Bigots

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Because you're saying that no opinion except yours is valid, and giving some evidence for why you believe your particular opinion, and then bashing anyone who doesn't agree with you as "stupid," "ignorant," or absolutely "idiotic and uniformed".

 

I smell smoke... Anyway, what they say is that discriminating against a person because of conditions that are outside his control is unfair and bigoted. And since homosexuality is not your choice, it is unfair and bigoted to discriminate against homosexuals. Not that it's bigoted to find the thought of homoerotic sex a turnoff.* So, as you see, there is a logical and consistent reasoning (well, most of the time) behind the opposition to homophobia.

 

* 'Cept Mort, and to that I can only say: NEWSFLASH: What you are turned off by is entirely out of your control; it's hardwired into your biology. That's the very same argument we use against homophobes, remember.

 

The Bible never endorsed the kind of slavery that was practiced in more modern history.

 

Why do you bring up the Bible now? Did I miss something when I skimmed over the flamewar part? And anyway, what the Bible says is largely irrelevant. Through the centuries in which Christianity's doctrine was shaped, most Christians couldn't even read the book!

 

Marriage has never, in any society, really been for the people involved.

 

[...]

 

Marriage is about providing a stable, (hopefully) balanced structure in which the upbringing of children can proceed apace and thereby ensure the continuation of that particular civilization.

 

But 'marriage' is a relatively new invention. Many civilisations have eclipsed the (so-called) Christian Civilisation without such an institution. In fact, the current, Western civilisation is an example of one such.

 

Now, a number of widely published studies (I'll go see if I can find some websites with those references sometime here in the next few days) have recently concluded that the family arrangement most stable and beneficial for children is that of the nuclear family: father, mother, children.

 

Again: That's relatively new. Y'see for most of mankind's history, the raising of children were not the prerogative of the parents, but rather the grandparents (and, more specifically, the grandmothers)

 

So, arguing that "it doesn't affect you, so shut up" doesn't hold water. Does gay sex directly impact me? No. Does it affect anyone except those people? No. But gay marriage can and will affect the structure of the society

 

You're saying that 8% of all marriages (even less than that, because you'd think that the percentage of unmarried gay couples would be less than the percentage of unmarried straight ones) will seriously effect the fabric of society? Get real!

 

Indeed, there's little need for marriage, really, if all sex is equal (as the Romans purportedly believed). All you really need is to keep getting women pregnant and have any kind of support system set up.

 

And, in the Roman system (that Christianity pretty much adopted, adding only the Fascist elements) that system of support happened to be the family. But it was not, and has not been for the greater part of Christianity's history, the nucleus family. As I stated before, that's a relatively new thing.

 

But I'm sure it's just coincidence that every society in history, regardless of whether or not the approved, condemned, accepted, etc. homosexual activity, had some variant of heterosexual marriage as the standard for the raising of children.

 

Those were unions between the involved clans, not the involved persons. And of course they had, because if they didn't, the clans would start killing each other over who's son knocked up who's daughter. And again marriage has never been for raising children. The clan elders took care of that.

 

Must be pure coincidence, because anything else would upset your safely liberal, "liberated" viewpoint.

 

And do quit the flaming, please. It upsets me to see an intelligent person resort to that.

 

One last thing to notice: regardless of my beliefs on what God says or doesn't say, I'm keeping that out of this, since the word "God" seems to be a fetish for mad rage around here...

 

Mad rage? Can you say Inquisition? Can you say Crusades? Can you say slavery? AIDS? Discrimination? Genocide? Torture? Fascism? Who's on a mad rage again?

 

Anecdotal evidence can be strong but is not enough to be truly convincing to the typically skeptic modern mind.

 

Anecdotal evidence doesn't count for squat.

 

The extended family concept is, in my opinion, quite good.

 

I don't. It leads to a situation where the clan elders have the final word in where you go, who you see, and what you do throughout your whole life. At least that seems to be the effect in the societies where it is practiced.

 

but I also feel that the importance of extended family doesn't necessarily negate the importance of the 1-father 1-mother relationship.

 

'Cept that it's nonexistent in most clan-based societies.

 

Finally, though, some real honest discussion. This I have missed.

 

Then you have been too long in the Swamp.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

 

Mad rage? Can you say Inquisition? Can you say Crusades? Can you say slavery? AIDS? Discrimination? Genocide? Torture? Fascism? Who's on a mad rage again?

 

[THE BADGER:]

Why is everyone using Rome for every argument. That empire clasped because of all the stuff they were doing. So I would not use the Roman Empire in any of my arguments.

 

I guess you can call me a bigot or ignorant Christian, or whatever. But I do not agree with or condone gay marriage, or the actual sexual act of homosexuality. But this is a free country that I live in, so no one should be allowed to tell anyone how to live their life as long as it's legal. Let them be married, thats between them and God. I have no say so in it. But don't tell me people don't like Gays because of Christianity. And Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it. Be it homosexuals, Christians, or atheist. So don't put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence when you refer to us as the "same religion". I'm really tired of you guys disrespected my God here. Come here with a legitimate post.

 

I think the mods should say something about it. Here is a snippet from a post from a mod(OnlyOneCanoli) in the Read tread:

 

If you flame for another person's beliefs, you will be lucky if you're warned before you're spanked. Just be civil and respect other people's opinions, and we'll be fine.

 

Just because a mod, or anyone doesn't believe in Christianity does not mean that anyone can say something against it. Please refrain from disrespecting my God. Thanks!

 

EDIT: Is anyone posting here actually gay or are we all strait men and women trying to convince the rest of the Star Wars community that we don't have a problem with it?

 

Sorry, mashed the edit button by mistake... nothing altered or changed.

[Kain]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

Why is everyone using Rome for every argument. That empire clasped because of all the stuff they were doing. So I would not use the Roman Empire in any of my arguments.

 

Actually, the Roman Empire fell because of what it wasn't doing. It was far too big to have everything under control and communications were far too slow to do anything. When the vikings came, they ripped through Rome like a fat kid through cake.

 

History lesson is over. I love History Channel

 

 

Expand your Imagi-Nation

[ET Warrior]

Furthermore, the attacks against christianity in general isn't flaming, which is by definition use of ad hominem remarks against a particular person/group. The attacks are typically not ad hominem, and are therefore allowed to exist.

[THE BADGER:]

They will endure the wrath of our bigot-god. It was always this way, it was written in stone. Blablabla.

 

^ Ad hominem, I think not. And stop calling people bigots just because we don't agree. Aren't you being a bigot as well?

 

Furthermore, the attacks against christianity in general isn't flaming, which is by definition use of ad hominem remarks against a particular person/group. The attacks are typically not ad hominem, and are therefore allowed to exist.

 

Typically not? So since not all of the remarks are not against my God the rest can slide?

 

Actually, the Roman Empire fell because of what it wasn't doing. It was far too big to have everything under control and communications were far too slow to do anything. When the vikings came, they ripped through Rome like a fat kid through cake.

 

Yes true, but that was not the only reason they fell. But I did forget about the vikings.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

And Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it.

false, they don't believe in killing unless it's in self-defense.

 

 

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

EDIT: Is anyone posting here actually gay or are we all strait men and women trying to convince the rest of the Star Wars community that we don't have a problem with it?

does it matter?

 

 

PS: I'm bi-sexual. So I guess that makes me half gay?

[Astrotoy7]

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

........ And Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it. Be it homosexuals, Christians, or atheist. So don't put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence when you refer to us as the "same religion". I'm really tired of you guys disrespected my God here. Come here with a legitimate post.

.....

 

As the resident Muslim at LF, I would like you to stop basing your knowledge of Islam on what you hear on the news, or what Saudi Arabian loons holding guns profess Islam is....

 

Go, read the Kuran. You'll see that the spirit and intention of both books is similar(well, mainly referring to the Old Testament)...

Historically you cannot easily extricate the 3 'persian' religions(Christianity, Islam and Judaism) as far as their base theologies are concerned....The lessons of Abraham, Moses, Solomon etc are just as dear to Muslims as they are to Jew or Christians.....

 

Unfortunately for the close-minded, Islam does NOT openly advocate murder.... I mentioned Moses above, The Ten Commandments are just as important to us as they are to you, or someone of the jewish faith...... The often misquoted phrases of the Kuran you refer to, describe the right of a Muslim to fight to defend his faith. This may seem very warlike or aggressive in 2003, but in 600s onwards, it wasnt an unknown thing for conquerors of lands to attempt to impose their beliefs on others....this statement in the Kuran addresses that very real fear that would have occupied the minds of all peoples living in such violent times.....

 

mtfbwya

[Druid Bremen]

Originally posted by Astrotoy7

As the resident Muslim at LF, I would like you to stop basing your knowledge of Islam on what you hear on the news, or what Saudi Arabian loons holding guns profess Islam is....

 

Very true Astro.

 

Darn it Badger, mind what you say. If you don't have any proof, and you simply look at the television, without having a glance at the Qu'ran, and not know anything worth a grain of salt about Islam, DON'T ACCUSE BLINDLY. If your way of debate was right, I could simply say some things about Christians which I've been harbouring in my mind for quite some time, even though I don't know anything about them.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by The Badger on 08-20-2004 10:14 PM

Islam tells it's followers to kill anyone who does not believe in it. [...] So don't put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence when you refer to us as the "same religion". [...] I think the mods should say something about it. [...] "If you flame for another person's beliefs, you will be lucky if you're warned before you're spanked. Just be civil and respect other people's opinions, and we'll be fine. "

 

About "flaming" the belief in Islam, which is "another person's belief" here, or being critical of religion in general? Or just your religion?

 

First, I'd be interested in knowing which part of the Islamic religious text you'll find encouragement for Muslims to kill non-believers. I've read most of the Koran, along with several other major religious texts, and I can tell you that the Xian bible has far more encouragement for this sort of thing than any of the others I've read.

 

Typically the only time xianity gets criticism in this forum is when some xian uses it as an excuse/reason/justification for poppycock or another, like the bigotry against homosexuals. In those instances, the criticism is often warranted and if you find it to be a "flame" on your beliefs, I would suggest avoiding the Senate Chambers, since this is where threads of that type would end up.

 

The bottom line: a "flame" of ones belief system is subjective and relative from point of view. But religion cannot be expected to be given as a logical argument for or against something discussed and not expect criticism, even harsh criticism against superstitious and magical thinking.

[toms]

Speaking for myself, the main reasons i "attack" christianity are:

(a) It is the religion i know most about, and am therefore best equipped to understand and see the pros and cons of.

(b) It is the main religion that has (or tries to have) an effect on the western world (where i happen to live).

© There are many more christians on these forums to debate with.

 

There would be little point in me discussing buddhism or islam in much detail as i know little of it, and i suspect there would be few people here who knew much about it either. That would be a fun discussion...

----------------------------------------------------------------

The "nuclear family" is a highly modern invention, and was never the standard before around victorian times. People always look back on the "good old days" before crime, aids, gays and all the modern causes of the end of society.... but most of these were just as bad back in the "good old days", or the "cures" were worse. Many others are infact recent inventions.

 

Marriage itself never used to be a "holy" institution, it was simply a formal contract for "legal" reasons. There are articles by jewish scholars explaining the original purpose behind marriage before it got hijacked by religion.

 

I actually think that the "extended family" is a fairly good way to raise children, although it can lead to too much control and suffocation.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever, this has no bearing on homosexual mariage. 80%* of homes aren't "ideal" nuclear family homes.

Or do you want to ban people from having children outside marriage?

Ban divorce?

Ban any other unusual family group?

Ban mothers from working?

 

If not, then why are you happy for these "unusual", non-optimal family groupings, but not happy for a homosexual family grouping. (Which would affect a far smaller percentage of the population.)

 

I can only think of one reason....

 

*figures come from out of tomS's head. Not always an entirely reliable source...

[THE BADGER:]

As the resident Muslim at LF, I would like you to stop basing your knowledge of Islam on what you hear on the news, or what Saudi Arabian loons holding guns profess Islam is....

 

I am terribly sorry if I offended you my friend. That was not my intent. I guess in defending my God I may have flamed yours, and I am truly sorry for that.

 

I guess I read that passage wrong then. But that was what I got out of it in la-mens terms.

 

Anyway back on the topic, I have no problem with gay people marrying. This is a free country, and they should have the same rights as me as a married man. What people do with there life is none of my, or anyone else for that matter, business. That is between them and God.

 

does it matter?

PS: I'm bi-sexual. So I guess that makes me half gay?

 

No I guess it doesn't, I was just curious is all.

And do you think of yourselves as gay? If not than I guess your not.

When I was younger I had a couple of trisks *GASP* with the same sex. Doesn't mean I am gay, I was just curious is all. Being gay is a lifestyle, not just having sex the the same sex.

[El Sitherino]

"So I guess that makes me half gay?"

that was more or less a joke question.

[Astrotoy7]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

"So I guess that makes me half gay?"

that was more or less a joke question.

 

I dunno sithy, having spoken to you a bit more about it I'm still thinking your *not* gay, not even half gay....you've got terrible dress sense for starters

 

well, Mr Badger, I accept your apologies. I know this is just a net forum, but would like to demonstrate that if people shot their mouths of like that at school/work etc, the world would be a very terrible place..... intolerance is ugly

 

mtfbwya

[Kain]

Look, if you damn someone for having a sexual preference of men, why not hate men who have a preference for red-heads, since the church used to claim that red-heads were children born of foul and Devil-influenced means. Oh thats right: its the 21st century. It's politically incorrect, especially since SCIENCE proved that red hair was genetic. Christ forbid that homosexuals escape this kind of hatred...lets stone them to death and burn em at the stake for 200 years until science makes us feel stupid! YAY!!

 

Yea, do I hafta post [/sarcasm]? I didn't think so.

 

 

Expand your Imagi-Nation