Let's just say I have other premises than you. The logical conclusion its different therefore.
The End of Firefox
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Let's just say I have other premises than you. The logical conclusion its different therefore.
no, i dont mean longer history higher value at all. how do you know that movements for gay rights and womens rights did not start at the same time, when gay men were burned alongside witches? or both at some time before then? how can you determine that one rights movement began before another? all we can determine is that one rights movement was more successful in more of its legal aims before another.
no, lets not just say that, because that is not debate, it is an unfair way of dismissing arguments without making concessions. what are your premises, and what is the logical conclusion?
perhaps, as a heterosexual person capable of experiencing romantic love, you have a special ability to look into the minds of homosexual people experiencing romantic love, and to measure their subjective experience of romantic love against your own, and to discover that it is somehow lesser than your own?
or maybe homosexual men and women really are something less than human? subhuman? simply not capable of experiencing the complete range of human emotions? and if so, how can we objectively determine that they are subhuman?
I preffer not to tell.
Not really. I have a touch of common sense tough.
No, of course not. They are perfectly human.
But there are some psychological barriers. Its like you would ask a romantic relationship between a mother and a son, or a father and a daughter. Are they human? Of course they are. Aren't they capable of experience the full range of humans emotions? Of course they are.
Lark, you're a bigot. I'm not going to argue with you because you have made a conscious decision to believe stupid shit, like homosexuals don't deserve the same financial and legal privileges as heterosexuals.
Nothing I say will convince you that you are wrong, so I am instead going to point out how much of an idiot you are to emphasize to everyone else how not to conduct their business.
Furthermore, your belief is held by a minority, and time will only diminish its popularity. It is going the same way as opposition to miscegenation.
Also, your posts are bad. Stop posting.
if you prefer not to tell, like its too personal, all i can conclude from that is that your arguments cant stand scrutiny.
the idea of common sense is so ill defined that it is meaningless. anyone could say "it is just common sense" about anything that they wanted to prove at all regardless of the rationality or truth value of it and it would be no more or less useful as a validating argument. its probably just the sum tota of your personal prejudices. in any case it means nothing.
soo, romantic love between two men is necessarily fraught with abusive and unequal power exchanges in a way that is comparable to incest? im getting a great picture here of the many interesting ideas you have about relationships between same sex couples as being like you know, morally wrong, or unnatural, or unholy, or something like that. sounds kind of scary, menacing, threatening somehow.
why is it so difficult to believe that two men or two women could really and truly love each other? what could possibly be stopping them from that? and whose business is it to tell them what they can and cant feel? who would dare to tyrannise over the subjective experiences of others in such a way as that?
marriage is an institution based on romantic love and mutual consent. if you think men cant experience romantic love for other men, or women cant experience it for other women, then im sorry, but you are nurturing a personal prejudice. their different genitalia, which is the only recognisably consistent difference between their relationships and those of straight couples, present no meaningful boundary to their feeling and expression of love and decision to commit their lives to each other. you have no business to judge the validity of what two mutually consenting adults feel for each other, whether they are two men or two women, because emotions are subjective, and they can only be evaluated by the person experiencing them.
if you choose to exclude people from this institution although they qualify for it in terms of their ability to feel love and consent with one another, and in the context of their personal agency as contributing members of society, then you are saying that the value of romantic love and consent is not important to define marriage. what you are saying instead, is that marriage is an institution that is defined by a hollow image of a man and a woman together. this is what that kind of marriage looks like:
it may be very pretty, but it is only an image, and unfortunately, giving preference to the image causes the inner substance of love and consent to lose meaning and value - essentially, to decompose. it causes marriage to rot from the inside out. if you promote this perspective of the institution of marriage, then it is YOU who are causing it to become meaningless, and to die as an institution, you who is killing it, not the people who are asking the validity of their subjective experience to be recognised by society.
if you choose to exclude people from this institution although they qualify for it in terms of their ability to feel love and consent with one another, and in the context of their personal agency as contributing members of society, then you are saying that the value of romantic love and consent is not important to define marriage. what you are saying instead, is that marriage is an institution that is defined by a hollow image of a man and a woman together. this is what that kind of marriage looks like:
it may be very pretty, but it is only an image, and unfortunately, giving preference to the image causes the inner substance of love and consent to lose meaning and value - essentially, to decompose. it causes marriage to rot from the inside out. if you promote this perspective of the institution of marriage, then it is YOU who are causing it to become meaningless, and to die as an institution, you who is killing it, not the people who are asking the validity of their subjective experience to be recognised by society.
My personal prejudices? From where do you know are prejudices?
Also, I think what you'e arguing is infavor of your common sense, which supposedly is free of prejudices.
But why yo jumped at the assumption that incest must be abusive? What if it isn't? There are many cases like that, when a boy (grow up), falls passionately in love with his mother, and she has the same passionate love for his son.
I don't care what "picture you get" from my posts. It would be helpful to get the right one. Yes, I think homosexuality is moraly wrong, and its a perversion of the natural way in which we are made by God. Yes, it does sound scary, because it is scary.
As for homosexuals, I have nothing with them. I don't hate them or something. I have 3 gay friends. With one of them I meet almost daily, we talk, laugh, and we are good friends. I grew up near him. Actually I gre up in a place full of gays. I don't hate them at all.
I think you are wrong. I think that those who think like you are wrong. I think that thought is a moral perversion. I do not invoke a supernatural attending agency in order to assert moral authority as it is impertinent to back up what may be my flawed human understanding by equating it to a transcendent omniscient power.
The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website,
please tell me then. what is common sense, and how did i make arguments from it?
i am sure that in every case incest is not abusive. but i think that incest in general is problematised by abuse. unfortunately i think it is pretty fair to say that abuse is so common in cases of incest, that it is a defining feature of incest. abuse interferes in peoples abilities to give consent about things relating to their abuser, because their agency is interfered in by the abuser, made a slave to the will of the abuser through such things as threats and brainwashing. for this reason, because abuse is such a common feature of incestuous relationships, i think that it is very unlikely that the state will ever allow incestuous relationships to be included in definitions of marriage, because too many incestuous relationships are abusive for this to be responsible, and the state could never assume that kind of responsibility.
incest is not comparable to homosexuality in any meaningful way. abuse is not a defining feature of homosexual relationships as distinct from heterosexual relationships. the only meaningful distinction that it is possible to make between homosexual and heterosexual relationships is based on differences of genitalia.
why you think the church should have a say in institutions that are legally sanctioned by the state is the guess of anyone. you think your own religious beliefs should be made to apply to everyone? you want to force everyone in society to live by your own religious beliefs? maybe you would like to force other people with other religions to convert to your own religion and the things it says that people should do?
the only thing that is natural is what happens in nature. human beings are parts of nature. if they do something, it is natural. natural does not necessarily mean good. unnatural things are like penicillin, man made inventions. being unnatural does not necessarily make things bad.
i feel sorry for those people who you claim are your friends, if you have attempted to give them any reason to believe that you are a friend to them. after all, you dont even believe that they are capable of complex emotions like romantic love. you must treat them like little children, or animals. i hope they somehow learn what you really think of them.
18.The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I think the Bible is the word of God. It is truth. Bible says homosexuality is "unnatural". Not only is unnatural, but its a sexual perversion, that is full of desire, lust, envy and selfishness.
Its the same thing if I as a straight man would lust for women's body, so powerful and demonic until in my thought I want desperately to "own" or "have" that woman. Conform to God, lust is selfish, hateful, and evil.
You don't even know what you are talking about, and I say this to you with all honesty. You don't know the lives of those people that I grew up with, and neither you don't know my life. So please, let's not get any further with this!
You are a very loving person to be able to be friends with those whom you believe are eternally damned. Hats off to you sir, hats off!
The petition, hosted on the Credoaction website,