Post Reply
Page 22 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View North Carolina Pastor: Put Gays And Lesbians In Electrified Pen To Kill Them Off
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:12PM #211
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 25, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Do_unto_others wrote:


May 24, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Thank you. I would love move past broad discussion about homosexuality, and get back to the  topic. 



Good. It's well beyond time that you did. I had to plead long and hard enough to get you to come back to the topic.


May 24, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

That being, one particular representative of an obvious lunatic fringe viewpoint has apparently suggested that homosexuals be rounded up, and essentially be placed in concentration camps, so that they might be allowed to simply die off.



If it WERE just "one particular representative", I'd agree with you. It's myriad such representatives, enough so that I no longer believe that they're the "lunatic fringe". More and more, this seems to be a MAINSTREEAM "Christian" message. (Youv'e seen the long list of names of prominent such 'pastors' often enough that I should think even YOU would question that 'lunatic fringe' charge.)


May 24, 2012 -- 1:57PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not only is what he said mean and offensive, it's also completely out of touch with reality.


Also, while it should be met with condemation, his opinon really is not all that relevant, because it is so extreme. Again, I assert, most Christians -- even those opposed to gay rights/marriage -- would not agree with these rantings. 





It is prominent and frequent enough that I simply disagree that he is "not all that relebant". Extreme, yes. But very much a part of the mainstream message that is out there.




Homophobia and other forms of bigotry and hatred are still far too common. Part of the problem, is too many people or groups trying to frame things in zero-sum terms. 


That's where the principles of tolerance (which does not require acceptance) and universal love and respect (which do not require universal approval) come in. 


Relative to your specific points here -- "mainstream message" strikes me as far too broad a term. While many faucets of religion in general and Christianity in particular might not support gay marriage, or approve of homosexuality, there are a huge range of views on the subject, even within that general spectrum.


The particular message here, by our "pastor" in the video, is extreme by almost all standards. Not to mention, hateful and totally out of touch with reality. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:13PM #212
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,739

May 24, 2012 -- 5:47PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Either you are not reading carefully enough, or simply deliberately ignoring what I'm actually saying.





Now you know exactly what it feels like debating with you.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:18PM #213
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,739

May 24, 2012 -- 7:06PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I've explained, clearly, why it would be reasonable to conclude there is no objective equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality.


I've yet to see a single rational argument to the contrary. 


I've said nothing about equality between people, as individuals. I've known homosexuals who I considered to be better people than I. 


Furthermore, do you think that having a disorder or dysfunction makes a person less human, less worthy as a human being, or the legitimate target of scorn, revulsion or patronizing pity?


What is "having a wire crossed" if not a dysfunction or disorder? Is it shameful to have a disorder? 


I have a mentally ill son. Is that shameful? Should I be ashamed of him? 





Once again, an ENTIRE post without ONE relevant word or thought vis a vis WHY any of these differences ought to deny homosexual citizens equal access to society's institution of marriage.


Not. One.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:25PM #214
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 25, 2012 -- 2:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 25, 2012 -- 2:04PM, Ken wrote:

You have stated that you philosophically and morally disapprove of homosexuality. The disapproval you have expressed in this forum has been your own. If it isn't, whose is it? I am asking you the reason for it.




First, stop trying to assign motives to strangers on the internet. That's irrational.


I am simply repeating what you have said. I am trying to make sense of it.


May 25, 2012 -- 2:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Secondly, the reason has been given.


No, it has not. You have said that homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, is detached from procreation. I have asked you quite plainly why this makes homosexually inferior to heterosexuality or in any sense morally wrong. Can you answer that?


It might be helpful to paraphrase the question in the answer.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:29PM #215
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,783

There is not one reasonable, rational reason to interfere with same sex marriage.


It is exclusively a bigot problem. The ick factor.


And think how disgusting the person, must be to want to deny marriage rights while picture9ing that person having sex. And that is what those against SS marriage are doing. Or there would be no ick factor in the first place.


Nasty minded people. That should not ever have a say in other peoples personal lives.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:31PM #216
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,783

May 25, 2012 -- 2:25PM, Ken wrote:



May 25, 2012 -- 2:16PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Secondly, the reason has been given.


No, it has not. You have said that homosexuality, unlike heterosexuality, is detached from procreation. I have asked you quite plainly why this makes homosexually inferior to heterosexuality or in any sense morally wrong. Can you answer that?


It might be helpful to paraphrase the question in the answer.





No mouse you have not answered the question.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:36PM #217
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,739

May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

The reason we, as humans, have a sex drive to begin with (plus, the complimentary equipment) is procreation. 



Poppycock. I am human. I have a sex drive. And there is do such "drive" in ME to procreate. The exact same thing can be said of my (very) heterosexual youngest sister, my equall heterosexual nephew, and myriad others. Your statement may very well be true - for YOU - but it is by no means universal.


May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Homosexuality, running directly counter to that, demonstrates a clear and blatant disconnect from underlying reason. 



Since your original 'premise' is flawed, you conclusion is equally flawed.


May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Once again, these are prefectly clear, reasonable concepts.



They are nothing more, less or other than suppositions by you.


May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

There is no way around them



Only if you accept them as relevant, pertinent or even true to begin with. You seem to be the only one here who does.


May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

I'm perfectly willing to tolerate gays making the choice to be legally married by the state. 



Gee, earlier, you wanted us to consider 'options 2 through 4'.


May 25, 2012 -- 1:43PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Besides, it's not the sort of thing that ever should have been up for a popularity contest to begin with. 





And yet it has been - in 30 States. And you sure as Hades have spent enourmous resources to 'argue' to the contrary - here and elsewhere. It isn't "objective" after all.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:49PM #218
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,783

Since this topic is no longer about the bastard that wants to put gay people in concentration camps and leave them there to die. Sorry Do_unto.



For the perverts who only think in terms of eggs and sperm. I really feel sorry their their wives, they must be a meaningless brood mare, always pregnant.


Marriage is not just sex, marriage is companionship, support, love. Not just sex, not just children.


There are too many things to list of what marriage is. At least what it is today. It used to be nothing but a legal contract between a husband and his father-in-law. The female being sold (be her father) and then purchased (by her husband). And that is not that long ago, maybe a little over 100 years.


Many hetero couples marry knowing they will NEVER have children, but will be having sexual relations. Should we deny them a marriage license?


Because if that is it, then no one who will not have children should be permitted to marry.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:58PM #219
Do_unto_others
Posts: 8,739

May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Isn't the answer obvious?



No. It isn't. If it were, we wouldn't be debating.


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


It would be like, for example, saying that trying to "eat" by shoving food up one's nose, or simply smearing it on the skin, is objectively equal to putting food in one's mouth, chewing and swallowing. 



Ah, now THERE'S a rational, cogent 'argument' against same-gender marriage if ever tehre were one.


Not.


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Cleary, a predisposition that takes desires or actions completely out of the context of the underlying reason for them will be objectively inferior to the desires or actions that keep it within said context. 



No one here seem s to agree that this context" and "underlying reason" for sex (despite the fact that the topic is - now - marriage) even exists, let alone is "inferior" "objectively" or "subjectively". It seems it is only such in your mind. Evidently it is not universal.


May 25, 2012 -- 2:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


The fact that you even had to ask that question speaks volumes about the essentially irrational contemporary approach to this issue. 





When YOU make a rational argument, you'll get some in response.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 25, 2012 - 2:58PM #220
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,783

You know, for the person who thinks marriage is (sperm & eggs), they really do want to condemn people to lonely miserable lives if people do not CONFORM to their particular ideology.


It would mean no one could have any sex, since I am sure this same type(generic) frowns on pre marital sex. And since they don't want childless couples having sex. This type (generic) wants people alone in a dark room to die.


That is pretty much the mindset of that sort of person (generic)


 It is a very selfish attitude. That kind of person really misses out on the beauty of life, maybe that is why they want to ruin it for everyone else.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 22 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook