Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[freeformschooler]

*cough*

Duke informs us that all practitioners of the religion are anti-gay.  As in, indeed, prejudiced.

See my above edit.

I do wonder about something though. Say somebody has a religion that holds values that contradict homosexuality, like heavy emphasis on families and Husband and Wife and all that stuff. Their doctrine of dealing with evils of the world is to love them as their own family to slowly improve it through association and example.
 Would such a person be homophobic? They are technically anti-gay, but what they would do is exactly the same as if they are pro-gay.

Unless I'm reading this wrong (and I must be for you are seeing something I am not) he has not stated anywhere the vague person in question is prejudiced, just that their religion holds values that are. However, it does state that the person specifically has a "doctrine of dealing with evils of the world is to love them as their own family to slowly improve it through association and example".

[Vector]

I believe that this is supposed to be an ideal adherent to the religion, not someone who follows part and forsakes the rest.

[freeformschooler]

Maybe so, but I'm pretty anal about stuff like that and at first glance since it was not outright stated that the person in question is anti-gay just as their religion encourages them to be, it looks like you're extrapolating.

[Vector]

*shrug*

Duke can explain it again if he wants to.  I'm sick and not up to arguing right now.

[freeformschooler]

Yeah, this is pretty silly, but I haven't had a single thing to be anal about in a week so you were my first VICTIIIIIIIIIIM. 

This does raise another interesting question, though. Let's take people like the younger crew of the Westboro Baptist Church -- they hold signs out about how god hates fags and stuff like that, but what if they don't really believe or understand that? What does that make them?

[Rose]

I'd just like to put it out there that I was raised in a religion that isn't against gays, specifically, but rather is against fornication in general.

As for my own views? not my business what other people are into, but I'm gay for Spock.

[Lysabild]

I'd just like to put it out there that I was raised in a religion that isn't against gays, specifically, but rather is against fornication in general.

As for my own views? not my business what other people are into, but I'm gay for Spock.

Well then, can gays marry in this religion? Otherwise it still leaves them with little choice.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm quite surprised if you can't figure out how what I said relates to what you said.

If you want to give people "choice", and are capable of giving your kid some sort of designer sexual orientation, making them strictly heterosexual or bisexual is an extremely silly thing to do, especially since binary sexual orientation is barely even naturally-occurring in the first place.

I gotta say, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to communicate here, probably why I couldn't figure out how it relates. The core seems to be that I have no idea what you mean when you say "binary sexual orientation", I think. Care to define?

You said:

The idea that binary sexual orientation gives anyone a realistic amount of "choice" makes me laugh

While I have no idea what you mean with binary here - The choice it gives is pretty much exactly limited to the one I brought up, and its pretty crappy! But it doesn't change the fact that heterosexuals have slightly more choice in total - they can have a baby as a couple naturally, use a third party, artificially inseminate, or adopt. Homosexuals cannot do one of those. It is a REAL choice that homosexuals don't have. I don't think its a particularly valuable choice, all told, but it exists. And bisexuals have what is essentially a doubled pool of potential sexual partners. That is definitely a lot more choice there.

do the ideas that we'd be better off with less diversity, or that sexual orientation, even if genetic, is controlled by some easily toggled mechanism.

Did I say any of this? Really? Because I agree with you those things are desireable, and that its unlikely to be easy or desirable.

I didn't agree with you. If anything a homosexual society would probably be a lot more peaceful and gender-equal, as well as maintaining its population at a more sustainable level. Maybe.

Whoosh. That's the sound of you completely missing the point. The things you said had nothing to do with the things I said. Period. There was no overlap. I say "Heterosexuals can have children that are genetically the offspring of both parents, homosexuals can't." You say "Homosexuals can do these others things". Yes. They can. And your point is? Heterosexuals can do those things to. If you want to counter my argument that heteros have a single choice more, you need to actually counter it, not ignore.

[Rose]

Okay, fornication isn't really the right word

what's forbidden is sex for reasons other then getting kids.

Also forbidden: Meat, Intoxicants of any kind, and gambling.

[Lysabild]

Okay, fornication isn't really the right word

what's forbidden is sex other then getting kids.

Also forbidden: Meat, Intoxicants of any kind, and gambling.

And suddenly I become joyful of the fact that I am "Protestant", no offense meant. ^^

[Duke 2.0]

 There probably wouldn't be fighting for gay rights unless some human rights were thrown into the mix. Marriage would be iffy as they hold the man woman relationship as sacred, but if if they are treated as lesser in any other aspect there would be major support of gaining their rights back.

 Major leaders proclaim that if the church is driving the family apart the family should stop going to it, so I'm assuming a gay child would be treated fine. There would be an attitude of "Poor child, not able to fulfill this ideal" and perhaps some subtle nudges towards trying to make them straight, but nothing as major as the horror stories we have all heard. They would be just as equal in all other respects to their siblings.

 The idea of living your neighbor is less of the preaching trying to save them by informing them deal so much as inviting them over to barbecues and giving them gifts on holidays and helping them deal with personal problems if they want us to help. It would be more trying to convert through example, that if somebody is exposed to a very positive atmosphere that they will do whatever is right. The basic idea is that it doesn't matter if this example was pro-gay or anti-gay: They would be treated as family.

 I suppose I would have to delve into the faith and it's ideals on duality, but let's see if we can avoid making this too complex before questions are asked.

[Leafsnail]

I didn't mean that in a bad way, some people are just assholes. It happens a lot more often to women with guys that won't leave them alone, and that pisses me off too.

The problem's probably in the phrasing then.  Something like "I don't have any problem with black people, but I hate it when they steal my stuff" is technically a completely fair comment but nevertheless very offensive due to the implication you're making.

Major leaders proclaim that if the church is driving the family apart the family should stop going to it, so I'm assuming a gay child would be treated fine. There would be an attitude of "Poor child, not able to fulfill this ideal" and perhaps some subtle nudges towards trying to make them straight, but nothing as major as the horror stories we have all heard. They would be just as equal in all other respects to their siblings.

I would question how possible this is.  It can be pretty bad to know you can never, ever live up to what your parents wanted you to be.

[freeformschooler]

Major leaders proclaim that if the church is driving the family apart the family should stop going to it, so I'm assuming a gay child would be treated fine. There would be an attitude of "Poor child, not able to fulfill this ideal" and perhaps some subtle nudges towards trying to make them straight, but nothing as major as the horror stories we have all heard. They would be just as equal in all other respects to their siblings.

I would question how possible this is.  It can be pretty bad to know you can never, ever live up to what your parents wanted you to be.

I would say "very possible" as I have a friend who lived in this situation for their entire life. At one point they actually tried to convince their parents they were straight but the reality was they weren't and that didn't work anyway.

[Leafsnail]

I meant as in "in that situation without it causing any kind of problems".

[Vector]

I meant as in "in that situation without it causing any kind of problems".

Yup.  There's a reason why my parents aren't informed about any of this, and a reason why I will probably never date a woman.  My mother believes that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to raise children, and should I end up wanting that, she will probably be very disappointed in me.

"Love them as your family, but for goodness' sake, don't let them marry because they might end up with kids."