Men in dresses against men marrying each other
-
1. What makes you think homosexuality is not a choice? 2. You say that homosexuality is a "response to evolution." Homosexuality, if followed by all, would mean the end of the human race so how can that be considered evolution? Are you suggesting evolution is intentionally killing us off? Maybe you meant it as humor, like the Darwin awards or something. 3. What definition of "hate" are you using? I hate to do my homework or extreme hostility?
If homosexuality was a choice then there wouldn't be so many men and women, especially young men and women, hating themselves because other people who purport to care about them tell them they are wrong. Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, and has existed throughout human history too. It is as natural as being ginger and no more wrong. It will no more be the death of a species than any other thing that stops a small proportion breeding. However, increased homosexuality at a time when a species is growing beyond that which the eco system can support has to be a good thing.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
If homosexuality was a choice then there wouldn't be so many men and women, especially young men and women, hating themselves because other people who purport to care about them tell them they are wrong. Homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, and has existed throughout human history too. It is as natural as being ginger and no more wrong. It will no more be the death of a species than any other thing that stops a small proportion breeding. However, increased homosexuality at a time when a species is growing beyond that which the eco system can support has to be a good thing.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
If you think homosexuality is a choice and fundamentally wrong then sure, spot on. However as it isn't, and is natural (be that as a response to evolution, because it was made by your god or some other one). Religious hatred is religious hatred, regardless of the religion and who they are hating at that particular time.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Are you implying that murder is fundamentally wrong? Because if so, strange as it may seem, I'll have to disagree. "We" decided that it is wrong, but why would it be fundamentally so? Things like morals are pretty much just the "average opinion of the group", they don't stem from laws of physics or such..
-
Are you implying that murder is fundamentally wrong? Because if so, strange as it may seem, I'll have to disagree. "We" decided that it is wrong, but why would it be fundamentally so? Things like morals are pretty much just the "average opinion of the group", they don't stem from laws of physics or such..
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]The catholic church is a failed institution. They are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in organized religion or religious institutions. I can only hope the entire world, especially practicing catholics, come to realize that the church has failed them and the inhabitants of this world. BTW, if I pissed off any catholics here, then I think you really need to analyze your religion and religious views. Are they your views or the views that have been shoved down your throat your entire life. Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention. Remember, the church is man made and man run. God did not start the Catholic church.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
The difference between murder and consensual homosexuality is... Well, anyone who needs that explaining isn't worth the effort.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Well that's obviously not what I wrote. My point isn't even that murder is OK, though I could argue that. It's just that fundamentally wrong is not something that actually exists. Morals don't just float around through space, nor are they "logically true", we, humans, just made them up.
-
Are you implying that murder is fundamentally wrong? Because if so, strange as it may seem, I'll have to disagree. "We" decided that it is wrong, but why would it be fundamentally so? Things like morals are pretty much just the "average opinion of the group", they don't stem from laws of physics or such..
Not my downvote. It depends what you take fundamentally to mean. Form my point of view it simply means at the base level of whatever system you are discussing, it is something that changes on your viewpoint. Murder is fundamentally wrong in most societies. Murder is fundamentally wrong in most religions. At the base of those constructs it is fundamentally wrong to kill someone else in a way that is regarded as murder. As a base of the human animal then of course it is not fundamentally wrong. The answer changes as to where you are standing.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Well that's obviously not what I wrote. My point isn't even that murder is OK, though I could argue that. It's just that fundamentally wrong is not something that actually exists. Morals don't just float around through space, nor are they "logically true", we, humans, just made them up.
-
I know, and I didn't mention murder at all. So why has the discussion turned to something neither of us are talking about?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Not my downvote. It depends what you take fundamentally to mean. Form my point of view it simply means at the base level of whatever system you are discussing, it is something that changes on your viewpoint. Murder is fundamentally wrong in most societies. Murder is fundamentally wrong in most religions. At the base of those constructs it is fundamentally wrong to kill someone else in a way that is regarded as murder. As a base of the human animal then of course it is not fundamentally wrong. The answer changes as to where you are standing.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
Ryan's probably.. seems like something he'd do While that makes sense, it somewhat conflicts with my understanding of the definition of "fundamentally", which in this context amounts (in my understanding) to something like a "basic truth". IE from the viewpoint of pure logic, the laws of physics, or perhaps the universe itself.
-
On 10 O'Clock Live last week they had a debate about gay marriage. I think the relevant bit may be available here[^] 27:29 in, not sure if available everywhere (or anywhere as is blocked at work). They had Boy George and a young gay Catholic called Milo Yiannopoulos who pretty much just descended into saying how much he hates himself because his religion says he is wrong. Boy George just said marriage is absurd, gay or otherwise, then spent the rest of the time trying to pursuade this kid he should be happy with what he is. It became more of a therapy session than a debate. I found the whole thing very depressing, and the idea that someone should be so miserable with what they are because of some archaic institution tells them they are fundamentally wrong is incredibly sad.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
ChrisElston wrote:
some archaic institution
When I was still at school (only 50 odd years ago), homosexuality between men was still punishable by a prison term, as was attempted suicide. Attitudes change over time but not everyone will agree that the 'new' attitude is the right one. At the end of the day it is better that we have an open reasoned debate, than we just accept some new ruling by the political elite: like making all Jews wear yellow stars.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
-
ChrisElston wrote:
some archaic institution
When I was still at school (only 50 odd years ago), homosexuality between men was still punishable by a prison term, as was attempted suicide. Attitudes change over time but not everyone will agree that the 'new' attitude is the right one. At the end of the day it is better that we have an open reasoned debate, than we just accept some new ruling by the political elite: like making all Jews wear yellow stars.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
I agree entirely. My point wasnt really about the right to gay marriage. Unless you're saying it is a good thing to oppose homosexuals in which case I disagree entirely.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
Ryan's probably.. seems like something he'd do While that makes sense, it somewhat conflicts with my understanding of the definition of "fundamentally", which in this context amounts (in my understanding) to something like a "basic truth". IE from the viewpoint of pure logic, the laws of physics, or perhaps the universe itself.
-
The catholic church is a failed institution. They are one of the main reasons why I don't believe in organized religion or religious institutions. I can only hope the entire world, especially practicing catholics, come to realize that the church has failed them and the inhabitants of this world. BTW, if I pissed off any catholics here, then I think you really need to analyze your religion and religious views. Are they your views or the views that have been shoved down your throat your entire life. Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention. Remember, the church is man made and man run. God did not start the Catholic church.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)Quote:
Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention
It sounds like you are saying the church (I don't care which) is not allowed to share its beliefs. Your own beliefs come from many different sources: news, friends, experiences, personal pondering moments, church, school, books, movies, media, etc, etc. So, why are you trying to take the church out of that list? Why are they not allowed to try and influence people?
-
Quote:
Freedom of thought and life, without church intervention
It sounds like you are saying the church (I don't care which) is not allowed to share its beliefs. Your own beliefs come from many different sources: news, friends, experiences, personal pondering moments, church, school, books, movies, media, etc, etc. So, why are you trying to take the church out of that list? Why are they not allowed to try and influence people?
You again. ;)
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
You again. ;)
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Not sure what you are referring to, but seriously, why doesn't a church have that right? Everyone else is allowed to share their opinions but a church can't?
The point might be that the church's influence is somewhat one-sided in that it is not teaching people anything other than that they should follow the teachings of said church without question and that not to do so will cause some form of extreme and rather unpleasant harm to befall them. Further, the church bases its doctrines on a belief in an omnipotent being which not everyone does (most religions can't even agree that it is the same god) and whose teachings, usually, are based on how people lived in the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. Other than as a historical curiosity not much that they have to say is meaningful - for instance, how are you supposed to take marriage advice seriously from someone who will never marry or have a relationship?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I agree entirely. My point wasnt really about the right to gay marriage. Unless you're saying it is a good thing to oppose homosexuals in which case I disagree entirely.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
No, my point was that what was illegal a few years ago is now considered 'normal'; however not everyone has reached the point where they accept that. More importantly is, as I said before, that we have a reasoned and open debate and listen to everyone's point of view, even those diametrically opposed to ours. As to my personal views ... well, they're personal.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
-
The point might be that the church's influence is somewhat one-sided in that it is not teaching people anything other than that they should follow the teachings of said church without question and that not to do so will cause some form of extreme and rather unpleasant harm to befall them. Further, the church bases its doctrines on a belief in an omnipotent being which not everyone does (most religions can't even agree that it is the same god) and whose teachings, usually, are based on how people lived in the desert hundreds or thousands of years ago. Other than as a historical curiosity not much that they have to say is meaningful - for instance, how are you supposed to take marriage advice seriously from someone who will never marry or have a relationship?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
I don't disagree with what you say. However, I defend the right that everyone has to their opinion, whether I disagree with it or not. That is all. Even if the church preaches damnation if you disagree with them, they still have that right. I don't see the media, beer companies, tobacco companies, etc, as being very different. To be "cool" you have to do what they say. And even though I disagree with their message, I do defend their right to have that message.
-
I don't disagree with what you say. However, I defend the right that everyone has to their opinion, whether I disagree with it or not. That is all. Even if the church preaches damnation if you disagree with them, they still have that right. I don't see the media, beer companies, tobacco companies, etc, as being very different. To be "cool" you have to do what they say. And even though I disagree with their message, I do defend their right to have that message.
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me