"However, if one happens to believe in the God of the Bible, then one DOES have a reason to try not to be attracted to members of the same sex."
And if one doesn't believe therein, why should secular law go and force them to do it anyway?
Once again, I find myself arguing for Omega, but...
It shouldn't. That's his point. Omega is actually saying that the government shouldn't regulate (or whatever) something like this. From a certain religious point of view, it's bad, but from a secular point of view, it shouldn't affect people in any way, and therefore secular law shouldn't force them.
I know it's hard, but Omega is making SOME sort of sense here. And given that the lad has had one of the most horrible, isolated, right-wing propoganda filled upbringings immaginable, we should be thankful that he's as good as he is (now).
quote:Originally posted by Omega: And a secular morality is the following: As long as something does not victimise someone else or kill them then it is acceptable.
Tell France that.
Or the US?
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I keep forgetting that oral sex is illegal in some US states. I really would like to hear the reasoning behind that.
The reasoning behind the laws was, I believe, to prevent gays from having sex. If you outlaw all forms of sex except those that require one person of each gender, then you've effectively outlawed homosexuality without actually outlawing it. It'd be like requiring a one-year waiting period before you can have an abortion.
So, essentially, this is secular law making a religious point. And, considering your arguments throughout the rest of this thread, do you think that this should be made legal (in secular law)?
And aside from that, it's bollocks. Oral sex isn't really a substitute for penetrative sex, not the way most people use it. It'd be like banning forplay.
If you wanted to stop gay people from having sex, then yeah, ban anal sex, but oral sex? Even lesbians are more likely to use dildos and stuff (which, I believe, wouldn't be illegal).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, sort of. I was just trying to argue against that point, and I didn't think it would be overly helpful if my argument went "but people do, y'know, stuff, and gay people do other stuff, and it's not just the oral stuff, and ewww and yuckie!"
Plus, I couldn't find a more clinical word for "dildo", which didn't help.
Doesn't change the fact that banning oral sex is a pretty rubbish way of stopping gay people from having intercourse.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Liam: I may have made a mistake there. Omega being partially out of character in this discussion, I have trouble remembering exactly what he's arguing for.
"...the basic belief of Christianity is that the will of God for human life was revealed perfectly in the life of Christ."
So, wouldn't that mean none of us should ever marry? Is that a holdover from St. Paul? 'Cause one has to bear in mind that he was under the distinct belief that the world was going to end within his own lifetime.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ...(Incest stuff). Doesn't that seem a little bit hypocritical to you? Its ok for other people to be repressed, but when its your sister....whoa....watch out![/QB]
Well, duh. Of course I'm going to go to bat for my sister over some nameless, completely hypothetical inbreeder. What I was trying to say was that while I have personal objections to incest (and it would seem some fairly valid scientific concerns about genetic variance), I don't feel the need for there to be a law against it. My personal objections mean that I won't be hollaring up my congressperson about this, but if it were on a ballot...
So, it seems I misunderstood/mischaracterized. Omega is NOT saying that he supports a constitutional amendment (or other legislation) outlawing gay marriage. He is simply stating his personal moral beliefs about homosexuality and marriage and has no aspirations to inflict those upon others in any governmentally codified way. Is this correct? Because if it is then I don't have a problem and I must appologize for my zeal in defending my sister's rights. Which is to say that I'm sorry for mischaracterizing and misunderstanding you, Omega. I disagree heartily with your personal beliefs, but as long as you don't think such legislation has a place in law, then we're OK. Which to me seems nearly as weird as Liam defending him.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't want to pop in and then disappear, but such is my schedule. Anyway what gets me is the notion that this is somehow important enough to require a Constitutional amendment. It's just so...out of the blue, and completely unlike anything else currently applicable in the Constitution.
What it is like is the 18th Amendment, which I put forward as a perfect example of what happens when the Constitution is mucked with in pursuit of ends that do not directly effect the foundational governing of the nation.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Well, if I'm following Omega's arguments, it'd be the same as someone born with a predisposition towards comitting crimes. It is something they are born with, but in the eyes of society/certain relgious groups, it's something that the person should try and change.
But people aren't "predisposed" to homosexuality like they are (or might be, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms best left closed) to criminal behavior. Either they're straight or they're not. If it was just a predisposition, don't you think it would be easier for many of them to change?
And before anyone brings up bisexuality, it's still impossible to scrap one of the two orientations and continue a straight person, so don't argue that point, eh?
...how DARE I believe in an objective moral framework, anyway?!
What? How is it objective OR moral to "ask" people to change something that's akin to their skin color?
There's not much interpretation to be done.
Funny, then, that there is already one Christian in this thread who disagrees with you.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Also, Liam: vaginal insertion object.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But people aren't "predisposed" to homosexuality like they are (or might be, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms best left closed) to criminal behavior. Either they're straight or they're not.
PROOF!
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:"...the basic belief of Christianity is that the will of God for human life was revealed perfectly in the life of Christ."
But whenever I hang out with my religous radical freinds, I get dirty looks....and we wont even bring up the treatment I get at church when I consort with hookers...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Careful. You're coming close to parroting the Catholic party line, set down by Paul, that Mary was a hooker and not Ieshua's (Jesus for the dogmatic) wife. That's what happens when you get a church founded by a jealous mysogynist.
Incidentally, U.S. states are loosening their consanguinity laws. Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14 (haven't conducted an exhaustive survey lately). Anti-consanguinity and incest are another thing largely carried forward unthinkingly -- at least in Caucasian circles -- by Catholics, due largely to fifteenth-century political expedience.
--Jonah (lest I be a hypocrite, Iona in Hebrew -- nice to share a name with a Scottish island )
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Now, the the homosexual people really wanted to raise a fuss they could let the adment get through, then arm themselves with machine guns and do the civil war thing....
Meaning that this is going to be as fun as the 'ban the gun' threads.....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Ieshua's (Jesus for the dogmatic)
Or the non-pedantic.
quote:Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14
See, now that's weird. I don't especially think that there should be a law over this, but neither can I see a huge number of people protesting if their was. I'm not completely sure what the law is in this country, but I suspect that the number of people who'd want to marry their cousins is less than the US. You freaks.
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: What it is like is the 18th Amendment, which I put forward as a perfect example of what happens when the Constitution is mucked with in pursuit of ends that do not directly effect the foundational governing of the nation.
What does that amendment say, anyway?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Charles Capps
We appreciate your concern. It is noted and stupid.
Member # 9
posted
The 18th was prohibition, and we all know how well that worked...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Incidentally, U.S. states are loosening their consanguinity laws. Eight years ago, when I was researching a sociology paper, it was illegal in 47 states out of the fifty to marry your first cousin. Now it's down to, like, 14 (haven't conducted an exhaustive survey lately).
Hmmm, so if you want a gay marriage go to Canada. If you want an incestual marriage go to the States.
And if you want a incestual gay marriage...go to Europe?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic