A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.

Beitrag von Azazel

You cannot be born a rapist.

You can be born homosexual.

That's the difference.

But you can be born with a greater desire to rape.

You can be born with a greater desire for people of your own gender.

Beitrag von Skreeran

You cannot be born a rapist.

You can be born homosexual.

That's the difference.

But you can be born with a greater desire to rape.But that just brings us back to "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

I don't think someone with an urge to rape should be abhorred if they haven't yet committed any crime. Likewise, if you think homosexuality is equally evil as rape (as disgusting a thought as that is to me personally), then you should not encourage people to hate someone else (or themselves) just because they were born different.

Beitrag von Monday

I've never encouraged people to hate.

Beitrag von Skreeran

I've never encouraged people to hate.But what I'm arguing is that by saying "Homosexuality is an abomination," without giving any context, my mother is inadvertently encouraging it in her kids.

Beitrag von Lombax

I've never encouraged people to hate.

RB has.

Beitrag von Tartonga

Law is the basis of morality? Really? Think about how ridiculous that is. Any government can arbitrarily pass rediculous laws, and then those actions become magically immoral?
Laws are not static, they change from time to time. Let's take for example the weed. I don't know about your country, but in my country it's legal to have possession of it, when it was forbidden years ago. Nowadays people look at it like it's not wrong, and in fact it has therapeutic uses. However, there are people that still look at weed from a negative side, like it does more wrong than right, but these people are religious people that don't take in account other social factors and don't validate other points of view. Why? "Because the body is the temple of God". As medicine progresses weed is taking part of it and helps people out there, but they refuse to give up with their beliefs, even if they can't argument why.
Law is based on morality/ethics. If a group of people believe that people rights X, Y, and Z, then they try to get laws passed to protect X, Y, and Z. Why did the Americans rebel against Britain? Because they believed taxation without representation was wrong. There was no 'law' telling them that it was wrong; quite the opposite, laws were passed to uphold that ethical principle.
Law is based on morality/ethics? Really? Think about how ridiculous that is. Some people think homosexuals are morally wrong, using condoms is wrong, having sex before marriage is wrong, etc. Is all that stuff illegal?
Belief that sodomy is bad affects people who sodomize just as much as belief that rape is bad affects people who rape. Both beliefs have groups of people that are "affected" by that belief.
I disagree, because the quantity of people whose beliefs affect sodomy and raping is not the same, and therefore they can't be affected equaly. Who believes raping is bad? Everyone (except people without moral instructions, duh). Who believes sodomy is bad? The Church.
But you can be born with a greater desire to rape.
That's indeed a new genetic discovery I have never heard of.

Beitrag von Monday

That's indeed a new genetic discovery I have never heard of.

Less self control.

Beitrag von 292559

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von 324987

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Beitrag von Tartonga

That's indeed a new genetic discovery I have never heard of.

Less self control.

Still new. Where did you get that from?

Beitrag von Skreeran

Careful there. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to say Christians are trying to spread a narrow worldview.Christians? No, that's a very big pool, and there's really only one thing all Christians believe, and that's in the divinity of Christ. People who want to teach creationism in schools, and people who deny the theory of relativity, yes.

On a separate but related note, Skreeran, I just want to let you know that not all Christians are hate-filled bigots like Westboro Baptist (actually very few are bigots). At my church and probably others, we have a saying: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." I won't go any further into that so as not to stick out my neck too far, but I just wanted to show you a perspective you may not have come into contact with. That is all.I'm aware of this, and while I still disagree with their beliefs, I don't have a problem with them believing them. What makes me angry is when fanatics, zealots, and fundamentalists ram their beliefs (religious and political) down my throat and the throats of those too young to understand.

I remember one time when two of my younger siblings (real young, like 6 and 8) were laughing and giggling and making fun of how dumb Obama is. They have no idea what positions Obama has, or why he holds them; they're just regurgitating the things they're heard their parents talk about. I don't necessarily find that as bothersome as the "Homosexuality is an abomination" comment, but it's still somewhat upsetting to me.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Law is the basis of morality? Really? Think about how ridiculous that is. Any government can arbitrarily pass rediculous laws, and then those actions become magically immoral?
Laws are not static, they change from time to time. Let's take for example the weed. I don't know about your country, but in my country it's legal to have possession of it, when it was forbidden years ago. Nowadays people look at it like it's not wrong, and in fact it has therapeutic uses. However, there are people that still look at weed from a negative side, like it does more wrong than right, but these people are religious people that don't take in account other social factors and don't validate other points of view. Why? "Because the body is the temple of God". As medicine progresses weed is taking part of it and helps people out there, but they refuse to give up with their beliefs, even if they can't argument why.
You win the "argue for your opponent's position" award.
Yes, laws change based on who is in power, because everyone has their own set of morals that they base their lives on. The very fact that they can arbitrary change shows that morality cannot be based on them.

Law is based on morality/ethics? Really? Think about how ridiculous that is. Some people think homosexuals are morally wrong, using condoms is wrong, having sex before marriage is wrong, etc. Is all that stuff illegal?
Are you done making a fool of yourself? Taking my words and randomly putting other words into them without the least bit of thought makes your argument look extremely stupid?

If those people are in the law making position, and those indeed are their highest moral and ethical principles, then of course those are going to become the law? Contraceptives have been illegal in many, many countries over the years. Homosexuality is still illegal in many. Even sex before marriage is still illegal in places. Why? Moral principles? Why are they not illegal in other places? Moral principles.

I disagree, because the quantity of people whose beliefs affect sodomy and raping is not the same, and therefore they can't be affected equaly. Who believes raping is bad? Everyone (except people without moral instructions, duh). Who believes sodomy is bad? The Church.
So by your argument, rapists are "hurt" even more than gays are? Did you just attack your own argument... again?

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

You cannot be born a rapist.

You can be born homosexual.

That's the difference.

First, nice bs.

Second, how is that relevant?

Beitrag von Skreeran

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Nice bs?
Pulling two nature/nurture reductions out of your ass.

You're 50 years behind in your science if you think that things can be reduced like that.

And it's relevant because it's one thing to teach that an action that a person consciously chooses to commit selfishly and that does indescribable trauma to another person is an abomination. It's another thing to teach that a natural unconscious attraction to the same sex is equally abominable. You're comparing apples and oranges.
And I'm saying they're both equally viable produce choices. You're essentially arguing why you eat apples, which is irrelevant, because I could turn around and have someone argue why they eat oranges. Why you pick the produce you do doesn't have any effect on whether or not we have the freedom to eat (and feed out kids) what we think is best.

Beitrag von xaratherus

You cannot be born a rapist.

You can be born homosexual.

That's the difference.

First, nice bs.

Second, how is that relevant?Nice bs?

And it's relevant because it's one thing to teach that an action that a person consciously chooses to commit selfishly and that does indescribable trauma to another person is an abomination. It's another thing to teach that a natural unconscious attraction to the same sex is equally abominable. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Even if we hypothetically presume that homosexuality is a 'choice', or that a person can be homosexual and celibate without causing psychological harm to themselves, it's still apples and oranges. Rape is never consensual; that's its definition. It will cause harm, be it physical, mental, or emotional. The same cannot be shown to be true regarding homosexuality; claims that it's a 'sin' against the invisible sky daddy of the opponent's choosing are just that - claims, and threats - not harm.

Nice bs? Pulling two nature/nurture reductions out of your ass.

So then you're okay with us calling any argument you base on your faith as B.S., right? Since it's of the same quality.

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

Nice bs? Pulling two nature/nurture reductions out of your ass.

So then you're okay with us calling any argument you base on your faith as B.S., right? Since it's of the same quality.

If I ever use faith to back up a scientific claim, go right ahead. I never do that, though.

Beitrag von Skreeran

Pulling two nature/nurture reductions out of your ass.

You're 50 years behind in your science if you think that things can be reduced like that.Oh, right, I should have guess it was some kind of insult. /shrug

And I'm saying they're both equally viable produce choices. You're essentially arguing why you eat apples, which is irrelevant, because I could turn around and have someone argue why they eat oranges. Why you pick the produce you do doesn't have any effect on whether or not we have the freedom to eat (and feed out kids) what we think is best.To argue that inciting hate against homosexuals is equally valid as inciting hate against rapists is to say that the reasons for believing them to be wrong are equal. To which I disagree immensely.

It's not just a few people who hold a personal belief that rape is wrong. It's not just wrong because there is scripture saying it's wrong (which there isn't, afaik, but that's beside the point). There are many, many reasons to believe it is wrong.

For one thing:

It harms another person. Homosexuality does not, unless you want to say getting grossed out by sodomy is equally harmful as being raped.
It's a selfish act based on violence and domination on an unconsenting victim, rather than an expression of love.
A rapist becomes a rapist by choosing to rape someone. As far as I know, no one is born with an innate desire to rape.

Thus, it is one thing to say that rape, a vicious crime that causes immense suffering, is a thing to be hated, and it is quite another to say that homosexuality is wrong.

To counter your frankly unbelievably comparison of rape and homosexuality, let me make my own analogy. If I taught my children that menstruating was an abomination against God, would you think that is perfectly moraly acceptable?

Beitrag von Hyperspacerebel

To argue that inciting hate against homosexuals is equally valid as inciting hate against rapists is to say that the reasons for believing them to be wrong are equal. To which I disagree immensely.
No, it's to say that the reasons are irrelevant. It's, in fact, to say that they freedom to do them is equal.

It's not just a few people who hold a personal belief that rape is wrong. It's not just wrong because there is scripture saying it's wrong (which there isn't, afaik, but that's beside the point). There are many, many reasons to believe it is wrong.
There you go again, saying why you don't eat apples. That says nothing.

To counter your frankly unbelievably comparison of rape and homosexuality, let me make my own analogy. If I taught my children that menstruating was an abomination against God, would you think that is perfectly moraly acceptable?
I think it's morally wrong to lie or teach falsities to your children. But what I think is immoral is irrelevant. It's still their freedom and their right to teach their children according to their own beliefs.

Beitrag von Skreeran

To counter your frankly unbelievably comparison of rape and homosexuality, let me make my own analogy. If I taught my children that menstruating was an abomination against God, would you think that is perfectly moraly acceptable?
I think it's morally wrong to lie or teach falsities to your children. But what I think is immoral is irrelevant. It's still their freedom and their right to teach their children according to their own beliefs.Say I wasn't lying. Say I absolutely believed it with all my heart and I taught them the women are evil and that God hates them. From your standpoint, would you find that acceptable?

A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.

Antwort verfassen