Gay Rights

Did you even read the wikipedia article?

 

Officially the biggest thread I have created, wow.

 

Yes, because they are worried about infringing on first amendment rights. It's not going to be an issue for much longer though; atheism is on the rise, and most atheists don't care if someone is homosexual.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 19, 2015, Original Post Date: Jul 19, 2015 ---

You made this thread?

 

Yes

 

Honestlty, Thus the man comes.

 

We ought to kick your butt to Mars.

JK lol

 

Are bisexuals only half sinning? Would they still get into heaven as long as they havent engaged in sexual activities with the "same gender"? Or is the concept of homosexuality being a sin based on simply being a homosexual? What about homoromantic asexuals?

 

Its called the Bible not the Straightable

 

That's false. This just an assertion. We need some proof. It's also, a logical fallacy. Which means that this argument is bogus.

The 'Argument from Personal Incredulity' fallacy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Also, 'The Argument from Ignorance' fallacy. (Also known as 'The God of the Gaps' argument)

Instead of giving an honest response, such as... "It's hard to understand where DNA came from, or where life began. We don't know. Let's investigate!", you insert your god into the mix and propose that as the explanation. That's no better than saying, "I think fairies did it."

I'm sorry, but this is not how science or logic works. You actually have to PROVE that a deity creator exists. Let alone, created the universe. And that it's your god, and your specific branch of Theism.

How about I just provide you a link with all the known species that we know to have homosexual tendencies? Let's start with mammals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

You're not a scientist, are you? This is just unsupported conjecture. Here's the view of a well respected Evolutionary Biologist, and his hypotheses for why homosexuality is a beneficial evolutionary trait.



Not to mention, that another argument that you're making against homosexuality/gay-marriage, is that homosexuals cannot reproduce (with one another). Well, neither can the elderly, or the infertile. Do you want to stop old people, or the infertile from getting married? Or from having certain rights?

How deliciously ironic. Said, by the person that gets their worldview from an old book. That is a Christian, and (most likely) not out of choice. But due to geography. Because you were born in a predominantly Christian country, and not... India, for instance. If you were taught that Allah was the one true god and praise be unto him, you would probably be a Muslim, not a Christian.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015, Original Post Date: Aug 21, 2015 ---

Why do you find it 'wrong'? It is not unnatural at all. I'm aware of many species that exhibit gay tendencies. Some just perform gay sexual acts. Some form emotional bonds to the same-sex, and some even pair off into life-partners with the same gender. Crazy, I know, but some animals find 'soul-mates' of the same gender, and stay that way for life. Unsurprisingly, we see the same rate of homosexuality in other animal species as we do in humans. Around 5%-10%.

Not to mention that we ARE natural. Humans are part of the natural world. There seems to be this desire to label that which we see in other species as 'natural', and what we don't as 'unnatural'. We ARE animals. We ARE natural.

Hi J. Let's get started, shall we?


First off, you didn't explain why homosexuality is wrong in your comment. All you did, was paint it as a sin. Even then, you admitted that everyone else is a sinner too, so what's specifically wrong about being gay?

Please bear in mind that religious justification is not (and should not) be given much credit here (if any at all). I have to ask - Should we start treating women as second class citizens, as detailed in the Q'uran? Should we replace elements of science classes with Hindu or Sikh creation myths? No. Unless you can prove why what is described in your religion, should be taken seriously? It won't be. Because you would be a hypocrite to do so. You wouldn't follow the religious teachings of any other religion, so why should we be forced to follow yours?

That is absolutely not true. All you need to do is provide some good evidence, a logical argument, or a well-reasoned position as to why we should oppose gay-rights. Once you've done so, heck, I'm on board! As will many other be, too.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

This entire paragraph seems highly disingenuous. You certainly don't seem like you have 'nothing against gays'. Also, no, you don't have to agree with them. You just have to be willing to give up your religious privilege for the sake of basic human-rights.


Yes, you would be in trouble. Just as a racist would be in trouble for suggesting that black people don't deserve rights. Or a sexist would be wrong for suggesting that women don't deserve particular rights.


Do you know that there are religious people (in huge numbers too) that genuinely believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men? That they shouldn't drive, vote, leave the house, expose any skin, etc. Do you know the justification for this, that they give? 'Because that is what my religion teaches'. Now, tone it down a notch or two, and you are no different. You are standing in direct opposition to the rights of the LGBT-community, because your religion tells you so. This is not the behaviour of a moral agent. This is someone following orders, and you are right when you say that you would be scolded for doing so. Rightly so, too.

This isn't about hurt feelings, this is about human-rights.

Imagine if someone said the same thing about black people?

'Man, they just force you to agree with these black people, I don't understand it! You're not even allowed to say that they don't deserve certain rights, or some of what they do is wrong. And this is all because people's feelings would be hurt. That's why they won't let me be racist and agree with segregation.'

That's not far off what you sound like, J. All you have to do is provide some good reasons as to why we should oppose homosexuality. I'm being 100% honest when I say I would like to hear them. Because if I'm wrong? I want to know! I want to know why. And if you think you have the silver bullet against homosexuality, you should give it!

Why do you "go with the Bible", Joe? Do you take everything the Bible has to say literally? Do you follow every word? If so, why? If not, why not?

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

So, Fang. You reject parts of scripture because they conflict with what you've already learned about the world you inhabit, right? There are clear commandments in the Bible to stone homosexuals to death, but you reject this notion, because some gays are nice people, right?

So if you're going to let your experience of the real world trump what's in the Bible? If you're going to let your own morality supercede the morality that your god teaches? Why do you even need the Bible?

It also tells you that homosexuals deserve death.


So how do you know which passages to follow? You have 2 passages in the Bible. One promotes violence towards homosexuals, and the other says 'love thy neighbour'. How do you know which one to adhere to?

Wouldn't that mean that you don't get your morality from the Bible? The fact that you're making this very choice. That you're choose between the 2, means that you already have a secular (non-religious) morality in place, to be able to reject one passage and accept the other.

I suggest you look more into the science behind sexuality, instead of your own 'instinctual feelings' on what is true. All major respected psychology institutions that I know of do not cite homosexuality as a mental illness. And you have Evolutionary Biologists citing reasons for why homosexuality may be a beneficial trait among species.




You seem incredibly confused about biology and psychology. Please, look into both before making these claims.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

Haha. Oh we can already tell, don't worry.

I find it weird how you think "No offense to any gays" and "any man who sleeps with another man will be stoned" deserve to be in the same sentence.


Why are you against it, Aarett? On what basis do you think it's fair to persecute or malign homosexuals?

We should be make laws, or create social stigmas around things that are a 'matter of taste'. You've provided no argument here, other than 'I just don't like it, and it makes me feel uncomfortable'. If it makes you uncomfortable, or if it offends you, don't look. It's that simple.

There are many people around that world that are disgusted, or get offended by many things that happen in public. And it's your obligation a moral citizen to realise that the freedom of others comes before your squeemishness and prudish preferences.

For example, I hate seeing people wear the crucifix on jewelry. I think it's disgusting. Gross. Public wearing an ancient torture+execution device. But, that's your right. It's your body, and your jewelry. So long as I don't have to wear it, by all means, go ahead. I don't say, 'Oh man, they're shoving their crucifixes in my face!'. I just fucking deal with it. As should you.

For your perusal. A list of mammals that have shown homosexual tendencies.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior


Bear in mind, this is only a list of mammals. There are many more species that do so.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

That's a logical fallacy, which means the argument you're making is invalid. The 'Appeal to Popularity'. That something is true, likely true, or reasonable to believe, because a lot of people think that way. This is a fallacious argument.


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

Why do you think it's acceptable to conflate sexism/racism/homophobia with 'political correctness'? If you're arguing that women, homosexuals, or people of a particular skin-tone deserve less rights (or deserve to be treated worse than other groups) then you ARE a racist person. A sexist person. A homophobic person. That isn't 'PC gone wild!'. That's, 'The desire to treat all human beings as equal. Empathy, compassion for your fellow man. Erasing the division between arbitrary labels, and prioritising equality over privilege.

Racism, sexism and homophobia, is a sad, sad thing.


Also... is THIS really your footnote? - "Bringing sense and logic to the Meepcraft community since 2012"

What is the purpose of a response like this, other than to sling insults at one another? It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation, it's just name-calling. And now, it's going to be much harder to get that individual (and those that sympathise with them) to listen to what you have to say, because you resorted to insults.

Keep conversations civil. Insults and personal attacks have no place here.

He also calls on you to kill those that leave the Christian faith. To enslave your fellow man from the countries around you, and to subjugate women. So why do you adhere to some parts of the Bible, and not others?

Yes, because human-rights come before your homophobic religious beliefs.

Quick question. Do you think that it's unfair to tolerate black people? Is it unfair to be told that you just have to accept it, and allow their human-rights to override your religious beliefs?

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

Do you think that, 'the act of trying to take human-rights away from black people' is considered unfair, or hate-speech?


I do think it’s unfair, and you're no different from the example above. Substitute 'black' for 'gay', and you're making the same argument. You're hiding behind the freedom of your beliefs, to try and persecute/malign others, and it's not acceptable.

Again, if we substitute 'gay' for 'black', we see you for what you are. A homophobe. 'I hate that inter-racial couples have the right to get married. But I love black people!'. I'm sorry, but you won't get away with that. Why do you hate and have such disdain for what Lesbians and Gay people do in the privacy of their own home?

But it isn't unnatural. Not by any definition that I've heard of 'natural', anyway. I'm aware of many species that exhibit gay tendencies. Some just perform gay sexual acts. Some form emotional bonds to the same-sex, and some even pair off into life-partners with the same gender. Crazy, I know, but some animals find 'soul-mates' of the same gender, and stay that way for life. Unsurprisingly, we see the same rate of homosexuality in other animal species as we do in humans. Around 5%-10%.

Not to mention that we ARE natural. Humans are part of the natural world. There seems to be this desire to label that which we see in other species as 'natural', and what we don't as 'unnatural'. We ARE animals. We ARE natural.

Do you think people should be allowed to openly discriminate based on the colour of one's skin? If you were a racist and a sexist, you could say exactly the same thing, and it would mean just as much.

"Just saying, I want to have my own views on the rights of black people, and the rights of women, without being punished for it -.- #unpopularopinion #lol"

You're no different. Instead of 'black people' and 'women', it's 'homosexuals'.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

Can you please explain why you believe that? I could do exactly the opposite, and state that, "Marriage is between consenting adults. That's what marriage is." See? I can assert things, just like you can. It means just as much (which is very little). What matters, is whether you have justification and good reasons to believe what you do. So please, fire away! Let's hear them.

Hi Jake. Why do you think it's acceptable to threaten people with eternal torture? This is just me, but if I thought someone was destined for such a fate, I would want to save them from it. I care about all humans. They're people, just like me. And I hate the idea of burning for eternity. It's horrific. The most amount of physical pain, for the longest time? There is nothing worse. Only a monster would bring this upon someone, much less an individual (such as yourself) that would wish it upon another human. Why do you think this is acceptable behaviour?

Epicminer, do you at least understand that almost every piece of scientific evidence disagrees with you? That what we've learned about the world we inhabit, does not match up with what you're saying at all. That homosexuality is genetic, and not a choice (just like heterosexuality).

Also, did you know that pink was originally a colour for boys? It was only in the 1940s, that pink become the socially accepted colour for girls. If you were a boy in the 1930s, you'd probably be wearing pink.

At the very start of this thread, there was an almost identical post made by J32400. Nothing substantive was said, all we got was some preaching.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

You didn't explain why homosexuality is wrong in your comment. All you did, was paint it as a sin. Even then, you admitted that everyone else is a sinner too, so what's specifically wrong about being gay?


Please bear in mind that religious justification is not (and should not) be given much credit here (if any at all). I have to ask - Should we start treating women as second class citizens, as detailed in the Q'uran? Should we replace elements of science classes with Hindu or Sikh creation myths? No. Unless you can prove why what is described in your religion, should be taken seriously? It won't be. Because you would be a hypocrite to do so. You wouldn't follow the religious teachings of any other religion, so why should we be forced to follow yours?


Your post seems a bit disingenuous, to me. You certainly don't seem like you have 'nothing against gays'. For us to live alongside one another, in humanity, you just have to be willing to give up your religious privilege for the sake of basic human-rights.


Do you know that there are religious people (in huge numbers too) that genuinely believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men? That they shouldn't drive, vote, leave the house, expose any skin, etc. Do you know the justification for this, that they give? 'Because that is what my religion teaches'. Now, tone it down a notch or two, and you are no different. You are standing in direct opposition to the rights of the LGBT-community, because your religion tells you so. This is not the behaviour of a moral agent. This is someone following orders, and you are right when you say that you would be scolded for doing so. Rightly so, too.

This is false on multiple accounts.


Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, or the lack of belief in Theistic claims. It is not the claim of the contrary (the belief that no gods exist).

Atheism is not a religion, nor is it an ideology. You seem to want to paint it as one. Why? If it were either of these two things, could you please point out the holy book of Atheism? What religious doctrine we follow? What rules and tenets do Atheists have to follow?

It is not a conversion, it is a deconversion. Is your lack of belief in Allah, a religion too? No, of course it isn't. Just as the lack of belief in all gods proposed by man, isn't.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 21, 2015 ---

Well, you just seem like a LOVELY person to hang out with.

Seriously though, why havn't you provided any evidence yet to back up these claims? I've seen no studies, no data, no reasoned arguments. Just outright conjecture. As the old saying goes...


If you can't show it, you don't know it!

The line is drawn at consenting adults. Did you just compare homosexuality to zoophilia and pedophilia?


Children cannot consent to marriage, and neither can other species. Therefore, we draw the line where it is today.

Homosexuality is not unnatural either. Not by any definition that I've heard of 'natural', anyway. I'm aware of many species that exhibit gay tendencies. Some just perform gay sexual acts. Some form emotional bonds to the same-sex, and some even pair off into life-partners with the same gender. Crazy, I know, but some animals find 'soul-mates' of the same gender, and stay that way for life. Unsurprisingly, we see the same rate of homosexuality in other animal species as we do in humans. Around 5%-10%.

Not to mention that we ARE natural. Humans are part of the natural world. There seems to be this desire to label that which we see in other species as 'natural', and what we don't as 'unnatural'. We ARE animals. We ARE part of 'the natural'.










Okay guys. That’s 30 pages of arguments addressed. I hope to be back tomorrow to deal with the rest. I hope y’all at least got something out of it. All replies and messages are welcome. In fact, they’re encouraged! Please, if you think I’ve made any mistakes, let me know.

 

You do realize you also just insinuated that hetrosexual marriage is also unnatural.

 

Just because something is man-made, that does not mean it is unnatural. We are a part of the natural world. We are animals. Great apes. Anything that we create, is a part of the natural world.

There seems to be this desire for people to redefine 'man-made' as 'unnatural'. Why not just refer to it as 'man-made'? Because for every other definition of 'unnatural', gay marriage does not fall into that category. It seems to be a ploy to undermine gay-marriage or homosexuality.

Homosexuality is just as common is other species, we are a part of the natural world, and there is more and more growing evidence that it is not a choice (and that there's a genetic component to homosexuality). If you don't think it's natural, give us something to sink our teeth into.

 

I can't disagree with this because you're not really making a point. All marriage is unnatural, is that all?

 

That reminds me, Ireland accidentally legalized Ecstasy, magic mushrooms and crystal meth while also making heterosexual marriage illegal

 

I don't see why there is such a fuss over it. Why can't people all have to same rights and love who they truly love? It should be normal to see gay people together as much as it is seeing a straight couple together.

 

"Man-made" and "unnatural", are essentially synonyms. Because, by your rationale of saying that man-made things are natural, that means that nothing is unnatural, because everything that exists that is typically considered "unnatural", is man-made. So, it's not really redefining it, it's more so just that "unnatural" is the same thing as "man-made", or, it's a word that can't be used to describe anything that exists (In that case it would be redefining it).

 

Ya unnatural does mean the realm of man. I personally think there needs to be a new word or definition because when you hear natural you think normal within the universe not persisting to the world separated from man.

 

Since the whole goal of nature is to reproduce and carry on its lineage, isnt homosexuality unnatural?

 

In my experience, no. It's an arbitrary line between humans and other species. Supernatural and the non-natural (unnatural) are essentially synonyms.

Let me give a quick example.

Back in the days of primitive man, we created spears, right? Tools, to help us hunt, collect, and store food. These are man-made. Are they unnatural?

Because we see similar tools used by other animals in nature all the time. Then, the definition of 'unnatural' still open to debate. Where people draw the line of what they consider "a little bit too different from what we see in other species". It's arbitrary. The supernatural? Anything outside of the natural world? That is not arbitrary at all, and is clearly defined.

Nothing in the natural world is unnatural. Correct. Unnatural, by any scientific definition that I have seen, does not mean 'Any behaviour that we only see in humans not in any other species that we have studied thus far.'. It's outside of the natural realm, the supernatural.

--- Double Post Merged, Aug 22, 2015, Original Post Date: Aug 22, 2015 ---

How do you know that homosexuality doesn't have any benefits to reproduction? I'll let Mr.Evolutionary Biologist explain this one.



Plus, wouldn't infertility by considered unnatural then?

And old age?

What about the thousands of other species that exhibit homosexual behaviour, and form homosexual relationships?

 

I Was just posing a question idgaf about any of this

 

I mean, as a member of the LGBT community myself, I feel like it's all natual. Gays, Lesbian, Heteros, Trans, And Bisexuals. They are all a form of love. They are all a form of being yourself. Because why? #LoveWins . That's why.