The Gay Marriage debate!

A few same-sex shagging horny animals don't prove that it's natural...any more than interspecies shagging examples within animals proves Beastiality is natural among humans. Same thing with killing the cubs of a rival male.

The problem with the modern God-denying liberal is that he thinks humans are the same as animals. Sure...biologically we are part of the animal kingdom...and if you were to classify us we are obviously not plants...but we have a sense of morality etc etc that is supposed to distinguish us from the other animals.

There was a video circulating here about a Horse shagging a man to death. That's an animal trait. No rules or morals or ethics....just fulfil whatever urge or fantasy that comes its way. Humans are not supposed to be that way.

 

The big problem is, where does that morality come from and who defines it. Common sense, which you referred to earlier, isn't the same in everybody's opinion.

These days, while people have realized that truth, good and bad, right and wrong etc. are always subjective, we have come to admire freedom of thinking and acting as long as we don't hurt others in the progress (be that human or animals). Of course church and some other instances still campaign against equality, free will and finding your own truth and instead try to force people live the way they want to

 

Yup, and the basis of that morality continues to evolve towards reason and universalism away from conformity and 'chosen group' ethnocentricity. As ineluctably as boy becomes a man my friend, get on the winning team.

 

Good response.

Brings the question of whether good and bad, right and wrong are SUBJECTIVE or OBJECTIVE.

This is an interesting discussion and perhaps the crux of this debate.

I, obviously lean towards objective right and wrong, good and bad. Admittedly this is based in large part upon my belief in God...but is not isolated to that.

Liberals lean heavily towards subjective...with wrong tied to measurable harm or suffering only.

In a Liberal mind, if it can be proven that animals enjoy a good shagging with a human...then beastiality is acceptable.

In the good/right is Objective mind....whether animals enjoy it or not, sex is meant to remain within species because it is ultimately for the continuation of that species.

Herein lies the disconnect between us.

 

btw Hut and UGO...we will never agree on this but I respect the discussion that we're having and the fact that it hasn't degenerated into anger and namecalling.

I think good attempts at logical arguments have been offered by all sides.

 

I really don't believe in object right and wrong. In debates, Atheists always duck this question. It doesn't mean I don't believe in right or wrong in a common English sense. I think the word morality or right and wrong have religious connotations.

I prefer the terms ethical or unethical. For instance:

A man is sitting in his home. Strangers who live 10,000 miles away break into his home while he is watching tv and kill him and a few of his children.


Is that right or wrong? In theory, it seems like one guy is minding his own business and is gunned down in his own home.Most people's gut reaction is "yeah, that is "wrong".

What if the "victim" was Osama Bin Laden? Not so wrong from my perspective although millions would disagree with me on that point. Every action is subject to analysis. There isn't some ledger in the sky that has a box for rape, pedophilia, assault, battery, murder ...etc.

For that reason, I reject the idea of sin and morality. I do believe in ethics which I would define as proper behavior in a very specific context and situation. Not shooting people is a "moral thing to do, unless a man runs into your house and tries to rape your daughter. Then, it is not such a good idea to not shoot people.

 

Sly, what you call 'objective' really means 'we're right, because we say we're right and we don't care what your values are because all other cultures but ours are wrong'.

You recognize that, right?

 

I'm curious why do people think homosexuality is any different biologically or environmentally from any other sexually deviant (or "anomalous," if you don't like the connotations of deviant) fetish/preference?

 

just the only one left there's any major disagreement about, I guess. Paedophiles? Harmful thus wrong, no ambiguity. Wanting to wear latex and suck whipped cream off each others nipples? Not even the bible nuts seem to take that as their business.

 

At the same time, from a purely utilitarian perspective, male homosexuality is clearly harmful to society.

 

In a massively over-populated, under-resourced world where millions of people kill each other in the name of God/a flag?

MTF

 

In what way?

 

God moves in mysterious ways. :nono:

Down With Queers!!!

 

If those fan dans had a fucking shave and exfoliated a bit they might get some tail and feel less scowly.

 

I don't think anyone here would argue that people killing each other in the name of God or a flag isn't harmful to society. It's not really relevant, and a tu quoque fallacy in any case.

Hut - homosexual behavior is directly correlated with the spread of HIV/AIDS, is it not? Isn't that harmful to society?

 

I recognize no such thing.

You think right and wrong is subjective (aside from causing measurable physical or emotional harm) and I disagree with you.


I believe it to be objective. Of course my belief in God has a great deal to do with that. Take God out of the equation and the lines between right and wrong are blurred considerably...so in that regard I can see where the godless are coming from.

If for example one were to believe that everything started by accident out of nothingness for no reason...then by virtue of this the universe owes its existence to Chaos and therefore Chaos without true order is acceptable....actually it is encouraged.

Why not have a man fuck another man or his brother or get fucked by a donkey? Who's to say what is right or wrong in such a scenario?

I can point out the reason for sex and the reason for different genders, but if you take God out of the equation there is no reason...sex and male and female is the result of chance and all is good and everything is gay ("happy"...excuse the pun).

 

I would say that he hates the act but has compassion "the fag" as long as the fag repents of his sin and vows to do so no more.

 

What? Its the website he hates :nono: He hates fags.com.

 

With the liberal mind that would eventually spiral out of control into madness....

Who's to say that Murder is wrong? Shit I can argue that murdering a few people a year is good for population control. Shiiiiiit...the animals like to murder a few other animals..and not necessarily for food either. Surely killing others of the same species in natural? Besides everyone is going to die eventually anyway...what difference would it make.

Y'all may laugh and think this is ridiculous, but this is exactly what happens when you go down the road of blurring right and wrong and making it all subjective.

 

I just wanted to make a point and I used you post to do so. God welcomes all to come to him, but he expects them to then repent and turn away from their sin. Fags are not condemned to hell automatically...they have a chance to repent. Make no mistake though, God hates that sin.

Enough of religious talk anyway since hardly anyone here believes in the Scriptures, back to discussing matters on common logic...

 

Hold - it's no castle!
He wants his wife to run - and fetch
Order! - he's obsessed with order order!

Discipline - is his passion
Now - he says there's none
Order! - his obsession
Order! - his obsession
Now - he says there's none

Outside the trains don't run on time
He believes it's no coincidence!

 

In the spirit of 'common logic' & harmony, if you're remotely interested there are strands of Christianity which sit allot more comfortably with modernity (rationality, universalist principles and so on). The two needen't be in inherent contradiction. I'm thinking specifically of Father Thomas Keating and Father Richard Rohr who I know of, though they're by all accounts part of a lineage of Christian practice that goes back to Saint Thomas & the Gnostic gospels. One centered on contemplative prayer & direct experiential communion.

IMHO, they seem at once more in touch with the historical Jesus (teachers from other faiths, too), the nature of God if there's such a thing and modernity. Rohr made a distinction I liked - 99% of nominal Christians don't practice any such thing, they practice 'Churchism' which being of man includes a wrapper of prejudices, machinations and contradictions around spiritual truth. The Church and the Bible are fallible and human, but the core ideas of Christianity aren't reducible to what MEN created around them.

I sincerely doubt the great force that binds the universe together gives thought to where Ricky Martin puts his wiener, mate. Just a personal suspicion.

Rohr & Keating are both ordained Catholic priests btw, full card carrying christians

 

the frequency among humans is hardly common

10% of people is small

 

I like you Hut..but his type of statement is presumptuous and just plain stupid. You're not even sure whether God exists and now you want to presume you know what he'd care about or not?

Also you don't know what a Christian is or not even if one crawled up your ass and died there. Let the Bible believers of God Believers entertain a discussion about who is a "full card carrying Christian" and who isn't and you concern yourself with matters that you are actually qualified to discuss (which is basically everything else..because you're intelligent).

To play your game for a second...

The great force that binds the universe together created Male and Female and sex for the two to reproduce. Based on that alone, without Bible to help me, I suspect that he indeed cares about where Ricky Martin places his wiener...

 

so two priests aren't christians?

 

I assume the Pope's qualified to decide whos christian. the last post wasn't meant to be offensive though obviously i misjudged the tone. I cant be arsed discussing this any more

 

Again, in the context of the US/Western world, this whole issue is a pointless distraction. If gays can cohabit, and that is legal, there is no real reason to not let them get married. You cannot say you support equal rights for homosexuals and then say "but I don't want to let them get married."

The "defense of marriage" argument is a sham. Heterosexual premarital sex/cohabitation and extramarital infidelities both do far more to damage "the sanctity of marriage" from an traditional perspective than gay marriage. You don't see anyone calling for those things to be outlawed.

 

not everyone that says that they are christian actually are christian

 

ok, but a fucking priest?:tick: