To Roxorious: It's surprising every time you encounter someone with an actual education and knowledge of history on the internet. Nice to meet you.
On the note of sodomized young men in history generally not choosing to continue the lifestyle: Speaking to homosexuals, I've found that many of them have deep psychological problems. Problems with acceptance, father figures, love, intimacy, stability, the list goes on. Now I've met a lot of homosexuals, as my father is an antique dealer. I've met a lot of people in general, and many people have these problems. But there is a very high concentration of these problems in the homosexual community, and I'm afraid to say that a lot of vulnerable young men are drawn into it when these flaws and personal problems are exploited. Even today, it's difficult to view homosexuality as a positive thing.
Now before I get jumped on, you have to realize that I like a lot of homosexuals. The people I'm referring to are nice people, good friends. Some of them did better by my parents in needy times than some "Christian" friends, and by extension I owe them a lot. But homosexuality is still generally a blight on the people whose lives are consumed by it. It's a psychological disease. I accept the people, I love the people, but I don't have to love the disease. I refuse to. And any time I can help someone escape it if they are suffering from their involvement in it, I will. But as more than a disconnected observer and idealist, I can't and will not accept it as normal, healthy, or desirable in society.
I'd rather Dwarf Fortress didn't go there, nor involve other such things. It's fine as a somewhat ideal society, despite the potential for barbarity that is largely caused by 1) mortal enemies that wish your dwarves dead, 2) unpolished and buggy game mechanics, and 3) the necessity of facing things head-on that we normally ignore, such as raising animals for food.
If you want to talk about equal rights, that's fine. But you have to see everything for exactly what it is, not whatever each person may want to make it. For instance: Gay priests. You don't want an alcoholic priest? A compulsive thief? A compulsive liar? It is irresponsible to place someone in a position of mentorship and ministry/outreach if they have problems that directly conflict with those responsibilities. That said, I don't have a problem at all with a gay politician. If it's someone I trust to keep the people's best interests in view, and deal with social issues, then I'll vote for them. For another example: marriage has a specific definition, and it exists because it is the normal healthy condition for a pair of humans of the opposite sex: you mate for life. If you disagree, fine. But any other relationship falls outside of the definition of marriage, and thus the two are mutually exclusive. You can give full state rights to a pair of homosexual individuals, and I don't have any problem with it. But even if you call it marriage, that doesn't make it marriage. It will always be outside of the definition of what a marriage is.
I think if people can see things in this logical manner, the arguments become invalid. There's no argument about whether a gay priest is desirable. You don't place someone who is known to have deep personal problems that conflict with the morality of what you're asking them to do in that position. If you have a sexual temptation for women other than your wife, you don't take a position counseling women. If you have an alcohol problem, you don't become a bar tender. If you have any condition that interferes with your ability to perform your duty with conviction, you don't take on that responsibility.
There's no such thing as the argument for gay marriage, because no matter what you may do or say, marriage has a specific definition and no union of members of the same sex will ever be marriage. You can't ask for gay marriage, because gay marriage can't exist. It wouldn't be marriage, it is something else. And any arrangement which involves swearing marriage, union for the rest of your lives, and involves a policy for going back on that word, is not a marriage either. You've sworn yourself to one person for life, and no matter how many others you may enter the same arrangement with, you still have that fealty to your own word. You're always sworn to that first person, or marriage has no meaning.
All the wishful thinking in the world won't make reality change. That is the flaw of our generation. Face things head-on, take responsibility for reality. That's what life is, and I do my fair share of avoiding reality by killing time lurking around on this forum, playing video games, etc. But as long as I'm here I might as well lay things out for the rest of you killing time here.
Author
Topic: Do I have a gay dwarf? (honestly homosexual relationship in game) (Read 15314 times)