Acceptance of gays vs. view of religions

Because laws typical need a reason, or some sort appeal to be accepted.

People don't always use religion, but they're usually just swapping one appeal to establish their moral behavior for another.

Yeah, it's not like religion is the only possible reason or justification for homophobia. Maybe in America, but we all know that America is a weird country anyway.

Someone mentioned that it's come up in Communist countries as well. I'm sure there's probably a philosophy or two that has anti-gay rhetoric.

edited 4th Nov '11 11:41:32 AM by Justice4243

Justice, what does your god say about Cis-gendered people sleeping with Transgendered people?

Thread Bunny Hop: gays are human, every human has rights, if your religion says otherwise it is morally wrong, no exceptions.

-_- There's a few things that bug me about this sentence.

I'll just request that you ask me what the Bible or what Christians think. I'm hardly a conduit of information for any deity.

We had a thread on this, there was almost nothing to say on the topic because the Bible has pretty much nothing to say regarding the transgendered. Rott didn't even have a comment, so you'd probably have to dig deep and check a specific Church's doctrine to see what they have to say on the matter, if anything.

edited 4th Nov '11 11:56:48 AM by Justice4243

"In modern times it becomes a debate over the authority of the Bible. 'The Bible justifies slavery.' 'But does it command slavery?' 'No.' 'Then that's okay.' But the Bible says - and we keep coming back to Saint Paul here - homosexuality is one of these dreadful things, up there with adultery and sorcery and theft. When American or British clergy reply to that with, 'This just represents the ideas of a bygone society,' the African response is, 'Then what is left? What can't you rationalize away as bygone ideas of an ancient society? If the American church introduces human sacrifice, are you going to justify it that way, too?'"

I like the cut of their jibs.

I think reasoning like this is why there are also a lot of people looking at these verses and researching and explaining that they may not necessarily mean what people think they mean.

It’s certainly a tactic that gets one in less trouble than just cherry picking when it seems something has outlived its usefulness.

I reply, "they were an ignorant group of people living in a time when everything has to be explained and they lacked the tech to explane it so them made up something to explain it." Of course most of their ignorant morals don't apply to our civilized modern age.

Plus you are taking morals from a guy that sold his own people out to the Romans as slaves, he doesn't exactly have the moral high ground.

edited 4th Nov '11 1:02:02 PM by vanthebaron

The debate is between multiple church doctrine there. Do dismissing as widely as that isn’t likely to be a counter-response.

Also a great deal of the laws we have now come from a source even older than the Bible, so dismissing things because they’re from an old and ignorant society isn’t exactly a strategy that comes free from some Unfortunate Implications.

Edit: Ye gods, are we resorting to ad hominem attacks on St. Paul now? The man lived around 2,000 years ago. Of COURSE there where different standards for behavior back then.

edited 4th Nov '11 1:10:00 PM by Justice4243

Not true, cultural anthropologist have found certan laws are universal laws like don't murder and don't steal.These universal laws are found in every society.

Sorry, I meant "Your God" to mean "the Christian God"

What do Christians/the Bible think of it then.

I see.

Even Canabalistic ones.

its not murder if your kill for food

Most cannibalistic cultures eat enemies of their tribe they kill in battle or consume their own dead (of natural causes) for religious purposes. Hunting random people to eat them isn't widespread, not in the cannibalistic cultures modern anthropologists have described.

edited 4th Nov '11 1:22:11 PM by SavageHeathen

...Did you just accept eating people was OK as a possible logical conclusion of your position?

If so, that sure is some commitment.

edited 4th Nov '11 1:21:50 PM by Justice4243

+1

edited 4th Nov '11 1:22:02 PM by vanthebaron

Surely that renders every action performed in pursuit of pleasure a sin if it has no specific purpose.

Ah, well that certainly puts the definition for murder up for question, which also happens to be another massive religious debate all on its own.

But if the definition for murder and killing can vary, then surely another universal human law would be to, "Have sex, please and thank you," regardless of how you go about the thing, with the general idea that the population will expand if people are gettin' to the dirty in the first place.

@vanthebaron:

"Civilized" just means "city-building." We're no more civilized than present-day Africans, or the Egyptian Old Kingdom.

our morals, our protection of everyone>>>their morals that say "kill these people if they don't think like you"

The “universal law” argument seems a bit flawed to me. Building society on what traditions seem to be the most prevalent comes across as a mixing “appeal to tradition” meets “Argumentum ad populum”

Besides, a great deal of societies at least HAD rules and regulations on how woman where to be treated and a slew of other things no one in their right mind would accept today. Are we going to accept those as universal laws just because “a lot of societies over the years had them?”

no because they were morally wrong. everyone is human, everyone has the same rights

Your reasoning seems to be "there are universal laws that are in all societies, except sometimes there isn't because those laws aren't moral".

This isn't much of a concrete way to establish morality.

edited 4th Nov '11 1:36:56 PM by Justice4243

their are good law and bad laws. some univeral laws, what I call "stay in the kitchen law" are bad. others are good becasue they protected the population. This view is very close to act utilitarianism