Log in to check your private messages
Homosexuality
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:42 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 991
Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker

Nice job LIFEIS. I know that my replies can be brash at times, but I don't really feel the need to defend why my lifestyle isn't the same as a scumbag rapist.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:56 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6830
Location: Sailing into the unknown

After watching the video that I posted, I'm up in the air on this issue at the moment. Once I look into it deeper, I'll post my updated stance.

Can I just say that I find it a little distressing how if someone brings up a topic like "Is homosexuality is immoral?" he/she is jumped on and told "You can't talk like that?" Can't? This is a discussion, it's nothing personal. I don't like being told I can't discuss something. I like to question things that are regularly accepted or taken for granted. That's just what I do. Without my faith in God, I am nothing, but I don't object to questioning things about religion (Does God exist? Is He good? Was Jesus God? etc.) because I also have faith in reason.

The video I posted is the most intelligent take on the subject I've ever heard. This isn't directed at anyone here, but I've heard so many dumb arguments on both sides. Christians who shut their brain off and spew Churchianity and pro-choice people who spew mantras like "equality now" like the sheep in Animal Farm. Nine times out of ten neither side steps outside of their entrenched ideology and actually thinks about what their mantras mean and if they're true. Again, I'm not directing this at anyone here.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 11:06 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Salaris Vorn wrote:
Well incest obviously has proven genetic reasons why it is a bad thing.


I thought we redefined marriage as being between two loving and consenting adults?

DannikJerriko wrote:
I have an two uncles who have been together for more than ten years.


I am sure there are more then a few exceptions to the rule, but by and large homosexual monogamy is a small percentage.

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
Homosexuality leads to increases in abortion. Who knew that unwanted pregnancy was a common problem arising from two men having sex with each other?


I specifically said that if people lived faithfully in traditional marriage, it would decrease abortion, among other problems. This was in part to acknowledge failures on the heterosexual side, like no-fault divorce laws. Do you disagree?

Life is the Path wrote:
Vorn, I've checked out his sources and they're mainly opinion pieces, so I personally don't think they're particularly useful as objective, scientific sources.


Some of my sources are not studies, that is why I labeled that section as "some articles and figures." Many of my sources do however mention studies and their results. I also included liberal leaning publications such as NYTimes, as well as conservative leaning publications like Townhall. I also included an exhaustive paper on the question of what marriage is. It is is written by Sherif Girgis, PhD Candidate at Princeton, Robert P. George, professor at Princeton, and Ryan Anderson, Ph. D candidate at Notre Dame. It is a fantastic paper to read and it gets to the heart of the question in this debate. What is marriage?

Quote:
A rapist can be as gentle as he or she likes, but that doesn't equate to consent.


No, thats not what I said. I pointed out that the very fact of being a pedophile is cause for being portrayed as an evil pervert with deviant sexual desires, regardless of whether or not someone actually rapes a child.

So my question was an effort to understand this double standard. If pedophiles are born with those feelings, why are they evil? Is it their fault who their attracted to? I think its wrong, but I do not understand why you, outside of rape, would think so.

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
Rules For Meditation Grove wrote:
any discrimination or hostility based on political alignment, religion, gender, race, or sexual orientation is unacceptable.

These statements seem to violate that rule as far as I am concerned.
Autobon Hate Speech Example wrote:
Society receives no benefit by changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, in fact it is harmed.


Seeing as how this thread is a discussion about homosexuality, to you as an advocate, is there anything against it I can say that would not break the rules? You seem to find the very fact I am against homosexuality to be just cause to get me banned or stop me from posting.

It is important we focus on the actual arguments instead of making personal attacks. You labeled me as a bigoted propagandist who spews hate speech in one paragraph, and turn around and quote the rules of the forum to me in another.

That said, lets just move on and focus on the arguments we are making, it would be unfortunate for this thread to be closed, for both sides.

-----


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 12:34 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2216
Location: New York, USA

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
Rules For Meditation Grove wrote:
any discrimination or hostility based on political alignment, religion, gender, race, or sexual orientation is unacceptable.


These statements seem to violate that rule as far as I am concerned.


Personally I agree that the anti-gay position is discrimination.

However, that is one of the most basic aspects of this debate. I don't see any particular way that the anti-gay members can be involved in discussion without posting opinions or data that won't be interpreted as discriminatory. If I enforce the above rule as applying to all discrimination and not just posts directed at fellow forum members I don't see any particular purpose for this thread as it would only be one where the pro-gay members can post.

Thus far Autobon hasn't targeted any member specifically (which would cross the line as no longer acceptable) and Life seems to have done a top notch job at countering the arguments. So my ruling is that for the time being I'll let this go.

As a general note to all: this is the first real test of the "cite sources" rule. Now I know there will be some teething issues as we find out what works and what doesn't. So no one is expected to be perfect or have this work flawlessly the first few times. But you guys have to demonstrate that the concept behind the rules can work and help remedy the reasons we're considering closing the Med Grove. There is no reason for the mods/admins to enforce new rules if they can't solve the problems they were created to remedy.

Give feedback (in the thread created about closing the Med Grove), tell us what shortcomings there are in the rules or issues the new rules create that requires qualifications to be added or any other issues that you see arise. Most of all though be aware that the mod/admin staff is watching for how this plays out in threads such as this one.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:06 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DannikJerriko
EUC Staff
EUC Staff

Joined: 09 Nov 2011
Posts: 1204
Location: Nirn

I think I'm probably gonna bow out soon, as I'm tired of arguing (in general, not just here with you guys). Life seems to have this on our side, and he's got sources and stuff. Sorry for the laziness.
_________________
There's always a bigger fish - Qui Gon Jinn.

You shall learn that history is an intricate weaving of many events. No one thing can be understood without the proper context.

The best techniques are passed on by the survivors.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 2:33 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

I'm greatly amused by the hopelessly naive views I've been reading here, along the lines that if society rejected acceptance of homosexuality, and returned to 'pretty much everyone gets married by which we mean one man to one woman, for life', then were would be some golden age where crime, disease, abortion, poverty etc would fall.

Clearly anyone who believes this has never really studied their history. Just look back 150 years or so to Victorian times. Homosexuality was illegal and not tolerated. Men and women living together without marriage was generally unacceptable. Sex before marriage was generally at least disencouraged, and often completely unacceptable. Attendance at church was much higher than it is today. This is the kind of society some people claim will improve current issues like crime, welfare, disease etc.

So was Victorian society free of crime, abortion, abuse etc ? Of course not. Venereal disease was common in Victorian times, and not just among prostitutes/lowlifes. Mrs Beeton - author of the famous cookbook - almost certainly died of syphillis passed to her by her husband, for example. There was just as much crime as there is today - from pickpockets to murder. Abortions were illegal and risky: some women died from backstreet operations or illegal medicines, newborns were abandoned or else families struggled to raise children they couldn't afford to feed or clothe.
Illegitimacy was far more of a stigma than now. A woman's life could be ruined by one foolish mistake, or by coercion/rape, therefore some women would chose a risky abortion, rather than trying to carry the child. If the child was born, it might end up in an orphanage. Single mothers were often ostracised and had to turn to prostitution in order to feed themselves and their children.

The same is just as true of the 1920's, the Eighteenth century and pretty much any other times. The simple fact of having the majority of people entering heterosexual marriages does not magically cure issues of disease, poverty, welfare, crime etc. Just thnk, homosexuality was illegal in most (if not all) countries at the time of the two World Wars. Didn't stop the wars happening though, did it ?


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:26 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Corellias Dream wrote:
I'm greatly amused by the hopelessly naive views I've been reading here, along the lines that if society rejected acceptance of homosexuality ... then were would be some golden age where crime, disease, abortion, poverty etc would fall... So was Victorian society free of crime, abortion, abuse etc ?


No one on this board ever gave that argument. The argument that was given stated that if people lived faithfully in traditional marriage, it would decrease abortion, poverty, among other problems. Here is an article that uses statistics given by government agencies to prove this point (specifically poverty). There are hundreds, if not thousands of studies proving this same point. Same goes for abortion, abuse, etc.

So with all due respect, before calling others "naive," its best to first clearly understand the argument they actually made, and then do some proper research on the subject before making a judgement call.

DannikJerriko wrote:
Life seems to have this on our side, and he's got sources and stuff. Sorry for the laziness.


Since your about the third person to have sided with Life over sources, I think its best to address this. I also want to make it clear that I do not mean to single out Life, I do not mean this as a personal attack in anyway. I respect him for taking the time to find sources of his own.

That said, Life admits to not having checked all my sources, yet he makes a claim that they are neither scientific, nor objective. He provides no reason as to why this might be, just that it is his "personal" belief or that they are not supported by the "scientific community at large." Whatever that means. This is apparently enough to win over most people favoring gay marriage.

But lets actually look at some of his links. Life lists "cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com" as one of his sources. A blog. Sure, he can make the argument that it contains links to sources that may or may not be accurate, but it is still a blog article. At the very least, my link to a column in a newspaper should not have been criticized. Fair enough?

EDIT: placed the word "the" in a sentence
---------------------------


Last edited by Autobon on Mon May 14, 2012 10:32 pm; edited 1 time in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:37 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  DannikJerriko
EUC Staff
EUC Staff

Joined: 09 Nov 2011
Posts: 1204
Location: Nirn

Sorry, I was just making an offhand remark, I haven't read any of your sources (sorry if that's rude). I'm not making any judgement on which sources are better, I'm just saying I ain't got none. Autobon, I'm not saying your sources are a better or worse than Life's, I'm just saying he's got some and I don't.
_________________
There's always a bigger fish - Qui Gon Jinn.

You shall learn that history is an intricate weaving of many events. No one thing can be understood without the proper context.

The best techniques are passed on by the survivors.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:13 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

Autobon: I understood your argument perfectly clearly. I didn't think you were claiming that faithful traditional marriage would do away with crime etc altogether. Did you miss that part of my argument you yourself quoted: 'then there would be some golden age where crime, disease, abortion, poverty etc would fall...' Note, I said 'fall', not 'end'.

The article you link to states its bias in favour of marriage in its very title 'Marriage: America's greatest weapon again child poverty'. Its use of statistics is very selective and the data interpreted to support the writer's theory. He talks a lot about poverty, in fact, makes a good living out of talking about poverty, but I see little compassion in his opinions.

I'm personally in favour of children being raised within a steady family situation but I believe that two loving people of the same gender can provide that too. If homosexuals are allowed to live freely, and form stable relationships that are treated no differently to heterosexual relationships, then surely that's good for the stability of society ? Homosexuals aren't out to stop heterosexuals from marrying and raising children within marriages. I fail to see anything that convinces me that the acceptance of homosexuality in society is causing an increase in the divorce rate among heterosexuals and an increase in child poverty.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:42 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

Also, protesting that you said traditional marriage would decrease, rather than end problems like crime etc, does not answer the argument I put i.e. that even in times when there was a majority of traditional marriage/church attendence/homophobia, crime, disease and poverty etc were still problems in society, just as they are today.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 6:04 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Dog-Poop_Walker
Master
Master

Joined: 28 Jan 2012
Posts: 991
Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker

Autobon wrote:
It is important we focus on the actual arguments instead of making personal attacks.


It's important to you, not important to me. To be more precise, it's important that you be able to attack an entire group of people, but not be on the receiving end of a person attack against yourself.

Could it be that members here are perceiving this group as some abstract entity that doesn't actually encompass the thoughts and feelings of the real members of this board?

Quote:
you labeled me as a bigoted propagandist who spews hate speech in one paragraph, and turn around and quote the rules of the forum to me in another.


Posting bigoted hateful propaganda is supposed to be against the rules. So is making a personal attack. Isn't it telling which one goes by the wayside? Apparently it's OK to be a bigot and express such views, but it's not Ok to say that one is doing so.

Apparently, admittedly, discriminatory views are Ok so long as they form the fundamental part of a thread, but that double standard doesn't seem to apply to all other reprehensible thoughts and acts that could just as qualitatively be deemed necessary for an opposing view.

For example, we seemed to do just fine in the thread on School Shootings and Terrorism without having a 'fair representation' of debate to argue that school shootings and terrorism were bad and then a counterpoint to argue that they are good. The idea being that to express that would violate the civility of the board, which is raised above promoting debate. But not so here.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:21 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Corellias Dream wrote:
The article you link to states its bias in favour of marriage in its very title 'Marriage: America's greatest weapon again child poverty'. Its use of statistics is very selective and the data interpreted to support the writer's theory.


If the statistics show that marriage decreases poverty in a substantial way, then it would not be a bias title. The research article does indeed seem to show that this is the case, using incredibly reputable sources. So I am not sure why this bothers you.

Now, similarly, I would appreciate if the statistics would show a larger span of years, for greater accuracy. However, even at two years, the numbers are pretty telling. The stats also manage to stay incredibly consistent even when including different education levels, racial differences, and ages.

Now if you have sources to counter this research, or an argument to why its wrong, I am open to hearing it.

Quote:
He talks a lot about poverty, in fact, makes a good living out of talking about poverty, but I see little compassion in his opinions.


The author did not intend to make an emotional appeal with his research article. His article was not rude, nor was it emotional, it was matter-of-fact. What relevance does compassion have in a research paper and how do you even know what the author feels emotionally?

Quote:
answer the argument I put i.e. that even in times when there was a majority of traditional marriage/church attendence/homophobia, crime, disease and poverty etc were still problems in society, just as they are today.


Yes, humans have never agreed on a single belief or way of life. There has always been immoral people, disease, poverty, etc. In that sense, it would not matter if church attendance or marriage was at eighty percent or three percent, evil would still exist. I completely agree with you.

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:
It's important to you, not important to me. To be more precise, it's important that you be able to attack an entire group of people, but not be on the receiving end of a person attack against yourself. Posting bigoted hateful propaganda is supposed to be against the rules. So is making a personal attack.


So for example, if the homosexual population has a higher percentage of AIDS, and I point that out, that would be considered a personal attack?

If say things like that and you think I am factually wrong, then please point that out and provide reputable sources. Then we can have a discussion. If I am wrong, I will apologize.

Quote:
we seemed to do just fine in the thread on School Shootings and Terrorism without having a 'fair representation' of debate to argue that school shootings and terrorism were bad and then a counterpoint to argue that they are good.


I have never advocated shooting homosexuals, or violence against them in any form. To compare my views to that of a psychopathic killer is unfair, and a reflection of your own tolerance level. I simply disagree that heterosexual and homosexual marriages are equal, and that mothers or fathers are interchangeable in a family.

I don't hate you in any way Dog_Poop_Walker. I am glad we both share a love for Star Wars and most likely many other things. We just disagree on this subject and I had hoped we could have a civil debate.


-


Last edited by Autobon on Wed May 16, 2012 12:24 am; edited 4 times in total


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:43 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Corellias Dream
Knight
Knight

Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 105
Location: UK

Two quotes from Autobon

Quote:
Society receives no benefit by changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships, in fact it is harmed. Study after study shows that the best outcome for both children and society depends on a stable marriage between a man and a woman, and heterosexuality and homosexuality should never be legally equated.

What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in traditional marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems liberals claim to want to fix, including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion. Instead they promote deviant lifestyles that have proven to be highly detrimental to personal health, raise illegitimacy and out of wedlock births, increase poverty and government dependence, among many other negative effects on society.



Quote:
Yes, humans have never agreed on a single belief or way of life. There has always been immoral people, disease, poverty, etc. In that sense, it would not matter if church attendance or marriage was at eighty percent or three percent, evil would still exist. I completely agree with you.


So does marriage reduce social problems or not ? And why is any marriage between a man and a woman inherently better than one between two, loving same-sex partners ? It's quite possible for a man and a women to be faithful to one another, and still have a bad marriage.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Autobon
Master
Master

Joined: 17 Apr 2008
Posts: 751
Location: Seattle, Washington

Corellias Dream wrote:
Two quotes from Autobon:

What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in traditional marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems

Yes, humans have never agreed on a single belief or way of life. There has always been immoral people, disease, poverty, etc. In that sense, it would not matter if church attendance or marriage was at eighty percent or three percent, evil would still exist. I completely agree with you.

>>So does marriage reduce social problems or not?


Yes, it reduces social problems. My quotes are not inconsistant. One is saying that marriage reduces many problems, another is saying that evil at some level will always exist in society. There will always be people who choose to do evil. If church attendance or marriage was at eighty percent, there would still be evil people. If it was at three percent, there would be evil people. So no wonder you can see that in Victorian society. That was the context of my statement.

Quote:
And why is any marriage between a man and a woman inherently better than one between two, loving same-sex partners ?


You are assuming the fact that women and men are completely interchangeable, with absolutely no unique qualities of their own. This however does not match scientific or observable reality. Psychology shows that children also respond differently to their parents based on gender. You also assume that homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are nearly equal in terms of lifestyle choices, drug use, monogamy, etc. Again, studies show this is not the case.

I have yet to hear a compelling case why the state should value homosexual couples as an absolute equal to heterosexual couples. It seems it has more to do with validating one's lifestyle then any overwhelming evidence.

---------

I honestly do not see this discussion progressing any further, so I think I will take DannikJerriko's cue and bow out of this topic for the most part.

--------


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 2:46 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3888
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

Regarding the blog link: I used that specific one as that was the only one I found that had a link to the actual report (though to be fair I did only look for a minute. Google was surprisingly helpful so I didn't feel the need to look further), but it's a fair comment to say that, since it's a blog, it may not be admissible. So I found some other links, which I believe fit the criteria:

http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/gay_marriage.htm
http://transformwabudget.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Same-sex-marriage-could-boost-the-economy-create-jobs-promote-business-and-generate-tax-revenue/68140-9567
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-05-08/commentary/30686581_1_gay-marriage-wedding-industry-couples
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-06/politics/same.sex.marriage.economy_1_same-sex-marriage-same-sex-couple-inheritance-rights?_s=PM:POLITICS
http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/10/pf/gay-marriage/
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 11 of 14
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield