population that exhibit same sex pair bonding, so 7.3% fits right in with that. As a species we've managed to survive quite well with 90% of our population being strait pair bonds.
I don't think you have to worry about it rocketing to 50% - I'm not an expert on Roman history, but I know there are certain situations, like prisons or same sex boarding schools, where homosexual pair bonding is higher than average simply because there are no members of the opposite sex in the pool. Once people leave those situations, however, they revert to the sexual preference they were born with. I'm willing to bet once these young ladies move past high school and college and out into the real world, they'll do the same thing.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,873
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 17, 2017 7:46:51 GMT -5
Ok, so lets talk about the sexual interactions between same sex humans in terms of observed behavior, like biologists do with animals, and not stick a label like 'moral' or 'immoral' onto it.
I appreciate that, in your religion, same sex interactions are immoral and must be guarded against, but that's your religion, and neither Canada nor the States are a theocracy (at least not yet) so, as secular nations, we have to stick with leaving same sex interactions as 'observed behavior' and stop criminalizing behaviors that two grown adults chose to participate in. Are we allowed to express our misgivings about the immorality without being labeled "hateful"? May we decry and condemn harmful behaviour, just as we would alcoholism, incest, adultery, or Sharia law? I think it's fairly apparent here that if you're not what the majority deems acceptable, you're hated. Whenever someone says or believes something that the gang doesn't believe in, you're ridiculed. If that hate was reversed for even a day, it'd be a great day. An eye opener.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 17, 2017 7:57:43 GMT -5
There is a difference between expressing misgivings about immorality and filing an amicus brief with the Texas supreme court advocating that the State has the right and responsibility to criminalize same sex behavior.
This is how the FRC veered off into 'hate group' territory.
Anytime a group advocates for another group to be killed, discriminated against, or locked in jail that steps over simply decrying and condemning harmful behavior.
Check out Lawrence vs Texas if you think I'm pulling your leg. We criminalize all kinds of consensual behaviour we deem excessively harmful. Unless you're willing to label every group advocating criminalization of some behaviour a "hate group", I fail to see your point here. It's your definition of excessively harmful that's the problem.
What two adults do in their bedroom has zero impact on me. Nor does it impact you. Zero harm. Attempting to get adults locked up for behavior they do in private with another consenting adult is actually what's harmful to society.
Therefore, groups that advocate that gay people need to be locked up are harmful to society, which means they are hate groups.
Why can't this group just stop at recommending people avoid acting on being gay, without also trying to make it illegal to be gay?
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 17, 2017 9:20:07 GMT -5
It has been made quite clear a few times on this board that some people don't care about issues that don't directly effect them. I find that concept completely baffling. It's just accepting that we live in a very imperfect world. Sure, I don't like that women are sexually assaulted or police gun down black people. I don't like that some people beak and go on shooting sprees. I don't like human trafficking or wars or hate crimes or any other hundreds of things about the real world we live in. But at the end of the day, I can't control anyone but myself. I'm not a cop, I've never shot or sexually assaulted anyone, and don't plan to. I'm not a judge or legislator. I'm not a district attorney or military commander. If I was any of those things maybe I could make a change in society for the better, but maybe not since many before me have tried. So what can I do? Go down to my local police station to protest bad cops? Grab a mattress and walk through the streets with it to protest a crime I have no intention of committing? Or just enjoy my life for what is? Bottom line, I care in a existential way. But without access to the halls of power, all I can do is make ineffective statements. So I don't worry much about what I can't control and just live my life with integrity.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2017 10:21:47 GMT -5
Beam me up. news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspxMillennials (1980-1998) 2012 - 5.8%, 2013 - 6.0%, 2014 - 6.3%, 2015 - 6.7%, 2016 - 7.3% Ramping straight up at 0.4% per year. Other generations: flat or decreasing. A decent baseline is the traditionalists, where LGBT identification is practically nonexistent. Not that you care, since you'll throw this away with "Oh, well, people are just coming out of the closet..." And how much do you want to bet the ramp continues up, up and away until we get back to Greece and Rome, where apparently more women than not were "born lesbians" for no explicable reason? I guess we'll find out, won't we? Well, as a biologist I can't get too exited about 7.3% of women being gay. As I stated earlier, most mammalian species have about 10% of the population that exhibit same sex pair bonding, so 7.3% fits right in with that. As a species we've managed to survive quite well with 90% of our population being strait pair bonds.
I don't think you have to worry about it rocketing to 50% - I'm not an expert on Roman history, but I know there are certain situations, like prisons or same sex boarding schools, where homosexual pair bonding is higher than average simply because there are no members of the opposite sex in the pool. Once people leave those situations, however, they revert to the sexual preference they were born with. I'm willing to bet once these young ladies move past high school and college and out into the real world, they'll do the same thing. Again, my moral code doesn't care about preferences or base appetites, it cares about what people do. This is the nature of reality. I'm indeed going to worry about percentages rocketing to 50%, along with a litany of other sexual perversions, your observations about oversexed chimps notwithstanding.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 17, 2017 10:29:35 GMT -5
Well, as a biologist I can't get too exited about 7.3% of women being gay. As I stated earlier, most mammalian species have about 10% of the population that exhibit same sex pair bonding, so 7.3% fits right in with that. As a species we've managed to survive quite well with 90% of our population being strait pair bonds.
I don't think you have to worry about it rocketing to 50% - I'm not an expert on Roman history, but I know there are certain situations, like prisons or same sex boarding schools, where homosexual pair bonding is higher than average simply because there are no members of the opposite sex in the pool. Once people leave those situations, however, they revert to the sexual preference they were born with. I'm willing to bet once these young ladies move past high school and college and out into the real world, they'll do the same thing. Again, my moral code doesn't care about preferences or base appetites, it cares about what people do. This is the nature of reality. I'm indeed going to worry about percentages rocketing to 50%, along with a litany of other sexual perversions, your observations about oversexed chimps notwithstanding. Virgil, you are perfectly free to worry about whatever you like. Just keep in mind that you can't impose your particular moral code on the rest of the humans on this planet. That is also the nature of reality.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2017 10:42:06 GMT -5
We criminalize all kinds of consensual behaviour we deem excessively harmful. Unless you're willing to label every group advocating criminalization of some behaviour a "hate group", I fail to see your point here. It's your definition of excessively harmful that's the problem.
What two adults do in their bedroom has zero impact on me. Nor does it impact you. Zero harm. Attempting to get adults locked up for behavior they do in private with another consenting adult is actually what's harmful to society.
Therefore, groups that advocate that gay people need to be locked up are harmful to society, which means they are hate groups.
Why can't this group just stop at recommending people avoid acting on being gay, without also trying to make it illegal to be gay? Anything done in public is visible to the public and leads to propagation/normalization of the behaviour. It's a constant of human nature. Two men sleeping together in a private bedroom isn't a public act. While they'll still bear the physical consequences, their act won't be detected and punished by e.g. sodomy laws. When they declare the sin publicly, pridefully, calling evil "good", it propagates and becomes more prevalent. The consequences spread to more and more individuals. Then systemic problems start to emerge, much greater than the sum of their parts. These are the kinds of problems public prohibitions are (were) indispensable in fixing. Society has accepted this reasoning with many vices and perversions. Unfortunately, human nature is entropic. Bans cease to be effective when a behaviour has become so widespread that it can't be suppressed. The desire to suppress harmful behaviour to prevent it from proliferating beyond all control is not hateful. It's a rational, right response, borne out of concern for one's society.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2017 10:45:48 GMT -5
Again, my moral code doesn't care about preferences or base appetites, it cares about what people do. This is the nature of reality. I'm indeed going to worry about percentages rocketing to 50%, along with a litany of other sexual perversions, your observations about oversexed chimps notwithstanding. Virgil, you are perfectly free to worry about whatever you like. Just keep in mind that you can't impose your particular moral code on the rest of the humans on this planet. That is also the nature of reality. The nature of reality is that I'm either right or I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, may God open my eyes and my mind to the truth. If I'm right, well within your lifetime you're going to wish I'd done more to impose my moral code.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 17, 2017 10:47:14 GMT -5
It's your definition of excessively harmful that's the problem.
What two adults do in their bedroom has zero impact on me. Nor does it impact you. Zero harm. Attempting to get adults locked up for behavior they do in private with another consenting adult is actually what's harmful to society.
Therefore, groups that advocate that gay people need to be locked up are harmful to society, which means they are hate groups.
Why can't this group just stop at recommending people avoid acting on being gay, without also trying to make it illegal to be gay? Anything done in public is visible to the public and leads to propagation/normalization of the behaviour. It's a constant of human nature. Two men sleeping together in a private bedroom isn't a public act. While they'll still bear the physical consequences, their act won't be detected and punished by e.g. sodomy laws. When they declare the sin publicly, pridefully, calling evil "good", it propagates and becomes more prevalent. The consequences spread to more and more individuals. Then systemic problems start to emerge, much greater than the sum of their parts. These are the kinds of problems public prohibitions are (were) indispensable in fixing. Society has accepted this reasoning with many vices and perversions. Unfortunately, human nature is entropic. Bans cease to be effective when a behaviour has become so widespread that it can't be suppressed. The desire to suppress harmful behaviour to prevent it from proliferating beyond all control is not hateful. It's a rational, right response, borne out of concern for one's society. Can you please link me to any non-religiously based studies that show that homosexual behavior is objectively harmful?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 17, 2017 10:54:01 GMT -5
Anything done in public is visible to the public and leads to propagation/normalization of the behaviour. It's a constant of human nature. Two men sleeping together in a private bedroom isn't a public act. While they'll still bear the physical consequences, their act won't be detected and punished by e.g. sodomy laws. When they declare the sin publicly, pridefully, calling evil "good", it propagates and becomes more prevalent. The consequences spread to more and more individuals. Then systemic problems start to emerge, much greater than the sum of their parts. These are the kinds of problems public prohibitions are (were) indispensable in fixing. Society has accepted this reasoning with many vices and perversions. Unfortunately, human nature is entropic. Bans cease to be effective when a behaviour has become so widespread that it can't be suppressed. The desire to suppress harmful behaviour to prevent it from proliferating beyond all control is not hateful. It's a rational, right response, borne out of concern for one's society. Can you please link me to any non-religiously based studies that show that homosexual behavior is objectively harmful? I've posted links at least three times in past discussions. Look it up yourself. Disease. Abuse. Certain cancers. Significantly shortened life expectancy. You're looking for articles you can bat away with a sentence or two of rationalization. If you genuinely care about the topic, you'll research it yourself.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 17, 2017 12:02:16 GMT -5
Can you please link me to any non-religiously based studies that show that homosexual behavior is objectively harmful? I've posted links at least three times in past discussions. Look it up yourself. Disease. Abuse. Certain cancers. Significantly shortened life expectancy. You're looking for articles you can bat away with a sentence or two of rationalization. If you genuinely care about the topic, you'll research it yourself. So, no then. Gotcha.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 17, 2017 12:03:51 GMT -5
Virgil, you are perfectly free to worry about whatever you like. Just keep in mind that you can't impose your particular moral code on the rest of the humans on this planet. That is also the nature of reality. The nature of reality is that I'm either right or I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, may God open my eyes and my mind to the truth. If I'm right, well within your lifetime you're going to wish I'd done more to impose my moral code. Nope.
There have been gay people since there have been people. At some times, they were more deeply in the closet than others, but they have always been there, and yet humanity continues along. Gay people are not suddenly going to bring about the ruin of our civilization. Sorry. Find another bogeyman to fix your fears on.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 17, 2017 12:07:23 GMT -5
I've posted links at least three times in past discussions. Look it up yourself. Disease. Abuse. Certain cancers. Significantly shortened life expectancy. You're looking for articles you can bat away with a sentence or two of rationalization. If you genuinely care about the topic, you'll research it yourself. All sexual activity can lead to disease, abuse and even certain cancers. Promiscuous behavior (sexual and otherwise) can lead to significantly lowered life expectancy. One of the reasons the excesses of sexual ills effect homosexuals more than heterosexuals as a percentage can also be said to be laid upon the illicit behavior necessitated in the past for the homosexual relations, rather than on the acts or proclivity. And lack of promoting safe, same-sex practices, because, you know, it would promote homosexuality.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,814
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 17, 2017 12:07:28 GMT -5
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
|
|