I am against homosexuality, gay marriage, and civil unions.

[mattskramer]

Doing the Mattskramer on me? You and I have had this same argument more than once in the past. I think he's wrong. I think you're wrong. Y'all think I'm wrong. Since I know I'm not, I can easily live with you two being wrong.

You and I have had this same argument more than once in the past. I think you are wrong. You think I'm wrong. Since I know I'm not, I can easily live with you being wrong.

 

[Gunny]

You and I have had this same argument more than once in the past. I think you are wrong. You think I'm wrong. Since I know I'm not, I can easily live with you being wrong.

Look, I can destroy your argument above where you supposedly disprove the "natural" argument. Larkin and I went at it more than once on P&CA about this.

The first thread on the first message board I ever participated in was at P&CA, and I ended up going for about 10 pages and 3 weeks with Spyder. Larkin knows who I'm talking about. That was 5 years ago.

No one's changed anyone's mind yet, and I really no longer have the desire to go 15 pages for 3 weeks to no point. Why I backed out of this thread to begin with.

I will at least give credit where it's due. You and larkin make good arguments; wrong as they might be. That beats the Hell out of a lot of people who just want to insult and call names.

 

[mattskramer]

Look, I can destroy your argument above where you supposedly disprove the "natural" argument. Larkin and I went at it more than once on P&CA about this.

The first thread on the first message board I ever participated in was at P&CA, and I ended up going for about 10 pages and 3 weeks with Spyder. Larkin knows who I'm talking about. That was 5 years ago.

No one's changed anyone's mind yet, and I really no longer have the desire to go 15 pages for 3 weeks to no point. Why I backed out of this thread to begin with.

I will at least give credit where it's due. You and larkin make good arguments; wrong as they might be. That beats the Hell out of a lot of people who just want to insult and call names.

Okay. All things considered, I guess that we agree to disagree. There are some things that, deep down, I think are simply wrong and should forever be outlawed. Yet, I can’t come up with an intellectually honest and consistent reason. Once such thing is bestiality. If the person and other life form consent, what harm is done. Yet, something deep down tells me that we should not allow it.

Oh well. I’m rambling. I at least give credit where it's due. You make good arguments, wrong as they might be. That beats the Hell out of a lot of people who just want to insult and call names.

 

[Larkinn]

I don't call blacks *******. But I DO call fags fags.

Well congrats on being selectively decent.

I'm not blaming any victim. I am holding the perpetrator responsible for his/her actions

You said that they should be aware of the consequences and implied that the consequences are ok...that it is THEM that should change, not the people perpetrating wrongs of them.

Doing the Mattskramer on me? You and I have had this same argument more than once in the past. I think he's wrong. I think you're wrong. Y'all think I'm wrong. Since I know I'm not, I can easily live with you two being wrong.

I honestly don't remember having this argument with you, but I don't doubt that it happened. Spyder was an idiot, but my views have matured quite a bit in the past 5 years. I doubt you could keep a coherent argument against it now...the arguments against homosexuality are mainly done by men and mainly revolve around the "ick" factor. Or if you quote the bible, its done selectively, because all the other idiotic stuff in Leviticus is ignored. Or if you think its "unnatural", animals have gay sex, you are really going to tell me that animals are unnnatural? Besides that, you don't give a **** about "naturality" because you watch tv, drive cars, have a computer, etc, etc. What it comes down to, is you think its gross. Which is fine. But don't do it then. Don't condemn others if they don't find it gross.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/maga..._What_fuels_the_hatred_of_homosexuality_.html

There you are. A decent article about it.

Once such thing is bestiality. If the person and other life form consent, what harm is done. Yet, something deep down tells me that we should not allow it.

Again, the ick factor. But the thing for bestiality is that we can never know if an animal consents or not.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Two things: I thought the term to describe someone who was attracted to the same sex, or in a relationship with the same sex, or having sex with someone with the same sex was homosexual or gay. I thought that was the scientific name for it.

And I dont get it, why would we call any black person a ******, or any gay person, a ***. If we did that, call me a ****, for being a jew, call a hispanic a *****, or an asian a juke.

I simply think you can be accurate, without being defamatory, and as far as those who oppose homosexuality, they should be tolerant of it, they have the right not accept it, just as muslim , or christians, have the right to think im going to hell, but once they threaten to harm someone, then thats different.

I use myself, because im a jew, and some think im going to hell, and while i disagree, they have a right to think it, but not harm me for it.

Gays, are the world's scapegoat, almost hated as much or more then jews in the middle east.

oh, and I truly believe everyone is 1% racist, 1% homophobic, 1% prejudice, maybe even some gays are 1% heterophobic for all i know. Its not how we feel that makes us bad, its our actions, do we challenge our feelings, and say, its right to hate that gay, or that jew, or that black, or do we say, no , its not right, he is my brother or sister, i am to love him or her, as a child of god, and out of common decency too.

Well congrats on being selectively decent.



You said that they should be aware of the consequences and implied that the consequences are ok...that it is THEM that should change, not the people perpetrating wrongs of them.



I honestly don't remember having this argument with you, but I don't doubt that it happened. Spyder was an idiot, but my views have matured quite a bit in the past 5 years. I doubt you could keep a coherent argument against it now...the arguments against homosexuality are mainly done by men and mainly revolve around the "ick" factor. Or if you quote the bible, its done selectively, because all the other idiotic stuff in Leviticus is ignored. Or if you think its "unnatural", animals have gay sex, you are really going to tell me that animals are unnnatural? Besides that, you don't give a **** about "naturality" because you watch tv, drive cars, have a computer, etc, etc. What it comes down to, is you think its gross. Which is fine. But don't do it then. Don't condemn others if they don't find it gross.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/maga..._What_fuels_the_hatred_of_homosexuality_.html

There you are. A decent article about it.



Again, the ick factor. But the thing for bestiality is that we can never know if an animal consents or not.

 

[Larkinn]

Two things: I thought the term to describe someone who was attracted to the same sex, or in a relationship with the same sex, or having sex with someone with the same sex was homosexual or gay. I thought that was the scientific name for it.

Homosexual is the scientific name for it...but gay is fine.

And I dont get it, why would we call any black person a ******, or any gay person, a ***. If we did that, call me a ****, for being a jew, call a hispanic a *****, or an asian a juke.

Because they want the world to know that they disapprove of gays, or blacks, or jews. As if the world really gives a **** that they disapprove or not.

 

[mattskramer]

Because they want the world to know that they disapprove of gays, or blacks, or jews. As if the world really gives a **** that they disapprove or not.

For me, it reveals that the name-callers have a lack of class. It diminishes them and their argument in my eyes (but I doubt that they care. Some people just like to see themselves post). Still, people can state their point without resorting to name-calling. It is like a last-ditch effort to make their point when reason and logic fail.

It reminds me of the “God Hates Fags” banners that people might see in some gatherings.

 

[Gunny]

Well congrats on being selectively decent.

I'm always decent.


You said that they should be aware of the consequences and implied that the consequences are ok...that it is THEM that should change, not the people perpetrating wrongs of them.

While you on the other hand are implying 90+% of the people should change to conform to the aberrant behavior of less than 10%.

I'm not implying consequence is okay. I'm stating that consequence comes with action; regarless the nature of the action and/or consequence. When a person acts, that person should consider the consequences of that action.

All to often now it seems the secular-progressive portion of our society is all about doing whatever they please while attempting to refuse the consequences of their actions. That's just bull.


I honestly don't remember having this argument with you, but I don't doubt that it happened. Spyder was an idiot, but my views have matured quite a bit in the past 5 years. I doubt you could keep a coherent argument against it now...the arguments against homosexuality are mainly done by men and mainly revolve around the "ick" factor. Or if you quote the bible, its done selectively, because all the other idiotic stuff in Leviticus is ignored. Or if you think its "unnatural", animals have gay sex, you are really going to tell me that animals are unnnatural? Besides that, you don't give a **** about "naturality" because you watch tv, drive cars, have a computer, etc, etc. What it comes down to, is you think its gross. Which is fine. But don't do it then. Don't condemn others if they don't find it gross.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/maga..._What_fuels_the_hatred_of_homosexuality_.html

There you are. A decent article about it.



Again, the ick factor. But the thing for bestiality is that we can never know if an animal consents or not.

Spyder is/was hardly an idiot. By the time you came to P&CA, he was a watered-down version because he had lost his heat, and he wasn't a real regular poster during the school year because he was teacher.

When I first got there was at the top of his game, and I STILL have seen few people that could match wits with him.

And yes, we've had this same argument, and more than once. Your relativist argument hasn't swayed me in the least any more than matts has. No matter how you choose to dress up the argument and use literalism, relativism and denying something is what it is, the fatal flaw is y'all are supporting something that is wrong.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm always decent.

When you call gays by the same slur thats used to humiliate them while they get pistol whipped to death, that is NOT acting decent.
[/quote]

While you on the other hand are implying 90+% of the people should change to conform to the aberrant behavior of less than 10%.

90+% of people are like you? No, sorry. I rarely come into contact with homophobes or people who disagree with homosexuals. And besides that I am not claiming you need to like them or agree with what they do. I think its stupid, but I have no problem with other peoples stupid actions. What I do have a problem with is you trying to impose those beliefs on gays, and making it crystal clear what your beliefs are by calling them offensive names.

I'm not implying consequence is okay. I'm stating that consequence comes with action; regarless the nature of the action and/or consequence. When a person acts, that person should consider the consequences of that action.

And you should consider the consequences of making your dislike of gays so crystal clear.

All to often now it seems the secular-progressive portion of our society is all about doing whatever they please while attempting to refuse the consequences of their actions. That's just bull.

I refuse those consequences because the consequences are unnecessary, immature, stupid, and harmful.

Spyder is/was hardly an idiot. By the time you came to P&CA, he was a watered-down version because he had lost his heat, and he wasn't a real regular poster during the school year because he was teacher.

Eh I've seen him post a lot since then. I never had a lot of respect for him, yes he has a lot of heat but it seems all emotional and rhetorical.

When I first got there was at the top of his game, and I STILL have seen few people that could match wits with him.

Yes, he is witty, but as far as intelligence and deep thinking goes, I never noticed much of either from him.

And yes, we've had this same argument, and more than once. Your relativist argument hasn't swayed me in the least any more than matts has. No matter how you choose to dress up the argument and use literalism, relativism and denying something is what it is, the fatal flaw is y'all are supporting something that is wrong.

[/quote]

My argument has nothing to do with relatavism. Merely because I have a different set of morals than you, based on something more concrete than a book written thousands of years ago, does not mean that I think morals are relatavistic. It is exactly why I don't think they are relatavistic which is why I think yours are so wrong.

As to your statement about my "fatal flaw", well the fatal flaw in your argument is that its circular. The only reason you can give why its wrong is because you think its wrong...which is a pretty crappy argument.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no statistical evidence the gay population is even 10 percent, try 3 to 5 percent. Gays would LIKE us to believe they are more numerous.

 

[Gunny]

When you call gays by the same slur thats used to humiliate them while they get pistol whipped to death, that is NOT acting decent.

Pistol whipping to death and the use of a word are not mutually inclusive simply because that word may have been invoked during an occurrence of the former.

90+% of people are like you? No, sorry. I rarely come into contact with homophobes or people who disagree with homosexuals. And besides that I am not claiming you need to like them or agree with what they do. I think its stupid, but I have no problem with other peoples stupid actions. What I do have a problem with is you trying to impose those beliefs on gays, and making it crystal clear what your beliefs are by calling them offensive names.

You assume MUCH. One does not have to be a homophobe to believe homosexuality is abnormal because quite simply, it is.

Nor am I trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. I don't even need to KNOW anyone's sexuality. The only time I do is when they are trying to stick their sexuality in my face.

Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality; yet, you want to tell me I cannot define them by the same thing. Quite the double-standard.

And you should consider the consequences of making your dislike of gays so crystal clear.

I accept the consequences for stating homosexuality is aberrant behavior. Got no problem with it at all. What consequences are those? That gays/gay enablers are going to harangue me with BS arguments?

I refuse those consequences because the consequences are unnecessary, immature, stupid, and harmful.

You can say you refuse them all you wish, but suffer them you will.

Eh I've seen him post a lot since then. I never had a lot of respect for him, yes he has a lot of heat but it seems all emotional and rhetorical.



Yes, he is witty, but as far as intelligence and deep thinking goes, I never noticed much of either from him.


[/quote]

My argument has nothing to do with relatavism. Merely because I have a different set of morals than you, based on something more concrete than a book written thousands of years ago, does not mean that I think morals are relatavistic. It is exactly why I don't think they are relatavistic which is why I think yours are so wrong.

As to your statement about my "fatal flaw", well the fatal flaw in your argument is that its circular. The only reason you can give why its wrong is because you think its wrong...which is a pretty crappy argument.[/QUOTE]

I guess you have missed the part where I do not use the Bible/Christianity as the basis of arguing that homosexuality is abnormal behavior. One needs look no further than science -- biology -- and the answer is pretty damn-clear to anyone who is not in denial.

The only reason you can give to support your argument is that you DON'T think it's wrong ... which, IMO, is a pretty crappy argument.

Which goes back to my statement that arguing about this for page after page is pointless. I only responded at all to address your ignorant assumptions and condemnation of my stance based on nothing real, but that which you have dreamed up.

 

[mattskramer]

You assume MUCH. One does not have to be a homophobe to believe homosexuality is abnormal because quite simply, it is.

I don’t stoop to use terms like “homophobe”. I would ask you what is wrong with being abnormal?

Nor am I trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. I don't even need to KNOW anyone's sexuality. The only time I do is when they are trying to stick their sexuality in my face.

Please clarify what you mean by “people sticking their sexuality in your face”. If a homosexual couple kisses each other lovingly on the sidewalk, do you need to know their sexuality? If a heterosexual couple kisses each other lovingly on the sidewalk, do you need to know their sexuality?

Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality; yet, you want to tell me I cannot define them by the same thing. Quite the double-standard.

I know that you are not typing to me but I like to reply. Heterosexuals define themselves by their sexuality. Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality. I use no double-standard.

I accept the consequences for stating homosexuality is aberrant behavior. Got no problem with it at all. What consequences are those? That gays/gay enablers are going to harangue me with BS arguments?

Likewise, I accept consequences for stating that it is okay to be gay. I have no problem with that at all. What consequences are those? That the anti-gay union people are going to harangue me with BS arguments?

I refuse those consequences because the consequences are unnecessary, immature, stupid, and harmful.

I have no problem with gay civil unions. I hope that they are given the freedom to have civil unions and face the consequences of their actions. After all, we allow people to engage in the dangerous and unhealthy habit of smoking. I don’t see gay relationships as being much worse. People draw the lines at different points.

My argument has nothing to do with relatavism. Merely because I have a different set of morals than you, based on something more concrete than a book written thousands of years ago, does not mean that I think morals are relatavistic. It is exactly why I don't think they are relatavistic which is why I think yours are so wrong.

Morals are practically always relativistic. There are few, if any, hard and fast absolutes. I could probably ask you for an absolute moral statement. Once I receive it, I could come up with a scenario in which even you would question the alleged categorical imperative.

As to your statement about my "fatal flaw", well the fatal flaw in your argument is that its circular. The only reason you can give why its wrong is because you think its wrong...which is a pretty crappy argument.

Ultimately, as I see it, that is the only reason. People have their likes and dislikes. They will take these values and then try to construct an ethical code that will provide consistency and security for them. (They will try to construct absolutes like Kant. They will try Libertarian (practically anything goes) philosophy. I can usually show people the crack in their structure and reveal to them that all that they really have left is their own subjective likes and dislikes.

One needs look no further than science -- biology -- and the answer is pretty damn-clear to anyone who is not in denial.

So, biology is the bases for your ethical system. Is it the same biology that gives cancer? The bridge of the nose was never intended as a place for reading glasses. The lungs were never intended to be used to inhale burnt leaves from cigarettes. What was the pinkie or appendix made for? Biology only shows what it – not what should be.

 

[Larkinn]

Pistol whipping to death and the use of a word are not mutually inclusive simply because that word may have been invoked during an occurrence of the former.

No, they aren't mutually inclusive, but that is the type of slurs that go along with attacks like that. Burning crosses on peoples lawns aren't mutually inclusive with lyncing black folk, but they go together nonetheless.

You assume MUCH. One does not have to be a homophobe to believe homosexuality is abnormal because quite simply, it is.

Is that your only claim, that homosexuality is abnormal? You seem to be claiming it is immoral, which is very different. Abnormality!= Immorality. Tons of things are abnormal. Genius, for example is very abnormal.

Nor am I trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. I don't even need to KNOW anyone's sexuality. The only time I do is when they are trying to stick their sexuality in my face.

Sure you are...you want them to know that you disapprove of them.

Homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality; yet, you want to tell me I cannot define them by the same thing. Quite the double-standard.

Bullshit generalization. Try getting to know some gays, most don't. You probably have met some people who are gay, but you didn't know it, because they don't define themselves that way. And really...gays, like most people, want to try and find a mate. Hence, they put out who signals of who they are attracted too.

I accept the consequences for stating homosexuality is aberrant behavior. Got no problem with it at all. What consequences are those? That gays/gay enablers are going to harangue me with BS arguments?

You have given no evidence that any of my arguments are BS.

You can say you refuse them all you wish, but suffer them you will.

And condemn you, and others, for those I will.

I guess you have missed the part where I do not use the Bible/Christianity as the basis of arguing that homosexuality is abnormal behavior. One needs look no further than science -- biology -- and the answer is pretty damn-clear to anyone who is not in denial.

Please, explain to me how biology shows that it is "abnormal". And please define abnormal for me...because if you just mean different, well your entire argument is shit. Merely because something is different does not mean it is bad.

And no, I didn't miss where you haven't used bible/christianity as the basis for your arguments for it. My point was, the best argument that exists is from the Bible...and even that is a pretty crappy argument.

The only reason you can give to support your argument is that you DON'T think it's wrong ... which, IMO, is a pretty crappy argument.

Not at all. Immorality is such that, unless you have a reason to think its wrong, there is no reason to think its wrong. You need reasons for thinking something is wrong, not reasons for thinking something is right.

By the way, I can also give the argument that it does not hurt anyone, which it doesn't. Please tell me why something that brings a lot of joy, love, and satisfaction to a great many people should be denied them because...well...just because.

Which goes back to my statement that arguing about this for page after page is pointless. I only responded at all to address your ignorant assumptions and condemnation of my stance based on nothing real, but that which you have dreamed up.

[/quote]

I was condemning your stance because I've heard this all before, and its bullshit.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here's the way I see it: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one and stop denying you fellow citizens their natural right to enter into a permanent agreement certified and enforced by the government.

 

[Larkinn]

Morals are practically always relativistic. There are few, if any, hard and fast absolutes. I could probably ask you for an absolute moral statement. Once I receive it, I could come up with a scenario in which even you would question the alleged categorical imperative.

Something that does no harm to anyone, is not wrong.

I am a Utilitarian in the Millsian sense...I think that what helps the most number of people is good, as long as it does not infringe on basic liberties. You will find that my morals fall in line very closely with that ideal even in moral situations where I disagree with almost everyone.

Ultimately, as I see it, that is the only reason. People have their likes and dislikes. They will take these values and then try to construct an ethical code that will provide consistency and security for them. (They will try to construct absolutes like Kant. They will try Libertarian (practically anything goes) philosophy. I can usually show people the crack in their structure and reveal to them that all that they really have left is their own subjective likes and dislikes.

I disagree. I think that morals should come from ones beliefs of what individual actions should be forbidden because they are hurtful to society or to individuals.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I think individuals have the right to believe homosexuality is right or wrong, and they are not intolerant, simply because you disagree with them.

Their is a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance, and with any issue, nobody should be forced to accept anything, period.

There is nothing wrong, with believing homosexuality is wrong, for whatever reason, people have a right to their opinion. If people want to think its a sin or immoral because of their religious believes, that is their right. and it very intolerant to tell people, you have no right to be against something, because we disagree with you.

On the other hand, people have a right to be for homosexuality for whatever reason they want. If they want to believe homosexuality is fine, for religious reasons, or they personally dont see anything wrong with it, that is their right, and Im tolerant either way. Ive had acquaintances who were gay, and friends who did not support gay marriage, and I think it is intolerant of me to tell them what to think or whats ok to believe or not believe.

If you are for homosexuality: cool, we can be friends
if youre against homosexaulity, cool we can be friends

but neither side of the issue, or any issue should tell me i am wrong, or have no right to my opinion, their opinion is no better then mine, and they have no right to call me intolerant because i dont agree with them, whethers its homosexuality, affirmative action, the war on iraq, (not being a patriot, if im against it, or a war monger if im for it), against illegal immigration, etc.

 

[Gunny]

Here's the way I see it: if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one and stop denying you fellow citizens their natural right to enter into a permanent agreement certified and enforced by the government.

I'm not denying anyone anything. Some people appear to be incapable of differentiating between a belief/opinion and expressing it on a message board, and political activism in the real world.

As previously stated, I don't need to know who is gay and who isn't, and what they do in the privacy of their own home is not my business. If the state passes a law legalizing civil unions, so be it. I have no problem with gays having every right under the law that everyone is entitled to.

Problem is, gays and anit-gays are so focussed on gay, they can't see the forest for the trees. Gays currently have every right under the Constitution as everyone else. Where PEOPLE -- gay or no -- are discrimianted against is by corporations and insurance companies seeking to maximize profit by dictating who one can and cannot declare "significant other" or "next of kin." All gays see is that it's discrimination against being gay, and anti-gays are so intent on not giving gays an inch neither side see that these corporations are discriminating against EVERYONE.

None of the above has a thing to do with my opinion, backed by evidence at every level, that homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

 

[Vintij]

Don’t criticize the mailman for giving you bad news. One’s being a hypocrite does not negate one’s advice. It merely means that he does not live up to his own advice. Dr. Laura had an affair. Does that automatically negate her advice on relationships? I think that you should drink 8 cups of water each day and eat 5-6 servings of fruits and vegetables each day. I do not do this. Does this make my advice wrong? No.

My point was, instead of hating homosexuals...christians should be thanking them for publishing your bible.

 

[Gunny]

My point was, instead of hating homosexuals...christians should be thanking them for publishing your bible.

That's pretty good.