Magnus
Casual Heathen
Posts: 15
|
Post by Magnus on Nov 19, 2003 20:01:31 GMT -5
Quiet. Do you hear that? It's the sound of the collective morals of our country being chipped away at further. The culprit? The Massachusetts Supreme Court. Tuesday, they issed a ruling that bans on same-sex marriages are unconstitutional. In the high and lofty name of promoting equality. But where do we draw the line? When will we finally realize that not everyone should be pampered to, that some things should not be allowed?
Whether you look at it from a religious or scientific standpoint, homo-sexuality is wrong. The religious standpoint can be summed up with the quote, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," and with the passage from Leviticus, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination." For you evolutionists out there, humans are still not meant for homo-sexuality. Our bodies were designed for hetero-sexual intercourse and our brains are wired to be attracted towards members of the opposite sex.
I can already hear the left wing shouting now, "But they can't help it, they were born that way, you shouldn't punish them for it." Fine. It's part of who they are, they can't help being attracted to members of the same sex, they should be able to marry as they please. Who do we pamper to next? I'm sure those who wish to engage in bestiality, because, after all, who are we to judge if someone is attracted to goats? Don't forget the necropheliacs, why should we be allowed to deny them their happiness, just because it's only found with corpses? And why the scandal over the Catholic priests? They were only following their urges, we can't fault them that, can we? We need to make laws to allow for that sort of behavior, not condemn it. Because, after all, don't we want everyone to have equal opportunity for happiness, no matter what form it might take?
-magnus
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Nov 19, 2003 20:21:17 GMT -5
Magnus, it is quite clear that you enjoy playing devil's advocate to get a rise out of people. Unless there is another magnus in the MSU community, your posts at allMSU and on this board demonstrate that quite clearly (not to mention Campus Crusade for Cthulhu). Yet whether or not you actually hold the views you are advocating here, many do hold them in sincerity. With that in mind, to answer a good portion of your post, I will repost my words from another thread addressing the issue:
"The opposition to gay marriage by means of government does not hold up any way you look at it. Religious motivations for banning gay marriage have no place in our laws or government agencies. No one should be forcing churches to marry gay couples if they disagree with it, but neither should gay couples be forbidden to marry through civil marriages or through gay-friendly churches. If gay marriages are to be banned, there must be a secular reason for doing so.
However, any potential secular reasons apply just as equally to heterosexual couples. If the tax breaks and other such benefits conferred to married couples would be too burdensome for our government if extended to gay couples, then they should not be extended to heterosexual couples either, as this would amount to discrimination.
I am disgusted by the deliberate misleading of the public by calling the move to ban gay marriage as "Marriage Protection." Two guy consentually screwing in a legally sanctioned relationship does nothing to threaten anyone else's marriage, and to say that it does is utterly ridiculous. If you are so against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex...it's that simple. But don't force your prejudices on others and rob them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
To answer the remaining questions you bring up regarding pedophilia and other such things, I emphasize that homosexual couples are consenting adults, with both partners willingly engaging in a relationship. Our laws dictate that children are not considered fully able to give consent, and legal precedent has allowed for the government to protect children from the harm that can result from a sexual situation. Likewise, animals and corpses cannot give their consent. Providing "equal opportunity" for happiness is not absolute when others are used and abused in the process
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 19, 2003 22:13:52 GMT -5
Well, you're either an idiot for the way you think, or you're an idiot for claiming to think that way. Either way, the choice is clear. Now I remember why I like Cygnus.
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Nov 20, 2003 0:06:48 GMT -5
The simple answer here is that the government should not do anything to interfere with goings on between consentual adults. Corpses can't give consent, and neither can minors, that solves your concerns there. (Oh, and neither can animals)
I am frankly getting tired of the constant criticism by you on this board. Cant you just be happy with your own beliefs and let others ba happy with theirs??
|
|
Magnus
Casual Heathen
Posts: 15
|
Post by Magnus on Nov 20, 2003 9:57:50 GMT -5
i'm sorry if i've been acting a bit the troll lately. i really do intend to finish all the debates that i begin, but something always comes up and by the time that I have time to renew the discussion, it's buried under a pile of other threads. Anyways, on to the matter at hand. As I have said before, I have two issues with homo-sexuality. One, given, is a moral disagreement. But that has no weight here, so let's move past it. The second is, as I said, more of a scientific slant. Researchers are currently near 100% certain as to the cause of homo-sexuality. Certain portions of the brain that, for some reason have swelled or shrunk to abnormal portions, secrete the wrong amounts of hormones because of it, hormones that form 90+% of the basis for initial attraction (no matter how non-judgemental anyone says they are, looks do matter in forming an initial opinion of someone before learning their personality). I'm not denying that these people truly can love members of the same sex. I'm saying they would not if this hormonal imbalance had not caused the opportunity for attraction in the first place. Now, if you had something wrong with your brain, would you seek "acceptance", or would you seek treatment? I have several friends with various problems such as schizophrenia and medical depression and none of them are out campaigning for extra rights. I have a friend who is wheelchair bound and, while he does occassionaly join in petitions to make campus more wheelchair friendly, he also spends time reading medical journals, searching for word on new treatment for his condition. That's truly what I'm campaigning after, help for these people, not discrimination. I've often debated going into bio-chemical research for this very reason, but chemistry and I have a long, bitter rivalry . Finally, as for the increased social ramifications, it's not that far fetched. And while there would (hopefully) never be laws supporting such behaviors, there could become a lax acceptance of them 60, 70 years down the road. Just look at Soddom and Gammorah (yes, this is a real history, not just out of the Bible). It was a situation where one thing being accepted led to another led to another until they were very much the cess-pool I wrote about in my earlier post and were destroyed by the Hand of God (or a natural disaster of some sort, for the non-believers). But all that is a matter of historical record, accepted just as widely by historians as things that are common place here, such as the reign of Julius Caesar and William the conqueror conquering the Isles. -Magnus
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Nov 20, 2003 11:10:58 GMT -5
MAGNUS, while homosexuality can be traced to organic roots:chemical imbalances, anatomical brain differences, and complications in the genetic encoding of gender identity, all these examples should be expected in considering such a complicated and complex brain such as ours. Evolution is blind to judgements-variances in morphology, chemical makeup, etc are to be expected in any population. The enviornment then plays a part in selecting against all those individuals that do not survive in that enviornment long enough to successfully mate. In human society, technological advancements and social interactions and complexities have made surviving much easier, more organisms survive to create progeny, less are selected against, and the gene pool expands. Naturally individuals with traits, that in a natural system would not survive(such as your handicapped friend), do so with the aid of technology and society. Regardless if all these "abnormalities" procreate or not , a bigger gene pool means more diversity and thus more abnormalities cropping up intermittedly. Thus in the scope of evolution, homosexuality is not some sort of fluke or set back in progress, simply a natual result. Science has no business of passing moral judgement on it. Homosexuality is not something that needs to be cured. Homosexuals , and unless criminal, deem no real threat to society. Sure they do not yield offspring, all that means is they will not pass on genetic traits. So what.
Also, I thinksociety has moredo do with resulting in homosexuality than solely your evidence shows. Human sociasl interation is incredibly complex, and no way near totally understood. I do not think homosexuality is a choice. But some individuals, not all, do choose. I think it is a combination of many factors, biological and sociological, as complex and different as there are different individuals and cultures. Such a complex phenomon can not be deemed negative, or something to be remedied, simply because the majority does not possess that attribute. As a member of a free country, I'd like to think any view point or lifestyle, as long as it does not impede others rights or does them physical and direct harm, should be, if not embraced, at least tolerated and protected. Otherwise discrimination occurs, which is anethema to what the ideals of our country strive for, or at least should.
I always try to maintain perspective. If you were born gay, Magnus, then there is no changing it, it is a part of who you are, and as you maturwed, you would incorporate into your personality, perhaps even take pride in it. If a "cure" even was found, you may not even wish for it, as that would change who you are. THis isnt like switching a light switch. People are involved, with real identities and emotions at stake. If you were born gay Magnus, I do not think you would hold the stance you do now. You may even feel threatened or offended by those who do-who are striving to change you, who see you as unnatural, not quite what a person chould be. These people, for whatever reasons, seek to deny you rights that others, who by sheer luck were born heterosexual, are granted. This is simply not fair. It is not fair at all. Regardless of what it says written in a outdated book about anachronistic jewish laws that happens to have some historical relevance, but also alot of mythological interpretations and also has a second part, that states that what it says in the first book is no longer neccessary, but sometimes is, depending on what is convenient or socially acceptable by the majority.(I know that is a run on sentence but work with me.) It is ok that you have a belief system. It is a part of who you are. To change it would require drastic changes in your self. It is your right to hold such beliefs, and no ones right to try to change them for you. Please try to extend the same right to others, even if you do not agree with them.
|
|
Magnus
Casual Heathen
Posts: 15
|
Post by Magnus on Nov 20, 2003 14:30:16 GMT -5
A large part of my view on "curing" homo-sexuals is based upon the fact that many (if not most) homo-sexuals, at some point or another, would wish to be "cured". Would wish to be able to feel that attraction to a member of the opposite sex, find a husband or wife and have children that are truly offspring of the parents, half of each, rather than half one parent and half surrogate mother/ sperm donor. Would I feel this way if I were gay? Perphaps. I know a good friend of mine who came out of the closet last year most definitely would take a pill, if available, because he has told me as much. Make the cure available to those who want it and gradually more and more people will be able to lead normal, non-judged lives (because for everyone like me, who merely disapproves but would never actually discriminate, there are a dozen who will and who never will change their views. Just look at how widespread racism still is almost 2 centuries after the freedom of the slaves.)
Yes, I personally believe, from a moral standpoint, that homo-sexuality is wrong. However, both from a natural and a sociological standpoint, the best course of action for our country right now is not blanket acceptance, but an attempt to aid.
-Magnus
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Nov 20, 2003 16:23:56 GMT -5
The reasons people may want to stop being gay are societal-if people stopped, judging, hating, fearing them, they could be more adjusted and eventually have pride with who they are.. The fact remains that many homosexuals are indeed proud of who they are. Asking them to change is wrong. I am not suggesting acceptance, merely tolerance. You don't have to like what they to respect their right to do it, again as long as both parties are consenting there is absolutely no harm in it. Imposing your morals on others is simply a horrible thing to do. I don't care if you think your morals are godgiven, I don't even care if (very hypothetically) they were godgiven. If you force someone to behave a certain way that is contrary to their views, even if the best intententions are involved, even if you consider it aid, it is nothing shy of totalitarianism.
It is not your place to declare what is normal, nor the best course of action. Neither do I for that matter.
Again, I am not trying to tell you what to believe. You have that right to believe what you want and I have the very utmost respect for that right (which I am assuming is the main difference between you and I -you can't respect other peoples' rights to think or act differently if an infalliable god tells you it is wrong (indirectly, through a veeeery second hand scource mind you and aproximately 1700 years gap)).
And for the last time, nature doesn't put judgements on anything. There is no normal or abnormal, simply natural variation-some more extreme than others. Some paths lead to destruction, others continued survival, and hindsight is the only way to tell which is which. In our society, homosexualls won't be dying (unless christians/biggots kill them all) , they will never just go away, the mutation will keep cropping up as natural variance in a complex system as our brains are. As long as homosexuals are around, it is our duty as fellow organisms clutching to lofty ideals, to allow the same rights as everyone else. Otherwise we as monstrous in our hypocracy as you percieve gays to be in their "abnormality"
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 20, 2003 16:50:23 GMT -5
You are so full of crap! I've been a lbgt ally since I've been at MSU and of the dozens of homosexuals I've gotten to know well, I don't think a single one of them would take your "pill." You're clearly speaking on things you really don't know anything about. You very clearly started this conversation based on the immorality of homosexuality and now you expect us to take you as a lgbt empathiser? Like hell. And just for the record, the only archaeological evidence ever found AND ACCEPTED BY PROFESSIONALS in the field concerning these cities you seem to think have been found are the Ebla Tablets, which simply mention Sodom and Gomorrah by name. While I'm not neccessarily saying they never existed, it is just plain stupid to claim that they are as accepted as the lives of Julius Caesar or William the Conqueror. Would a little integrity be so hard? The rest of your argument just further demonstrates that your a mindless, heavily dogmatized bigot and in no way interested in the truth or what's best for anybody... big surprise there.
So, let's recap: you're ignorant on many subjects (obviously including the fact that the bible doesn't even condemn homosexuality, stop reading the damned NIV), have straight-up lied, and are a bigot. Hmmm, not bad for only having been here a few weeks.
|
|
|
Post by AnonymousUser on Nov 20, 2003 21:18:14 GMT -5
the only reason that people might want to take your "pill" is so that people like you would stop calling them defective and immoral and such....
|
|
Magnus
Casual Heathen
Posts: 15
|
Post by Magnus on Nov 20, 2003 22:46:11 GMT -5
first off, i take my honor very, very seriously. it's one of my 3 highest beliefs. please never insult it again.
on to the debate, never, ever would i claim to be an "ally". i think the whole program rather ridiculous, but that's just me. perhaps those you know wouldn't take the pill. of the 3 homo-sexuals that i am close to (yes, a "bigot" like me has homo-sexual friends), 2 of them have said that they would without a doubt and the 3rd is up in the air about it.
as for soddom and gommorah being as accepted as caesar and william, it's not a widely tought (sp?) period of history, but there is a lot more information out there than just the Ebla Tablets. they were just the first records discovered (and that was what, late '60s, early '70s?). since then, more evidence has surfaced
and while i cannot read hebrew, so i cannot read the original, untranslated Torrah, most major versions of the Bible have the same passage, albeit with slightly different wording. not just NIV.
-magnus
|
|
|
Post by Valvilis on Nov 20, 2003 23:17:02 GMT -5
Magnus,
You've given nothing but reason to question your honor, and your refusal to learn about subjects you so gladly mock and judge only furthers my right to do so.
Frankly, I have no reason to beleive you about your homosexual friends, and given your track record, I'm perfectly in my right to do so.
And no, nothing else concerning Sodom and Gommorha has been found and no credible historian would accept your claim about it being perfectly well accepted. Stop reading creationist websites and start reading history books written by people with PhDs from universities that actually exist. Checking one's sources is part on'es integrity.
No, you obviously do ot read Hebrew, no bible insinuated that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality until the mid twentieth century, as the Christian right in America was growing and anti-gay bigotry was on the rise. The sin of Sodom, if you ever bothered to actually read your bible, is clearly inhospitality. In the desert, no one gives a damn if you have sex with another man, but if someone refuses to give you water and heated shelter for the night, you're dead - it isn't hard to figure that one out. I don't know what sort of Christian you feel you are, but when I was a Christian, I made an effort to actually know what the bible said, not what random bigots told me to further their own agendas. But again, I guess that was just my sense of honor.
Anything else you'd like to get wrong or just lie about?
|
|
|
Post by profdunebastard on Nov 20, 2003 23:22:23 GMT -5
I think we have established that the actual Soddham's and Gommoroh's existences have nothing to do with God's existence. Cities exist. People were around to write about them. Some got destroyed. No arguments here.
I'm not sure three homosexuals you know represent the entire population. As far as I'm concerned, as long as one homosexual feels repressed, their rights are being violated and the injustice needs to be rectified.
And yes, it is just you.
|
|
|
Post by Atsuko73 on Nov 20, 2003 23:28:50 GMT -5
Hm. Wasn't this about allowing marriage? In a court of law? Or did you just want to talk about how wrong being gay is, but didn't want to start off that way? enh, that doesn't matter. You've lost track of the topic at hand. I would like very much for you to respond about the legal aspect of your question, and not keep going off on tangents which, *duh*, we'll never agree upon. Do tell, dear magnus, why should certain couples not get the same LEGAL rights as other couples?
|
|
Cygnus
Proliferator of Blasphemy
The point of a journey is not to arrive.
Posts: 33
|
Post by Cygnus on Nov 21, 2003 1:05:45 GMT -5
"For you evolutionists out there, humans are still not meant for homo-sexuality" -Magnus
Hmm.. Ive got an interesting possiblity for this one. Imagine the social benefits of having an Uncle who is gay. Now in your early human tribe or clan... or whatever. How many benefits could there be to having an extra man around who doesnt have a family he is obligated to support? It would seem quite beneficial IMO to have such a anomaly every once and a while. Especially when looking at the enormous need for resources humans tend to have. Even throughout recent more recent history it would seem to be that the families with a gay relative who could pour his resources into ensuring the survival of his sister or brothers kids is likely to be higher than those families without the homosexual. Then of course, if these offspring are more likely to survive and therefore reproduce.. it is all the more likely that those genes or tendencies would be passed on.. just something to think about.
|
|