Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran

[Said1]

Y'all always bring up the ancient, idol worshiping, Greeks and Romans. I think the preponderance of homosexuality claimed in those societies is likely more a romantic re-write by modern writers, who themselves wish to advance the homosexual agenda. Don't these cultures now have the exact same percentage of homosexuals that other cultures have? If they werre gay then, then why aren't they gay now?

In real numbers maybe, statistically, I doubt you find that. In some parts of the old Roman empire, gay marriage is permitted, in some parts they do bad things to you.

 

[glockmail]

I used slavery and the right to vote as a couple of my examples. Slavery and the right to vote are moral questions. Even if I did not find a moral example, the fallacy would still apply. It carries over. The bottom line is that just because most people think that gay marriage should not be allowed does not, in and of itself, mean that gay marriage is wrong. The only thing that one can conclude from popular sentiment is popular sentiment.

The questions of slavery and right to vote are clarified by the Declaration of Independence in this self evident Truth: "all Men are created equal". Therefore they are not moral decisions but legal ones. For those who pursue the gay life against the tenets of all religions that I know of, they have made a moral decision.

 

[Reneer]

Y'all always bring up the ancient, idol worshiping, Greeks and Romans. I think the preponderance of homosexuality claimed in those societies is likely more a romantic re-write by modern writers, who themselves wish to advance the homosexual agenda. Don't these cultures now have the exact same percentage of homosexuals that other cultures have? If they werre gay then, then why aren't they gay now?

If by 'modern writers' you mean in the last 50 years, then you're incorrect.

And your 'if they were gay then, why aren't they gay now' is laughable. Well over two thousand years has passed since the end of the Ancient Greek period - people have moved all over the world since that time, and Greece itself has changed dramatically. Not to mention the population of the globe has exploded beyond anything close to what it was 2000 years ago. A large homosexual population that was in Greece roughly 2000 years ago would have been much more significant when the estimated population of the Earth was only roughly 150 million.

The questions of slavery and right to vote are clarified by the Declaration of Independence in this self evident Truth: "all Men are created equal". Therefore they are not moral decisions but legal ones. For those who pursue the gay life against the tenets of all religions that I know of, they have made a moral decision.

Though I may not be the best person to impart this information (I could be wrong) Buddhism does not directly condemn (or condone) homosexuality.

 

[mattskramer]

The questions of slavery and right to vote are clarified by the Declaration of Independence in this self evident Truth: "all Men are created equal". Therefore they are not moral decisions but legal ones. For those who pursue the gay life against the tenets of all religions that I know of, they have made a moral decision.

The Declaration of Independence is a not codification of law but a declaration of moral views. Yet, even with the Declaration of Independence in place, the US government still found it okay to condone slavery and prohibit women from voting – and most people did not have an objection. For a while the Constitution even defined a Black as being less of a person than a White is a person. Through rules and amendments, laws were established which eventually outlawed slavery and allowed women to vote. Anyway, laws are merely legislated morals (should and shouldn’t) with punitive measures attached. Anyway, I am not talking about the legal system or the constitutionality of issues. My point still remains that something is not wrong just because most people think that it is wrong.

 

[glockmail]

.....

....Well over two thousand years has passed since the end of the Ancient Greek period - people have moved all over the world since that time, and Greece itself has changed dramatically. Not to mention the population of the globe has exploded beyond anything close to what it was 2000 years ago. A large homosexual population that was in Greece roughly 2000 years ago would have been much more significant when the estimated population of the Earth was only roughly ....150 million.
Though I may not be the best person to impart this information (I could be wrong) Buddhism does not directly condemn (or condone) homosexuality.

1. You appear to have made my point for me.
2. Jesus never did either. He and they didn't have to, as it was obvious, as in "don't drink urine".

 

[Kagom]

Though I may not be the best person to impart this information (I could be wrong) Buddhism does not directly condemn (or condone) homosexuality.

Buddhism and Hinduism do not condemn or condone. Transgendered people (male to female) are, however, considered to be holy in Hindu culture.

 

[glockmail]

The Declaration of Independence is a not codification of law but a declaration of moral views. Yet, even with the Declaration of Independence in place, the US government still found it okay to condone slavery and prohibit women from voting – and most people did not have an objection. For a while the Constitution even defined a Black as being less of a person than a White is a person. Through rules and amendments, laws were established which eventually outlawed slavery and allowed women to vote. Anyway, laws are merely legislated morals (should and shouldn’t) with punitive measures attached. Anyway, I am not talking about the legal system or the constitutionality of issues. My point still remains that something is not wrong just because most people think that it is wrong.

The DOI is the base document for the Constitution. Slavery was hotly debated during the drafting of the Constitution. The section on slave percentage, that you incorrectly interpret as declaring a black less than a white, is actually a compromise between the free states and the south, made necessary as it was more important to unite and fight the Brits than to to argue this single point. Your point is still invalid as the DOI, hence the Constitution and our laws declares that all men are created equal, while gays insist that they were not, or else have chosen to act against several thousand years of established morality.

 

[glockmail]

Buddhism and Hinduism do not condemn or condone. Transgendered people (male to female) are, however, considered to be holy in Hindu culture.

Not quite, dear.

 

[Kagom]

1. You appear to have made my point for me.
2. Jesus never did either. He and they didn't have to, as it was obvious, as in "don't drink urine".

1.) The fact that things change over time proves a point for you? I don't see it unless you'd like to expand on that point for me.

2.) Actually, something like homosexuality would need a word or two from Jesus. To just leave it alone would only be disasterous because that would mean it'd be something for the followers to come to decide for themselves.

 

[Kagom]

Not quite, dear.

Do you know more than me on these particular Eastern religions? I'm not claiming to know a lot about them, FYI, but I'm curious as to what you do know about them in that respect.

 

[jillian]

The DOI is the base document for the Constitution. Slavery was hotly debated during the drafting of the Constitution. The section on slave percentage, that you incorrectly interpret as declaring a black less than a white, is actually a compromise between the free states and the south, made necessary as it was more important to unite and fight the Brits than to to argue this single point. Your point is still invalid as the DOI, hence the Constitution and our laws declares that all men are created equal, while gays insist that they were not, or else have chosen to act against several thousand years of established morality.

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law and while many of the same political philosophers gave input to it and the Constitution, and it is certainly a valuable historical document, the Declaration is not incorporated by reference in the Constitution, if that's what you're purporting.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry, I guess I added more emphasis to

than was intended.

And I'm sure you noticed you ignored everything else I said. :

I ignore nothing. If there is no point of contention (since you agreed with me), I see no point in commenting. I may have also more than likely missed responding yet again to a redundant and bogus accusation.

I commented on what was worthy of comment.

 

[Gunny]

Okay. Let me put it to you another way -



So what is your point? Even assuming that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology or assuming that homosexuality is inconsistent with human nature does not make homosexuality wrong or bad.



So what is your point? Homosexuality is more than anatomy. Even assuming that homosexuality is anatomically "incorrect" does not make homosexuality wrong or bad.


You just sucker the newbies, and a few older posters who get tired of watching you do it and spell out your MO for them.



So what is your point? Even if homosexuality is not normal, it does not mean that homosexuality is wrong or bad.



So what is your point? Just because the majority believes that something is wrong does not make that thing wrong.

All that you are presenting are irrelevant tangents.

You are dumber than brick. I wasn't making addressing the right nor wrong of homosexuality. I was addressing the abnormalcy at all levels of homosexuality to which you come back with this bullshit response to something that was never said. So I'd say the only thing "irrelevant" here is YOU and your responses to noexistent stances.

You ALWAYS try to bring it back to "right and wrong" then go into your relativist mode. And if no one is discussing "right or wrong", you interject it and yourself.

You're a fraud. You can't make a legitimate argument. All you do is ensure that everyone knows that in mattskramers idiotic little world, right and wrong are always relative, so mattskramer can cherrrypick which side of the fence he wants to fall off onto his head again from.

My points are relevant to my argument and you cannot refute them with anything but irrelevance. Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you slink away ... again.

 

[Reneer]

I ignore nothing. If there is no point of contention (since you agreed with me), I see no point in commenting. I may have also more than likely missed responding yet again to a redundant and bogus accusation.

I commented on what was worthy of comment.

I did not agree 100% with you. I agreed with you on one or two points. If you would go back and read again what I wrote, you would notice that I said that homosexuals are discriminated against because they cannot as easily attain the same privileges as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can, by signing one piece of paper, have over 1,000+ benefits given to them by the state. Homosexuals need to sign more than one document in order to obtain those same benefits. It is discrimination because it is creating a barrier to those benefits - instead of signing one document you may need to sign ten, and probably have the added expense of a lawyer as well.

 

[Gunny]

I did not agree 100% with you. I agreed with you on one or two points. If you would go back and read again what I wrote, you would notice that I said that homosexuals are discriminated against because they cannot as easily attain the same privileges as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can, by signing one piece of paper, have over 1,000+ benefits given to them by the state. Homosexuals need to sign more than one document in order to obtain those same benefits. It is discrimination because it is creating a barrier to those benefits - instead of signing one document you may need to sign ten, and probably have the added expense of a lawyer as well.

And I did not comment on what you agreed with only.

I responded to your baseless claim of discrimination. Maybe YOU need to go back and read it again.

Or I can give you the short version: You can by signing the exact same papers get the exact same privileges/benefits. All you have to do is meet the same prerequisites. There is NO discrimination against anything but your aberrant lifestyle. Tough shit.

When you choose to live outside the conforms of society and its laws, you have NO RIGHT to whine and cry about the consequences of your actions, and you damned sure don't rate any special rights that cater to nothing but you abnormal behavior.

 

[Reneer]

And I did not comment on what you agreed with only.

I responded to your baseless claim of discrimination. Maybe YOU need to go back and read it again.

<strike>No, you did not respond to my points, Gunny. You said this (#214) in response to this (#213). That was the last past you made in this thread until you said this (#252). Amazingly enough I still don't see your earlier response to my post (#213) anywhere between #214-#251. So unless you or someone else deleted it, you didn't respond to me until #252, and accused me of ignoring you when in fact you never responded to my points in the first place. So how can I ignore your points if you never make them?</strike>

Oh geez, I'm sorry Gunny. I apologize profusely for my stupidity. I missed your points because they were all italicized and I thought they were my words.

Or I can give you the short version: You can by signing the exact same papers get the exact same privileges/benefits. All you have to do is meet the same prerequisites. There is NO discrimination against anything but your aberrant lifestyle. Tough shit.

So if I go by your 'short version' you would have had the same opinion about interracial marriage. Since, you know, a black man could just merry a black woman - instead of the white woman he loved - and he would get the same benefits. Simple!

When you choose to live outside the conforms of society and its laws, you have NO RIGHT to whine and cry about the consequences of your actions

Agreed. But that doesn't mean society is right, only that society gets to dictate the rules. And I for one would like to see those rules changed, by helping to enlighten people to my viewpoint and through due process, change the laws.

 

[Gunny]

<strike>No, you did not respond to my points, Gunny. You said this (#214) in response to this (#213). That was the last past you made in this thread until you said this (#252). Amazingly enough I still don't see your earlier response to my post (#213) anywhere between #214-#251. So unless you or someone else deleted it, you didn't respond to me until #252, and accused me of ignoring you when in fact you never responded to my points in the first place. So how can I ignore your points if you never make them?</strike>

Oh geez, I'm sorry Gunny. I apologize profusely for my stupidity. I missed your points because they were all italicized and I thought they were my words.



So if I go by your 'short version' you would have had the same opinion about interracial marriage. Since, you know, a black man could just merry a black woman - instead of the white woman he loved - and he would get the same benefits. Simple!

Ummm .... no. One, If I was a black man, I would be incensed to say the least that homosexuals attempt to draw a comparison between their choice of obviously abnormal behavior and discrimination that was based on my skin color. Beneath contempt.

Two, if blacks choose to marry whites, that's their business. I cannot say what I "would have" thought.


Agreed. But that doesn't mean society is right, only that society gets to dictate the rules. And I for one would like to see those rules changed, by helping to enlighten people to my viewpoint and through due process, change the laws.

What you are failing to grasp is society is well-aware of your viewpoint and has rejected it.

Wht you want to do is destroy yet another moral standard of our society because it doesn't suit your selfish desires.

 

[CockySOB]

Wasn't this thread about homosexuals in Iran? Isn't there another current thread talking about homosexuals in the USA?

Besides, talking about marriage licenses for homosexuals in Iran is like talking about screen doors on submarines. You can talk about it 'til you're blue in the face, but it doesn't do a damned bit of good for anyone....

 

[Gunny]

Wasn't this thread about homosexuals in Iran? Isn't there another current thread talking about homosexuals in the USA?

Come out of your shell, Cocky. All threads that mention homosexuals attract them like honey does locusts, and their presence attracts mattskramer.

And yeah, there's another thread with the same argument going. No matter how many facts, logic or common sense you post, you'll find them busilly posting the same misinformation elsewhere.

 

[Annie]

Come out of your shell, Cocky. All threads that mention homosexuals attract them like honey does locusts, and their presence attracts mattskramer.

And yeah, there's another thread with the same argument going. No matter how many facts, logic or common sense you post, you'll find them busilly posting the same misinformation elsewhere.

I haven't been reading, but should I merge threads? Give me a link if I should.