gwprod12 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 The Kinsey report concluded that 37% of adult males had had an adult homosexual encounter. So, why isnt 17% realistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Thread cleaned and posters PMed. This is your last chance guys - letting religious intolerance into any thread won't be tolerated, however on topic it may be. I'm not a mean guy and I love having all of you (and you know who you are) on the forum. Don't do anything to change that. While I'm visiting the thread, I'll try to do my typical role of "asking the tough questions without revealing too much of how I think": Im with some of the posters here, who cares what the bible says, ive found my own set of morals to be much more trustable than some book that was written 2000 years ago and translated badly several times... Ah, this is relativism at its best. I think you'd agree with me that we all need some kind of moral standards, though, right? That there are a few universally agreed on ideas we should subscribe to? Like that, oh, say, Hitler's concentration camps were wrong? (Just to use an extreme example, in hopes that we can all agree on it). To say that we should all just "find our morals" means that anyone is free to do so... and that has some nasty consequences. I've always wondered who cares what the bible says? As far as I'm concerned, its just rubbish in need of a good burning. It's quite possible that if there are some absolute truths (see above) that they might be contained in a popular book like the Bible. It's also true that they could be contained in The DaVinci Code. To discount anything simply due to its source is illogical, Captain . I care what the Bible says. I also care about what Confucius says. Or say. I tend to think one is a little more right than the other, but both have good wisdom. The Kinsey report concluded that 37% of adult males had had an adult homosexual encounter. So, why isnt 17% realistic? He also disproportionately surveyed males that were in prison and hired a pedophile to do "research" on children. I, for one, don't put too much stock in his research. FWIW, I hate arguing about this topic because it's so hard for interested parties ({censored} men and women in this case) not to take the argument personal. And that's totally understandable - anytime someone else has an issue with something that's so at the core of who you are... it's tough not to get defensive. I say this so that everyone knows that, when we're discussing this, my "No Ad Hom" rules apply - you can beat up (philosohpically) all you want to on Gayness, but don't begin to beat up on {censored}. There's a fundamental difference that I hope we can observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I don't understand why people just let everyone be? As long as what you are doing is not hurting/maiming other people then I could really care less. My .2 cents- 1.) If everyone is so called "Equal in the eyes of god", and since "Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law" then if people have feelings for each other, so be it get married. 2.) A religion that uses threats, scare tactics, and other forms of hostile fronts agaist others or members of their own "religion" for no reason should not be allowed to continue their pratice. BTW PEOPLE! I have YET to hear a good enough reason to ban {censored} marriage. Also, you can't use religion as a factor because there is a separation of church and state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Lol... I really didn't want to get wrapped up in this thread but I think that someone needs to present a rational case for a few of these things, since most of what comes from both sides is about feelings, not reasons. Again, keep in mind that I'm talking about law here... not the people the law is touching. Keith 1. Everyone is equal in the eyes of God. If we're talking about the Judeo-Christian God here, his sacred texts make it fairly clear that he disagrees with the practice of homosexuality. That said, biblically it's like any other sin. 2. Not sure where you're going with this one... And the "good enough reason to ban {censored} marriage" part: The argument goes like this. I, as a (hopefully) thoughtful and rational being, have a very hard time telling 2 {censored} men that they can be married and telling 3 {censored} men that they can't be married. Why, if the first couple is in love, should the trio not be given the same rights? Do you see how quickly it changes? If love is all that matters in determining if we allow people/things (because you can also love a horse) to be wed, the institution of marriage becomes everything anyone wants it to be. And, when you think about it, when marriage becomes everything... it becomes nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'd just like to point out Mash, that you indicate that Kinsey's research is "suspect" by assassinating his character. That's an Ad Hominim attack. I'm sure you could point to a million scientific criticisms of the Kinsey Report, And not ascribe to the Fundementalist Agenda's point of view. EDIT: Mash. Why stop there with the 3 {censored} men getting married. I'm sure everyone would be much more illuminated if you used the "slippery slope of men marrying chickens" rationale. EDIT 2: excuse me, you did in fact cite the men marrying animals rationale. my mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 gwprod12 - Like I said in the post above, what I'm discussing here is the arguments for and against. I beg of you not to let this affect your opinion of me or think that I'm attacking you or anyone else who's {censored}. If we can talk about this in the abstract and not let it get personal, I'll let the thread continue. If it gets too personal for someone, just let me know and we'll close it. I'd just like to point out Mash, that you indicate that Kinsey's research is "suspect" by assassinating his character. That's an Ad Hominim attack. Good man! Actually, I'm attacking his research methods - he studied a population that has a higher than average "homosexual act" rate. Also, he used researchers who had very dubious methods of data gathering. I'm not attacking him, I'm questioning the way he did what he did. Thanks for calling me on it, though. I'm glad someone is listening to what I'm saying about logic... I'm sure you could point to a million scientific criticisms of the Kinsey Report, And not ascribe to the Fundementalist Agenda's point of view. I hope that's what I'm doing here. I'm anything but a fundamentalist. EDIT: Mash. Why stop there with the 3 {censored} men getting married. I'm sure everyone would be much more illuminated if you used the "slippery slope of men marrying chickens" rationale. That sounded a little angry and I hope you're not upset. Nevertheless, the question remains - how can you tell that to the 3 {censored} men? I'm well aware of the slippery slope fallacy... but there are also causal relationships that could lead to the situation I'm asking about here. The chickens thing is far fetched, I agree. So let's say we take away the standard of marriage as "two people, two sexes" and just make it "two people." That's fine. But since we're already redefining marriage, why not make it "three people." Isn't that inherently more just? See how this becomes sticky quick? Basically it comes down to how you think marriage should be defined and why you think so. If there are no absolute truths on the issue, it's tough to say where it should stop though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeehre Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'm not in the closet, if my friends asked I would tell them the truth but I don't run around telling everyone I'm {censored}, just as a heterosexual does not run around telling everyone they are straight. I have learned a long time ago if a friend does not accept me for who I am then it's their lose not mine. That is what annoys me about a lot of {censored} people! i dont run around saying im a hetrosexual so why do they have to flaunt being {censored}? In Auckland they have a {censored} pride parade once a year, if i was to do anything like they do on a normal day i would be locked up for indecent exposure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Kinsey's research methods have been thoroughly sanitized by just about everyone reasonable. The study is considered by other researchers to be particularly well-done. Excluding prisoners alters the rate from 37% to 36.4% in all males, and from 10% to 9.9% in white males. Kinsey interviewed a "pedophile" who had, previous to the interview, assaulted youngsters. I for one dont think it's okay to sanitize science to conform to someone's idea of morality. (You can have a moral objection to Mengele and his work, as almost everyone does, but that doesnt mean that his findings were inherently incorrect.) Almost all of the objections to Kinsey's methodology originate in bastions of the Christian Right. Almost none of the objections are leveled against the Kinsey report by fellow statisticians. I dont see anything wrong with 8 people of all different ages and genders getting together and being married. Let's do it. What is the compelling state interest in preventing Polygamy, for instance? The fact that people who are married wont feel that their marriage is special or means anything isnt a compelling state reason for preventing other people from being married. Though I believe that marriage is breeder BS and non-breeders shouldnt do it, I still think it shouldnt be "illegal". sbeehr: I'm sure if heterosexuality comprised a minority group in the world, you wouldnt have a problem telling men who assumed you were "up for a romp" that you didnt swing that way. Would you? There are a few reasons to be open about your sexuality. 1) hiding it, or not thinking it's people's business leads most people to underestimate the number of {censored} people there are. It's easier to marginalize people when their population is smaller. 2) since heterosexuality is by far the dominant sexual orientation, it is therefore assumed to be the norm and default. You dont need to tell people you're straight. It's assumed. Though, in the {censored} village in Auckland, the reverse would be true, and you would find people assuming you're {censored}, and needing to say that you're straight. EDIT: If you've ever kissed a girl in public, held hands with a girl in public, referred to your girlfriend or your wife, shown a picture of your wife, talked about strippers, or the intimate charms of women, you're flaunting your heterosexuality. And the argument for that is "because it's normal". It's not normal, it's merely usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Kinsey's research methods have been thoroughly sanitized by just about everyone reasonable. The study is considered by other researchers to be particularly well-done. Excluding prisoners alters the rate from 37% to 36.4% in all males, and from 10% to 9.9% in white males. Yeah, I'll have to do more research in the morning - to be honest I've only read a few things (from both sides of the issue), but nothing extensive. I dont see anything wrong with 8 people of all different ages and genders getting together and being married. Let's do it. What is the compelling state interest in preventing Polygamy, for instance? The fact that people who are married wont feel that their marriage is special or means anything isnt a compelling state reason for preventing other people from being married. Though I believe that marriage is breeder BS and non-breeders shouldnt do it, I still think it shouldnt be "illegal". I think that's a perfectly rational conclusion based on what we're talking about it here. It bothers me when some "conservatives" (whatever that really means) throw out the "Man-Chicken" thing and don't think it through. It also bothers me when some "liberals" act like because it smells like a slippery slope, it couldn't happen. And you're right in your reply to Simon. I agree. P.S. Promise you're not angry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'm a militant homosexual anarchist. I'm perpetually angry. Conservatism was born out of a fear of radical social engineering. Because the future is uncertain, society should be grounded in the tried and true method. This conservatism is pervasive throughout Western Society. Because that is the way it has always been, that is the way it is meant to be. This is a false statement, as we continually see. Conservatism was also originally created as a reaction to freedom and egalitarianism. The reactionary was the man who abhored social levening and desired the old social caste system of noble and peasant. Obviously that ideal is long-since past. There is no reason why the conservative ideals of the past are the only legitimate solution to today's problems. Although caution can sometimes be good, the failure of conservatism is in attempting to hold onto solutions that clearly dont work and yearn for a better approach. A good example is Drug Policy in the US. It doesnt work; It will never work. Time to scrap it and come up with something new that at least has the potential of working. Maybe something new wont work, but is it better to do something that has failure as a possible outcome, or do nothing and have failure be assured? A Man cannot marry a sheep; the rationale. 1) A Sheep, being an animal without the powers of speech or human communication cannot give legal consent to marriage or sexual activity. 2) Were a man allowed to marry a sheep, it would grant a sheep human rights. By granting one sheep human rights, by default, all sheep must be granted human rights, and by default, all animals must be granted human rights. That would be the end of meat as a food source. Middle America will never tolerate a law that makes eating steak a crime. (I wouldnt either... mmmmmmm, filet mignon) EDIT: The most reasonable solution to the {censored} marriage/polygamy debate is to simply nullify the institution of marriage completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Off topic, but a man can marry a sheep. As long as you are a mage and can polymorph your target. solution? everyone should play world of warcraft, it brings everyone together in peace while doing humanity's favorite past time, waring upon one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I dont need the polymorph spell to get laid. I need the Dominate Mind spell to get laid. ...gwprod12 targets Mash and casts Dominate Mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I feel quite violated... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 looks like gwprod12 has the hotts for mash. Better watch out, guys, this could get steamy.... lol ...james2mart targets self and casts the get-the-F-outta-here spell.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 I always thought warlocks should have dominate mind... Too bad it only lasts like 30 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 For the people who use the bible as their moral code, think about it, WHY is being {censored} wrong? Why? Other than it being written down, what other justification is there for it being wrong? I just dont understand...Ive tried to understand for a long time and I just cant. Also, one can have universal codes without religion, my code is that most actions are OK as long as they dont hurt the society as a whole, murder hurts the society as a whole, concentration camps hurt the society as a whole, rape hurts the society as a whole. Another very important part of my moral code is that offense does not equal harm to the society, white supremesists (and black supremesists for that matter) offend me, and sicken me, however, its their right to say what they think, and that is offense, but not harm, where it becomes harm is when they act on their words and commit a hate crime. All im saying is what actually makes being {censored} wrong? There is no research study to support that it actually harms the society or harms children for that matter, all it does, is offend some people who dont like it, thats all. Thats why when I plug being {censored} into my moral code, it comes out as being ok, it doesnt harm the society in any way really, other than the harm thats done to them in return for them being {censored}, all it does, is offend, which shouldnt be classified as wrong. People can have a universal code without a book of morals sitting right in front of them, and that doesnt make them any more wrong, than the person following the book. given the book will keep the morals longer overtime, nobody is disputing that, however, some morals need to change with the times, and the attitude toward being {censored} is one of those things. I may not ascribe to the bible, but that doesnt mean that it doesnt have some good things to say sometimes, and really, every religion in one way or another proves a point sometime, and we shouldnt discard that, then again, we shouldnt embrace everything it says either without careful scrutiny... I honestly hope nobody here thinks that people choose to be {censored}...I really, really hope not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_earthling Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 everbody is a sinner( according to the bible) so even christians so there is no reason why {censored}'s can't be christian ...... Aah....so you agree being {censored} is a sin!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killbot1000 Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Aah....so you agree being {censored} is a sin!!! well, I dont think its a sin, but im an atheist so my view doesnt matter, heheh, technically, im on a 24/7 sinfest, one might even go so far as to call me the antichrist...(jk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Aah....so you agree being {censored} is a sin!!! no I don't as i am not religious but from a point of view from a cristian, there is no reason to look down on {censored} as the bibble clealy states that everybody is a sinner thats all i wanted to say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james2mart Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 I'm a christian. I sin. Homosexuals are sinners too. Christians should NOT look down on homosexuals. It is SINNING to do so. Christians should look at homosexuality like they look at any other sin, but they don't. Personally, I am baffled as to why someone would want to drink themselves dumb. I am also baffled as to why men lay with men. I don't hate them, but I don't want to be around them. I know that thats not right, but it makes me uncomfortable. If I dive into a social group of people that drink and do drugs, it will wear off on me and I will become vulnerable, so therefore I don't like to be around sinful people, although thats what this world is. Christians think homosexuality is wrong, because God called it an abomination in the bible. Wouldn't you be afraid of doing something that the creator of the world said not to do, if you believed in a creator? You can't say "I dont know why Christians thing gayness is wrong just because its written in some silly book." That book is what we live by, and that book characterizes who we are supposed to act like. John 1:1 says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In this sense, "Word" can be used to characterize Jesus, or the bible. We live by the word of God, because is the closest we can get to Him in this world. Don't criticize that. The {censored} fits into the {censored}. Thats what makes sense to me. Everyone has a butthole. Everyone also has ear canals. Just because there's a hole there doesn't mean you stick a {censored} into it. j/k... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_earthling Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 I 100% agree with you james Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 my bad, that did come out a little rude. My point being, the bible calls it an "abomination" for a man to be with a man. I wanted to see what {censored} christians say about that, and the other scriptural references that do not condone homosexuality. I don't care if geneticists say that there's a "{censored} gene." Everyone is made with original sin (AKA the tendency to sin), but that doesn't mean you have to act on it. Just my take on this. The bible also says you can sell a daughter into slavery and lots of other stuff. Who are you to decide what to obey or not obey? All or nothing, imho. Not that I follow any of it, just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
another_earthling Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 Where does the bible say about selling your daughter? People misinterpret the holy book. Anyways my point is that I dont know whether being {censored} is good or not. And suppose for a second you take God out of it. Does being {censored} is the correct thing according to science? How would human reproduce? If suppose everyone becomes {censored} then there will be no babies! Ours will be the last generation on this earth! Can anyone answer that? Of course not everyone is gonna become {censored} but its just a thought. Think about it. You're going against nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwprod12 Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Answer this question then. If everyone turned {censored} today, and refused to have sex with the opposite sex, you're telling me that it would be impossible for the human species to continue? Um. Conservative statements like this have been made for every advance from the wheel to heart transplants. Because it doesnt conform to what was before, it is therefore nonsensical. Rubbish, I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swad Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 If everyone turned {censored} today, and refused to have sex with the opposite sex, you're telling me that it would be impossible for the human species to continue? Sure seems that way to me - sperm + sperm and egg + egg (impossible naturally) doesn't do much for baby rearing. (Barring artificial conception) P.S. On the Bible thing (in case you hadn't noticed it yet, philosophy is something I enjoy), there are different "dispensations," meaning that God "reveals" different aspects of himself to humans at different times. Thus, while the Old Testament says don't eat pork, you have to look at context - he's talking to Jews wandering in the desert who didn't have the means to preserve it. Same with mildew, etc. With the coming of Jesus in the New Testament, a lot of those old laws were made null and void. Some were pulled through, however - homosexuality is discussed in both Testaments. Also, pay careful note to what the Bible talks about vs what it mandates. It's a different thing to talk about slavery (which is just being culturally relevant) than saying "Thou shalt have slaves" (which it doesn't do).[/bible lesson] Anyway, just wanted to throw that in there, since the Bible thing had come up. Proceed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts