With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In every extant controversy, you'll find intelligent, decent people. In every extant controversy, you'll also find people you find absolutely loathsome. They're vicious, their arguments are riddled with fallacies they seem blind to, they give those who disagree with them the detriment of the doubt (if they don't think that those who don't share their views are out-and-out Always Stupid Or Malicious with no defense accepted), and/or they take a cause you sympathize with to an irrational extreme. Association fallacies ensue, and you find yourself having to prove your character.

This is not a thread for saying "So-and-So is not extreme enough", "What on earth gave you the notion that that side had any merit?", or "No human being is capable of holding the opinion you just expressed, you liar" (Yes, I've heard people say or imply these on a variety of issues). If you agree with someone on an issue and that someone and/or some tendency on your side fits the vicious/illogical/malice-assuming/extreme bill you may second them as long as it isn't simply "me too".

***

I am somewhat right-wing in most matters. However, I cannot abide Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, full stop. Furthermore, when I was a teenager I had all the tact of a rhinoceros; my greatest regrets are tied to some of the vicious things I said.

And though I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms), there are more damaging sins, especially smug self-righteousness; we all have our faults, and merely being tempted is no sin. Certainly pulling a heel-face door slam on anyone who wishes to change their ways is wrong, and Jesus Himself pleaded with His Father to forgive His persecutors, like Stephen did later. Furthermore, if even sexual predators, self-righteous types, and murderous zealots can repent...

Eudyptula albosignata

Korora wrote:

In every extant controversy, you'll find intelligent, decent people. In every extant controversy, you'll also find people you find absolutely loathsome. They're vicious, their arguments are riddled with fallacies they seem blind to, they give those who disagree with them the detriment of the doubt (if they don't think that those who don't share their views are out-and-out Always Stupid Or Malicious with no defense accepted), and/or they take a cause you sympathize with to an irrational extreme. Association fallacies ensue, and you find yourself having to prove your character.

This is not a thread for saying "So-and-So is not extreme enough", "What on earth gave you the notion that that side had any merit?", or "No human being is capable of holding the opinion you just expressed, you liar" (Yes, I've heard people say or imply these on a variety of issues). If you agree with someone on an issue and that someone and/or some tendency on your side fits the vicious/illogical/malice-assuming/extreme bill you may second them as long as it isn't simply "me too".

***

I am somewhat right-wing in most matters. However, I cannot abide Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, full stop. Furthermore, when I was a teenager I had all the tact of a rhinoceros; my greatest regrets are tied to some of the vicious things I said.

And though I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms), there are more damaging sins, especially smug self-righteousness; we all have our faults, and merely being tempted is no sin. Certainly pulling a heel-face door slam on anyone who wishes to change their ways is wrong, and Jesus Himself pleaded with His Father to forgive His persecutors, like Stephen did later. Furthermore, if even sexual predators, self-righteous types, and murderous zealots can repent...

Eudyptula albosignata

I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say, but...

Korora wrote:

their arguments are riddled with fallacies they seem blind to

Korora wrote:

I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms)

Got that for you.

Quote :

And though I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms)

Hohohoho

Please explain this.

It will be far more amusing then whatever you were mumbling about in your original post.

Korora wrote:

And though I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms),

Did you happen to notice which forum you're on?

Quote :

And though I believe it is bad to have sex with someone of the same gender (and hold "same-sex marriage" to be an intrinsic contradiction in terms)

Sex between two consenting adults who happen to be the same gender is "bad". Guess what, two homosexuals are having "bad" sex as I type this! Do something about it!!!!

When you're finished putting a stop to "bad" sex, feel free to enlighten the rest of us shameless heathens. Is "bad" sex "got a D in geometry" bad or "Manson Family murder spree" bad?

I was trying for a thread like TVTropes' Don't Shoot the Message. I guess that's not going to fly here (is this a fall-in-ideological-line-or-explain-yourself sort of board?)

What we have here, I think is a matter of irreconcilable starting points. I'm coming from the belief that there is more to us than the physical, and that male and female are how something deeper meets the physical. And yes, I do believe in God. And I have never been good at explaining myself, either.

Eudyptula albosignata

Yeah, if you espouse a view that directly infringes upon the inalienable rights of other people, you're darned right people are going to demand that you explain your position. People here tend to frown upon ignorance and intolerance, particularly when the victims of such bile have done nothing to harm anyone else.

Korora wrote:

I was trying for a thread like TVTropes' Don't Shoot the Message. I guess that's not going to fly here (is this a fall-in-ideological-line-or-explain-yourself sort of board?)

Fall in line. Explain yourself until you've got carpal tunnel, and nobody will care. Because with a belief like that, here's how it will play out:

1.) You will keep restating your opinion in different ways.
2.) People will line up to tear your reasoning apart. Some will show up just to post the popcorn smiley or throw a few insults.
3.) 1 and 2 will continue in a cycle for a certain amount of time. Then people get bored.
4.) Now comes the end game, where everyone lines up to berate and insult you until you abandon the thread.
5.) Aftershocks in other, unrelated threads when people drag this thread up to insult your opinion on something else.

Aggie wrote:

Yeah, if you espouse a view that directly infringes upon the inalienable rights of other people, you're darned right people are going to demand that you explain your position. People here tend to frown upon ignorance and intolerance, particularly when the victims of such bile have done nothing to harm anyone else.

Thaaaat's a bit of a noble exaggeration for this place.

But if you equate disapproval with hate, hypocrisy is inevitable. I have always understood hating a person to mean "consciously choosing to wish ill on them." I do not.

And I have no intention of being vitriolic. If you believe smoking causes cancer, does that mean you want smokers to get it?

Eudyptula albosignata

Korora wrote:

I'm coming from the belief that there is more to us than the physical, and that male and female are how something deeper meets the physical.

You can bet your bottom-dollar that 'male' and 'female' can meet physically, and hopefully, in those blessed unions, something deeper will be involved. However, I'm assuming you're talking about stuff beyond sex here, yeah? Would you care to, like, expand on that? 'Cause I'm kinda blanking on how them deeper spiritual connections are limited to couples of a male/female persuasion. Is your point that love is inherently gendered?

Korora wrote:

And yes, I do believe in God. And I have never been good at explaining myself, either.

Seems like you'n your God got something in common.

Fabricati Diem, Punc

Penguin's right. Give up while you're ahead.

And to further this thread along its itinerary:

Quote :

If you believe smoking causes cancer, does that mean you want smokers to get it?

Equation fallacy. Smoking causing cancer is not a belief, it is a fact. Gay sex being dirtybadwrong is not fact, it is a belief, and one primarily espoused in the Bible chapter that also advocates killing people who eat non-kosher food or wear clothes made from different fabrics. As such, it should belong into the same pile of outdated beliefs as those two things (let's face it, Leviticus was an asshole). If you wear something made out of two different fibers right now, work on Sundays or have ever eaten a not-all-beef-from-the-front-of-the-cow hotdog, but consider homosexual relationships to be wrong based on the very same chapter in your holy book, you are picking and choosing to be closed-minded, and deserve to be torn down in this here forum.

It has to do with how male and female complement each other. And no, before anyone asks, I'm not advocating for one sex to completely dominate the other.

And it has apparently escaped people that the harsh punishements and dietary laws were superseded in Acts.

*sigh*

Yes, I'm seriously considering giving up this whole thread; it's been derailed from its original purpose with no hope of restoration, and we're going nowhere. Agree to disagree?

Eudypyula albosignata

Korora wrote:

It has to do with how male and female complement each other.

Yes, but how do they do that? Why is the specific constellation of male/female so spiritual and holy that it can't be achieved through male/male or female/female? Why is the love a man holds for his mother, his sister and his girlfriend so much more sacred than the love he holds for father, his brother and his bromantic partner?

Arctocephalus forsteri

Korora what on earth gave you the notion that that side had any merit?

So my proposal to agree to disagree and end the thread is rejected?

Eudyptula albosignata

Korora wrote:

So my proposal to agree to disagree and end the thread is rejected?

Yes. You have the right to start a discussion, not to unilaterally end it.

Do you have any reason* whatsoever, other than that God Told You So, that non-heteronormative folk and their non-heteronormative relations are ickyucky?



*The definition of "reason" (verb form) being: to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises
And the definition of "fact" being: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true

Quote :

Yes, but how do they do that?

Sex joins souls together in a way that friendship does not.

And I have read the writings of ex-homosexuals (that is people who used to live that lifestyle but are not anymore).

And it's not so much ickyucky as, well, all sins overwrite the rest of our character at some rate or other; eventually you get just the sin (be it based in pride, wrath, sloth, acedia, lust, gluttony, or greed) itself going. (C. S. Lewis explained it better than I)
Oh, and don't get me wrong; it is noone on this planet's place to say if someone has passed the point of no return.

By the way, even though I disagree with the gay rights movement, I do support their right to free speech.

Eudyptula albosignata

You didn't follow any of the requirements I was asking you to follow when replying to me. Please try again, and this time show your work.

And as I said, I did have the testimony of ex-homosexuals.

Eudyptula albosignata

And how were these people "cured"?

You might also be interested in the Choicer Challenge.

Last I'd heard, all organizations I'd heard of operated on a strictly voluntary basis.

Oh, and if we were helpless puppets of our DNA, doomed to embrace our dispositions or create repressions, there'd be no hope for people with violent dispositions.

Eudyptula albosignata

And I have multiple sources that ex-gay therapies don't do jack and shit.
Note especially the point in the last link where the APA advises against "anti-gay therapy" (and these are the fine folks who, back in the sixties, considered homosexuality a mental disorder, themselves). Ex-gay therapy has been proven to lead to self-harm and suicide, and the "treated" individuals are not taught not to be gay, they usually just turn out celibate just so they aren't behaving dirtybadwrong anymore in the eyes of those they care about who are homophobes. Entering the programs may be voluntarily, but can you really call it voluntary if there is a lot of pressure from the individual's fundamentalist family and the alternative is exclusion?

Also, last I checked, there were points in the new testament where lines like "love thy neighbor" and "judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" showed up. People who would restrict others' rights based on their beliefs are doing a pretty good job of cocking up the J-man's message there.

That does not mean we must wink at sin. It is often not be our place to confront someone with how they're living (I meant this thread as a place for people on all sides of various controversies to call their own side on excesses) and I strongly disapprove of disownments, and I eschew as an equal and opposite error to approving of a given sin the idea that the people who live in it are somehow abominations to be loathed/shunned. But "The one of you who is without sin, let him throw the first stone" is the same scene as "Go and leave your life of sin".

What is needed is humility and an awareness of one's own sins.

Eudyptula albosignata

Korora wrote:

That does not mean we must wink at sin. It is often not be our place to confront someone (it has never been my place to do so), and I strongly disapprove of disownments, and I eschew as an equal and opposite error to approving of a given sin the idea that the people who live in it are somehow abominations to be loathed/shunned. But "The one of you who is without sin, let him throw the first stone" is the same scene as "Go and leave your life of sin".

What is needed is humility and an awareness of one's own sins.

Eudyptula albosignata

You realize that "sin" has no place in serious logical, ethical, and psychological discussions, right? We can't take you seriously unless you start giving us something to work with that holds more scholarly water than talk of the likes of Annunaki and evo-psych.

Yeah, I'm out of this. Quite honestly, Korora is refusing to take this out of a spiritual context, when, in fact, this spiritual context is invading the way the government (which, according to the constitution, is intended to be secular - ever heard of separation of church and state?) works.

If you want to discuss scripture, do so on a board dedicated to it. If, however, we are discussing the ins and outs of homosexuality within an everyday, real-life context, you gotta do better than regurgitating your doctrines, especially since not all of us are members of your particular sect of Christianity, or even Christian at all. I, for one, am a secular humanist, and to me, the biggest "sin" is doing bad unto others. Telling gays they should get pseudo-corrective therapy which only serves to make them loathe themselves, and prohibiting them to prove their love to each other or to visit their partner in hospitals or make decisions for them if they are too sick to do so themselves - THAT is a sin in my eyes.