TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
LGBT Rights and Religion
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [15,600]  1 ... 334 335 336 337 338
339
340 341 342 343 344 ... 624

LGBT Rights and Religion:

Discussion of religion in the context of LGBT rights is only allowed in this thread.

Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBT rights..." threads.

Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.

edited 4th Oct '13 8:26:43 AM by Madrugada

 8451 Silasw, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:13:54 AM from The UNITED Kingdom Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
We're really going to debate "Maybe the scientists lied to suit their evil liberal Amurca-hating agenda"?

After my first post I was rearly just arguing with Starship for defending Albor, he seems to have a thing for trying to make crazy arguments seem sane and reasonable. I'd guss it's something to do with seeing the best in people that makes Starship act that way, that and leftover feelings of comradely from when he was one of the people making crazy assign arguments.

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:15:59 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
 8452 Dr Tentacles, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:15:51 AM from your bed. Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
One thing to remember, Starship, is science is not a hive-mind. It's a ferociously competitive industry. If they have a chance to prove another scientist wrong, they will. It's a cutthroat field.

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:16:22 AM by DrTentacles

And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know...
NCC - 1701
Isn't this called a hypothesis and don't they try to either disprove or prove it with their experiment? Or are you talking about a base assumption basic enough that it is "This experiment will show me the truth whatever it may be?"

I'm talking about the facts stating that things happen in the womb that affect orientation. (Actually the studies suggest it, but to my reading, the suggestion is srong enough to be a fact for the purposes of this discussion). People then say, "....and therefore it can't be controlled."

And I'm like "Yeah, are we so sure?"

that and leftover feelings of comradely from when he was one of the people making crazy assign arguments.

Did you just call me Seven of Nine???

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:24:44 AM by TheStarshipMaxima

It was an honor
 8454 Silasw, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:25:59 AM from The UNITED Kingdom Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
Okay, I see the problem. I saw Albor throwing out the question as a well, question, and not as a definitive statement. I thought he was saying "What if" not "Those liberal liars!"

The biggest shake up of such a "What if" scenario for me would be the fact that it makes massive global conspiracies a very real possibility. After all, if the medical community could run such a conspiracy that there is suddenly legitimate grounds to reconsider every other far out conspiracy theory. From the moon landing being a hox to there being a secret one world government. Though admittedly that's less a reaction to a "what if there was a global conspiracy to hide homosexuality being a mental illness" and more reaction to any "what if [insert massive global conspiracy theory here] was true"

Edit: [up] as I have no idea what "Seven of Nine" means I can't answer that.

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:29:10 AM by Silasw

"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
 8455 Achaemenid, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:26:54 AM from the United Kingdom Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This is everyone's flag.
[up]

There was a very good video about moon landing conspiracy theories posted over on the Aviation thread in Yack Fest.
What is our demand? A world not of a separate state, but a world of social justice that people can believe in!

Gordon Brown
 8456 Wildcard, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:31:03 AM from Somewhere in the galaxy
Go! Fly! Win!
@Silsaw: A Star Trek character.
Whatever tomorrow brings I'll be there. With open arms and open eyes.
yarr
It can't be controlled by the affected party. They're only a baby at the time, and lack the doctorate in genetics you would need to manipulate the environment to produce a desired outcome.
 8458 Silasw, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:33:00 AM from The UNITED Kingdom Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Globalist Bunny
[up][up] I knew that never watching Star Trek would one day catch up with me.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael

"If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
NCC - 1701
Seven of Nine was the hot Borg drone who Janeway freed. Initially, she was all like "No! I want to go back to the hive!" but eventually she became staunchly loyal to the crew, willing to die for them.

She never fully agreed with the Starfleet/Federation way of life, but she displayed some serious angst and anger toward the Borg for the things they did and that she helped them do.

The more I think of it, the more I can see parallels to my own journey from quasi-fundamentalist to gay rights supporter who's frequently mistaken for quasi-fundamentalist.
It was an honor
 8460 Vericrat, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:34:06 AM from .0000001 seconds ago
Like this, but brown.
First of all, I'd like to say I hope Albor comes back. Starship has gotten far too agreeable for my tastes tongue Still, there's stuff I can work with here...

I'm talking about the facts stating that things happen in the womb that affect orientation. (Actually the studies suggest it, but to my reading, the suggestion is srong enough to be a fact for the purposes of this discussion). People then say, "....and therefore it can't be controlled." And I'm like "Yeah, are we so sure?"

Okay, so what do you mean by "can't be controlled" Starship? Do you mean they have no physical control over whom they have sex with? Cause I don't know of any studies that suggest that. Do you mean: Have no control over whom they are attracted to? Cause I have some strong anecdotal and observed evidence that I have absolutely zero control over to whom I'm attracted, and neither do most people.

If you do mean the former (as I suspect you must), then we can agree with that and ask if the latter is true. Then the question becomes: Is it healthy to deny your sex drive and try to quash it?

Did you just call me Seven of Nine???

Sorry buddy, I don't care who you are (unless you're secretly a woman), Seven of Nine is hotter than you.

EDIT: Fixed

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:37:23 AM by Vericrat

THIS IS A PSA: As of 1/1/13 there is a 1-year moratorium on No Pants Thursdays. Instead, we shall celebrate No Pants 2013.
NCC - 1701
@'Crat and Elf - I meant "control over who you are attracted to". I fully acknowledge that many inclinations don't change; however, many do. Many have been changed consciously. I know science is still working on which is which, and that's the reason I say perhaps we shouldn't be too hasty to say we "know" it can't be changed.

Also: Even if I was a woman, Seven is hotter than me by a light-year. She second to Uhura (both versions) as fictional characters I'd do on the spot.
It was an honor
 8462 Snipehamster, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:42:23 AM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
From what I understand, Before the APA removed homosexuality from it's list of mental disorders they faced unrelenting pressure to do so.

The overall point I'm trying to make is that "logic" may seem to support certain leftist ideas because the left is largely in a position to dictate what our currant definition of logic is.

Medical authorities faced pressure to stop labelling a large portion of the population as mentally ill. I wonder why. If you have evidence directly linking that pressure to the decision to make the change, I'd like to see it.

No one authority, even 'the left', dictates what logic is. That is the job of a dictionary.

I'm going to make a vast concession simply for the sake of argument. If we assume that, contrary to the scientific consensus, homosexuality is an artificial trait and can be controlled, why should it be controlled, and why should gay people be treated any differently than others when it comes to the law?

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:50:24 AM by Snipehamster

 8463 Vericrat, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:46:34 AM from .0000001 seconds ago
Like this, but brown.
Starship, please share with me this awesome secret of how to change whom you are attracted to. I have a lot of (what I currently consider) unattractive women and men that I'd love to want to bone. My default setting would be "everyone" and then I'd knock anyone out who's an asshole.

EDIT: Oh, wait, when you said "many have been changed consciously" you mean inclinations, not necessarily attractions. Damn.

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:47:07 AM by Vericrat

THIS IS A PSA: As of 1/1/13 there is a 1-year moratorium on No Pants Thursdays. Instead, we shall celebrate No Pants 2013.
 8464 Achaemenid, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 10:46:48 AM from the United Kingdom Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
This is everyone's flag.
[up][up]

Also: Even if I was a woman, Seven is hotter than me by a light-year. She second to Uhura (both versions) as fictional characters I'd do on the spot.

"But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death." James 1:14-15 tongue

edited 2nd Feb '13 10:47:07 AM by Achaemenid

What is our demand? A world not of a separate state, but a world of social justice that people can believe in!

Gordon Brown
 8465 Dr Tentacles, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 11:01:44 AM from your bed. Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
Hey, Starship, can you take a look at my question on the last page? I think you missed it because of the page break.
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know...
NCC - 1701
If someone claimed to be divine inspired, and the the majority of churches agreed with him, and he claimed that the whole "homosexuality was an abomination" was a mistake, how would you feel about that. (Maybe ignore for the moment that at this point, that would likely be a desperate ratings grab.)

For the reason you just stated, I'd be doubtful. But, additionally, the Bible tells you to be genuinely worried if anybody claims divine inspiration. The words were specifically placed so you could seek God's counsel on your own, without worry of some mere mortal clouding the intepretation.

Secondly, I'm assuming, from what I've read, that you follow the King James Bible. Why are you comfortable/consider that version valid above the others, considering it was edited by well..King James's Scholars, and, long before that, the first Catholic conclave assembled to decided what was Biblical Canon, and what wasn't

I haven't seen any sufficient research that tells me the KJV and the other attendant versions spun from it are functionally false. It's not a case of prefering the King James version over whatever Catholic Version there is.
It was an honor
yarr
Have you read any of the other versions? What about other religious texts?

Personally, if I were looking for my own interpretation of the divine, I'd want as broad a reading list as I could muster.

edited 2nd Feb '13 12:07:15 PM by Elfive

 8468 Drunk Girlfriend, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 12:10:10 PM from Castle Geekhaven
[up] Careful, that leads to atheism. tongue
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Conspiracy is not some fictitious concept, it actually happens. And yes, the fact that the APA WAS under intense activist pressure to remove homosexuality from it's list is on it's own enough to call the organization's decision into serious question.

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

homosexual activists have often resorted to mob tactics to get what they want. It has effectively used these tactics to frighten their opponents into silence. Looking at some of the incidents discussed in the article above and others from the period, it's not hard to imagine that the folks in the APA back then were afraid that there could have been some real violence.
 
 8470 Dr Tentacles, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 12:15:20 PM from your bed. Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
[up] You're funny. No, really. Look, as I said before, science is a cutthroat field. If a scientist screws up, other people will jump on them, to advance their own career. My mother's a scientist, as is my brother. I know this shit.

Poverty used to be considered a mental illness.

Edit: Also, if you have a basic high-school education, and weren't asleep-or went to college, you can look at the studies, and see that the fundamentals are sound.

edited 2nd Feb '13 12:16:04 PM by DrTentacles

And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know...
 8471 Lawyerdude, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 12:18:41 PM from my secret moon base
Citizen
So they engaged in public acts to get something changed? How terrible! And so what? Do their actions prove that they were in the wrong? Civil rights activists used these so-called "mob tactics" in the 50s and 60s and they got things changed. What's the point of the article? That the AMA, APA, BMA and every other medical, psychiatric and sexual studies organization from 1973 on changed their positions solely out of fear? Seriously?
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
NCC - 1701
Based on the research I've seen, it's not a mental illness. With that said, was there or was there not external pressure on the APA?
It was an honor
 8473 Dr Tentacles, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 12:22:53 PM from your bed. Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
Furthermore, do you even know what a mental illness is, or are you just slinging it around because it sounds "scary."

From NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illnesses)

"A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person's thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life."

Do any of those sounds like they apply? To be considered a mental illness, a condition has to significantly impair a person's ability to function in society.
And who are you, the proud lord said, that I must bow so low? Only a cat of a different coat, that's all the truth I know...
NCC - 1701
Doctor, thanks for sharing that. Of course it does make me think perhaps we need to reconsider the very concept of mental illness overall.
It was an honor
 8475 Hilarity Ensues, Sat, 2nd Feb '13 12:27:02 PM from Standing between Sho'Nuff and total supremacy.
At this point, I genuinely can't tell if this is supposed to be a serious argument or someone's just taking the piss out of conservatives.

edited 2nd Feb '13 12:27:47 PM by HilarityEnsues

Total posts: 15,600
 1 ... 334 335 336 337 338
339
340 341 342 343 344 ... 624


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy