Quote from my book…“The only difference between animals and “humans” is our denial that we are animals”.
[quote]The3toedSloth wrote:
What if two Homophobics marry each other? 
[/quote]
Then they will undoubtedly have a gay child. Karma 4tw!
[quote]bdyer wrote:
Some animals eat their young, no one in their right mind thinks its okay to eat babies.[/quote]
Dude, I’ve been saying this for years. Baby, the other other white meat.
Oh shit. My bad.
I just farted.
Seriously though, who doesn’t love lesbian porn?
[quote]bdyer wrote:
Regardless of your opinions on this issue, using the examples of animals to justify any behavior is an argument that suffers from extreme intellectual poverty.[/quote]
That is odd because we are biological creatures just like those animals. With your logic, we should never even bother testing any medication, vaccine, or hormone on another animal because it means nothing in relation to us. Wait a second, that would wipe out the entire base of scientific biological testing! How is it we don’t get to relate to animals on this one issue…but can continue to use animals for every other scientific model? Intellectual poverty? Dear Gawd, the entire world is filled with dumbasses!!
Wait, I knew that already.
[quote]bdyer wrote:
Look at the strongest civilizations in history. The strongest civilizations, from the Roman Republic to Samurai Japan, have been the ones with some of the most unyielding codes of ethics and homogenous views. If “civilization works” to help us survive, we ought to cast our lots in with the civilization most likely to wind up on top.[/quote]
Probably one of the strongest and most progressive societies (technologically, economically etc.) in all of history was Nazi Germany. Draw your own conclusions.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
bdyer wrote:
Look at the strongest civilizations in history. The strongest civilizations, from the Roman Republic to Samurai Japan, have been the ones with some of the most unyielding codes of ethics and homogenous views. If “civilization works” to help us survive, we ought to cast our lots in with the civilization most likely to wind up on top.
Probably one of the strongest and most progressive societies (technologically, economically etc.) in all of history was Nazi Germany. Draw your own conclusions.[/quote]
And don’t forget the gifted Alexander.
Actually, most, if not all, of these behaviors are present in humans. It’s just that social norms condition us not to do them.
Many women suffer from post-partum depression to such an extent that they have no interest in caring for their newborns. Might not be the same as “eating” them, but I think it’s a similar biological urge.
Dude, ever seen two drunk guys in a bar fight over a chick? Usually it’s their friends that separate them or else they probably would kill each other. The fact that their friends know it’s wrong is what saves them; the underlying biological urge to conquer is there.
Why do you think little kids wear diapers? As they grow older they are taught to go potty in the toilet. Oh yeah, and read TC’s recent article about the Chinese crapfest.
Of course, this presents the question of whether being gay is one of these natural urges that society needs to “condition” people not to have, or whether that’s even possible.
[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
bdyer wrote:
Look at the strongest civilizations in history. The strongest civilizations, from the Roman Republic to Samurai Japan, have been the ones with some of the most unyielding codes of ethics and homogenous views. If “civilization works” to help us survive, we ought to cast our lots in with the civilization most likely to wind up on top.
Probably one of the strongest and most progressive societies (technologically, economically etc.) in all of history was Nazi Germany. Draw your own conclusions.[/quote]
And perhaps the strongest society of all, the U.S., is based on free market economics. Which leads to this queston: would a “free market” system of morality, where everyone is basically free to do as they wish as long as their actions do not harm others, be a better system than a society with very repressive rules?
Does any ever get the feeling that homophobes are just having a hard time accepting their own homosexuality? Because I get that feeling sometimes…
“God, I have loved a man. It felt right for me to do so. He has made me happier, as I have done for him. We have spent our lives together in a loving, honest relationship. Our existences have been made immeasurably better by each other. Please, Lord, is what we have done wrong?”
If God was not understanding of this, he would not be God. And in that case, who cares what he thinks?
[quote]bdyer wrote:
Look at the strongest civilizations in history. The strongest civilizations, from the Roman Republic to Samurai Japan, have been the ones with some of the most unyielding codes of ethics and homogenous views. [/quote]
and we know there werent any gay Romans or Samurai… rolls eyes
e
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Does any ever get the feeling that homophobes are just having a hard time accepting their own homosexuality? Because I get that feeling sometimes…[/quote]
LOL, for sure. They’re all like ‘it’s just a psychosocial urge, you can repress it, I swear’.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Many women suffer from post-partum depression to such an extent that they have no interest in caring for their newborns. Might not be the same as “eating” them, but I think it’s a similar biological urge.
[/quote]
Holy crap, would Tom Cruise ever have a field day with that one!
|/ 3Toes
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
And perhaps the strongest society of all, the U.S., is based on free market economics. Which leads to this queston: would a “free market” system of morality, where everyone is basically free to do as they wish as long as their actions do not harm others, be a better system than a society with very repressive rules?[/quote]
That depends on your goals. If you want to conquer the world, I think we know from experience that a military style society where everyone is forced to conform is the way to go. (Obviously conquering the world is kind of out of the question these days.)
If you want the majority of people in your society to be happy (excepting people who can’t mind their own fucking business) then I guess ‘free-market morality’ would be the way to go.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
-
Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
-
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
-
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
-
Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
-
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
-
Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
-
Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
-
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
-
Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
-
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
[/quote]
I don’t understand why I’ve seen this list 3 or more times in the past week. It’s not that amazing.
First of all 7 is classic straw man. The argument is that gay parents will be more likely to raise gay children, not that every single on of their children will be gay. Even if that WERE the argument, just because straight parents can raise gay children, this does not imply gay parents can raise straight children. If you’re going to argue by analogy, you need to be a little more careful.
Four is another poor argument, just because some changes have been good does not mean there is no reason be slow in changing the past. Last time I check marriage was pretty damned popular and considered a pretty important part of society, one should change it with care.
Two is probably the worst of the bunch. People’s behavior and desires change all the time, often due to interactions with other people, height very seldom changes at all once one is fully grown. Really sloppy.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
And perhaps the strongest society of all, the U.S., is based on free market economics. Which leads to this queston: would a “free market” system of morality, where everyone is basically free to do as they wish as long as their actions do not harm others, be a better system than a society with very repressive rules?[/quote]
Probably, but not for the reasons you listed. Your analogy doesn’t even make sense.
[quote]cap’nsalty wrote:
I don’t understand why I’ve seen this list 3 or more times in the past week. It’s not that amazing.
First of all 7 is classic straw man. The argument is that gay parents will be more likely to raise gay children, not that every single on of their children will be gay. Even if that WERE the argument, just because straight parents can raise gay children, this does not imply gay parents can raise straight children. If you’re going to argue by analogy, you need to be a little more careful.
Four is another poor argument, just because some changes have been good does not mean there is no reason be slow in changing the past. Last time I check marriage was pretty damned popular and considered a pretty important part of society, one should change it with care.
Two is probably the worst of the bunch. People’s behavior and desires change all the time, often due to interactions with other people, height very seldom changes at all once one is fully grown. Really sloppy.[/quote]
I got the impression it was a sarcastic, somewhat funny take on the arguments put forward against homosexuality. Try not to take it so seriously.
In regards to Saddam and Gamorah, and the ‘average’ (sorry, I hate that term in regards to humans) American Christian’s general view:
-
The bible has been written and REwritten by men, each time being modified (sometimes greatly, sometimes slightly) to fall more in line with the writer’s views.
-
The people of the cities were destroyed not because they were gay, but because they were thieving, promiscuous and excessively materialistic. I know that the popular interpretation is that the BIBLE says that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, when, in fact, it is MEN (and narrow-minded men at that) who say that homosexuality is wrong. As far as I know, homosexuality is actually only mentioned five or six times (I am at the library now so I don’t have my personal references) in bible, and not once is it actually denigrated. If I am wrong, please, feel free to give me the verse.
-
Homosexuality is seen in ALL animals, not just humans (no this is not some hippy opinion, this is documented, observed fact). Without getting into the ridiculous ‘humans are not animals, they are higher beings, not subject to the same rules’ debate, this suggests that homosexuality is not an unnatural state. Are you suggesting that God created humans with the intent of turning them away from heaven. Or, are you suggesting that it is just a test or trial that gays must pass in order to be worthy of heaven’s light?
-
What other societies that practiced and encouraged homosexuality has God destroyed? Why aren’t there more Central and South American, and SE Asian countries that are ‘burning’ also?
-
Finally, what other acts are so grevious as to deserve denial from heaven?
-
What about Jews and Muslims are they going to be admitted into heaven? I general, none of them have violated any of the commmandments…come to think of it, neither have gays, unless you know of one or two more then me.
[quote]beta wrote:
In regards to Saddam and Gamorah, and the ‘average’ (sorry, I hate that term in regards to humans) American Christian’s general view:
-
The bible has been written and REwritten by men, each time being modified (sometimes greatly, sometimes slightly) to fall more in line with the writer’s views.
-
The people of the cities were destroyed not because they were gay, but because they were thieving, promiscuous and excessively materialistic. I know that the popular interpretation is that the BIBLE says that the practice of homosexuality is wrong, when, in fact, it is MEN (and narrow-minded men at that) who say that homosexuality is wrong. As far as I know, homosexuality is actually only mentioned five or six times (I am at the library now so I don’t have my personal references) in bible, and not once is it actually denigrated. If I am wrong, please, feel free to give me the verse.
-
Homosexuality is seen in ALL animals, not just humans (no this is not some hippy opinion, this is documented, observed fact). Without getting into the ridiculous ‘humans are not animals, they are higher beings, not subject to the same rules’ debate, this suggests that homosexuality is not an unnatural state. Are you suggesting that God created humans with the intent of turning them away from heaven. Or, are you suggesting that it is just a test or trial that gays must pass in order to be worthy of heaven’s light?
-
What other societies that practiced and encouraged homosexuality has God destroyed? Why aren’t there more Central and South American, and SE Asian countries that are ‘burning’ also?
-
Finally, what other acts are so grevious as to deserve denial from heaven?
-
What about Jews and Muslims are they going to be admitted into heaven? I general, none of them have violated any of the commmandments…come to think of it, neither have gays, unless you know of one or two more then me.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]fatsensei wrote:
Ahhh liberals. This is probably a poor attitude but I really hope that on judgement day when you are trying to explain to God why being a homosexual is ok that I can be there. It’ll be a hoot.
FatSensei[/quote]
This is my favorite post. FatSensei Rulezzz!!!
Nothing like a forty-pound bag full of fear to live your life carrying, huh? How do you get through the day, man?