Religious Controversies: Homosexuality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?[/quote]

Jesus. Don’t compare biology to social convention, its stupid.[/quote]

If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Sky Wizard doesn’t exist. :)[/quote]

Then right and wrong as philosophical concepts don’t exist and you can’t argue absolute right or wrong to begin with.[/quote]

Wrong again, champ.

Just because your bible or Sky Wizard isn’t the big decider of right and wrong doesn’t mean they can’t exist.

But, hey, if Zeus doesn’t exist, then there can be no right or wrong… amirite?

42

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

And assault them. And use “faggot” and “gay” all the time as general negatives, causing them psychological damage. And treat them as second class citizens. And sit back quietly while others abuse them and say/do nothing, but get all riled up when the same thing happens to a straight person. [/quote]

If this is what you are going to resort to, you’re an idiot who doesn’t deserve my time.

And if I’m that, then you like to have oral sex with squirrels because you like the taste of nuts.

43

If the I Ching isn’t completely right, then there can be no right or wrong.

If the Qu’ran isn’t completely right, then there can be no right or wrong.

See how the whole “If there is no God/if the bible is wrong then there can be no right or wrong” argument is fucking stupid?

44

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ephesians 5:22-24,33 – Just as the church should submit to Christ, not rebelliously but respectfully, so the wife must abide by all her husband’s decisions. The only exception would be if the husband commanded her to do something that would violate God’s law (Acts 5:29).

Titus 2:5 – Young women should be taught to be obedient to their husbands. This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man (cf. 1 Peter 3:7; Matt. 20:25-28; Gal. 3:28). But someone must be in charge to make decisions in the home. God has determined that this responsibility belongs to the man.

(See also Gen. 3:16; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; 1 Cor. 11:3).

Yup, totally equal… except that the man gets to make the decisions and the woman must obey. Equality of the sexes my ass.
[/quote]

“This does not mean woman has less ability or less value than man.”

You are confusing value and place. Equal value is distinct from “gets to play the same role”. The bible absolutely teaches the equal value and respect of both sexes. Period. It does it over and over. Which is odd coming out of a patriarchal society.

Go also made it so a man can’t carry a child. However, one is needed to create a child, so the worth is equal.[/quote]

Someone must be the final decision maker in the home, right? Why should it always be the man?[/quote]

That isn’t what it says.

But why should a woman always get to carry the child. Is that unequal?[/quote]

Jesus. Don’t compare biology to social convention, its stupid.[/quote]

If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Sky Wizard doesn’t exist. :)[/quote]

Then right and wrong as philosophical concepts don’t exist and you can’t argue absolute right or wrong to begin with.[/quote]

Wrong again, champ.

Just because your bible or Sky Wizard isn’t the big decider of right and wrong doesn’t mean they can’t exist.

But, hey, if Zeus doesn’t exist, then there can be no right or wrong… amirite?[/quote]

Wrong. They are supernatural concepts. to believe they exist is to acknowledge to supernatural, christian god or no.

Once you acknowlege the supernatural mocking a belief in got is a work of hypocrisy.

45

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

And assault them. And use “faggot” and “gay” all the time as general negatives, causing them psychological damage. And treat them as second class citizens. And sit back quietly while others abuse them and say/do nothing, but get all riled up when the same thing happens to a straight person. [/quote]

If this is what you are going to resort to, you’re an idiot who doesn’t deserve my time.

And if I’m that, then you like to have oral sex with squirrels because you like the taste of nuts.[/quote]

Platonic “you”, sugar. The average straight American male does most of these things, yeah.

Don’t take it so personal.

46

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the I Ching isn’t completely right, then there can be no right or wrong.

If the Qu’ran isn’t completely right, then there can be no right or wrong.

See how the whole “If there is no God/if the bible is wrong then there can be no right or wrong” argument is fucking stupid?[/quote]

Good gosh this is the dumbest strawman ever. never mentioned the bible or Christianity or the christian god.

47

So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?

What about inherent natural rights?

48

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

And assault them. And use “faggot” and “gay” all the time as general negatives, causing them psychological damage. And treat them as second class citizens. And sit back quietly while others abuse them and say/do nothing, but get all riled up when the same thing happens to a straight person. [/quote]

If this is what you are going to resort to, you’re an idiot who doesn’t deserve my time.

And if I’m that, then you like to have oral sex with squirrels because you like the taste of nuts.[/quote]

Platonic “you”, sugar. The average straight American male does most of these things, yeah.

Don’t take it so personal.[/quote]

Maybe that’s some projection, because that isn’t the normal I know or see, sugar.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
If the I Ching isn’t completely right, then there can be no right or wrong.

If the Qu’ran isn’t completely right, then there can be no right or wrong.

See how the whole “If there is no God/if the bible is wrong then there can be no right or wrong” argument is fucking stupid?[/quote]

Good gosh this is the dumbest strawman ever. never mentioned the bible or Christianity or the christian god.[/quote]

Who did you think I meant when I said Sky Wizard, babe?

50

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

And assault them. And use “faggot” and “gay” all the time as general negatives, causing them psychological damage. And treat them as second class citizens. And sit back quietly while others abuse them and say/do nothing, but get all riled up when the same thing happens to a straight person. [/quote]

If this is what you are going to resort to, you’re an idiot who doesn’t deserve my time.

And if I’m that, then you like to have oral sex with squirrels because you like the taste of nuts.[/quote]

Platonic “you”, sugar. The average straight American male does most of these things, yeah.

Don’t take it so personal.[/quote]

Maybe that’s some projection, because that isn’t the normal I know or see, sugar.[/quote]

No? Try this – for two weeks, keep a journal of everytime you hear someone use the word “fag”, “faggot”, “gay”, insinuating that someone is gay as an insult, etc. Nothing specific, just a checkmark or something.

You’ll find it happens a whole lot.

51

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?

What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]

never said “entity”.

Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.

And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.

52

.

53

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?

What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]

never said “entity”.

Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.

And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]

Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.

54

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If god made it that way, its valid.

Besides, if you don’t know the difference between social convention and religious god ordained structure, you’re hopeless. We aren’t discussing social convention.[/quote]

Presupposition that the Christian God exists. That’s still in the air.

The problem isn’t that you hate/dislike/condemn gays, it’s that people like you actively deny them rights.[/quote]

And assault them. And use “faggot” and “gay” all the time as general negatives, causing them psychological damage. And treat them as second class citizens. And sit back quietly while others abuse them and say/do nothing, but get all riled up when the same thing happens to a straight person. [/quote]

If this is what you are going to resort to, you’re an idiot who doesn’t deserve my time.

And if I’m that, then you like to have oral sex with squirrels because you like the taste of nuts.[/quote]

Platonic “you”, sugar. The average straight American male does most of these things, yeah.

Don’t take it so personal.[/quote]

Maybe that’s some projection, because that isn’t the normal I know or see, sugar.[/quote]

No? Try this – for two weeks, keep a journal of everytime you hear someone use the word “fag”, “faggot”, “gay”, insinuating that someone is gay as an insult, etc. Nothing specific, just a checkmark or something.

You’ll find it happens a whole lot. [/quote]

There was a lot more in your post than the use of a word. And no it is not common around me. I’m at work, home, church, and the gym. I can’t remember the last time a heard words like fag Much much less all the other BS in your post.

55

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?

What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]

never said “entity”.

Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.

And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]

Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]

That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.

56

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No? Try this – for two weeks, keep a journal of everytime you hear someone use the word “fag”, “faggot”, “gay”, insinuating that someone is gay as an insult, etc. Nothing specific, just a checkmark or something.

You’ll find it happens a whole lot. [/quote]

Just because you and your friends (or circle of acquaintances) does this, does not mean that it translates into society as a whole. Unless you’ve got a scientific study backing up your allegations - they remain just that - allegations.

Just because you focus on gay’s all of the time does not mean that they even enter the thoughts, let alone conversations of the rest of us. I’d wager that days, weeks, even months go by for some people without a single thought about gays unless it’s something related on TV.

57

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

No? Try this – for two weeks, keep a journal of everytime you hear someone use the word “fag”, “faggot”, “gay”, insinuating that someone is gay as an insult, etc. Nothing specific, just a checkmark or something.

You’ll find it happens a whole lot. [/quote]

Just because you and your friends (or circle of acquaintances) does this, does not mean that it translates into society as a whole. Unless you’ve got a scientific study backing up your allegations - they remain just that - allegations.

Just because you focus on gay’s all of the time does not mean that they even enter the thoughts, let alone conversations of the rest of us. I’d wager that days, weeks, even months go by for some people without a single thought about gays unless it’s something related on TV.[/quote]

Try it and let me know how it goes. :slight_smile:

58

I’m suggesting observing something for yourself. You’re making baseless personal attacks. Grow up, Irish.

59

[quote]Otep wrote:
.[/quote]

Also Aids

60

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
So there must be a supernatural entity to decide what is right and wrong?

What about inherent natural rights? [/quote]

never said “entity”.

Without supernatural, value assessment is relative. meaning good and bad are opinion. Meaning you have no right to argue in absolute terms, because you don’t believe in them.

And yes the idea that a clump of molecules labeled human specifically is a state labeled life, are somehow different than than any other molecules is completely supernatural. The concept of natural right is a spiritual concept.[/quote]

Hm. Interesting angle. Go on.[/quote]

That was my point. define natural rights in objective, real, physical terms.[/quote]

If you’re looking at humans as molecules, or suggesting a special set of rights for humans over other sets of molecules.

I just think certain issues apply only to humans because of our cognitive abilities, and to “living” stuff because it moves around so much. Not many ethical quandaries for a plant to deal with.