Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in this thread.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:52:14 PM
Seem I suck at math
So straight people have a divorce rate of 5.5 % over a five year period.
Lesbians coming in at second at 3.3 %.
Gay men have a 1.6 % divorce rate.
So yes you're right. Same-sex unions (over this time period) are significantly less likely to dissolve then traditional marriage regardless of gender. There is still however a relatively a large different in the numbers between Gay marriages and lesbian. Statistically women will initiative divorce at the same rate regardless of sexual preference. With gay men and straight men initiating divorce in the vast minority of cases.
^Ha.
Umm... I doesn't? >_<;
edited 20th Oct '13 12:05:58 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidVictory gives an endorphine rush, mate. And, it's surprising how often killing somebody else is chalked up as some form of victory. -_-
Yeah, that endorphin rush is scientifically the same.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickIn that case, we're wired to do anything that we can count as a victory, so the prediction seems useless. The counterargument would be specific traits of our neurophysiology that favour sexual intercourse.
But is this thread LGBT Rights and Religion, or LGBT Rights and Biology? And more on point, doesn't teleology seem kind of silly if it leads us into this arguments and then begs good empirical biology to save it?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.According to the Bible, he banned it. the question is why?
because God said so, duh. You dont need any other justification.
I don't, but he generally has a pattern of there being a reason. Even if that reason might not be understood by the times.
I don't understand it now.
says you.
I say with the times his reasons make less and less sense or only made sense in the context of the time they were written
Case in point. Shellfish and or Pork. perfectly reasonable in ancient times when they were hard to keep from infecting you with nasty diseases. less sensible in a time when we now know how to largely not get sick from eating them.
Yeah, 2nd edition patched a lot of the problems with the 1st, but frankly it's getting a bit dated now and he really should release another.
There is actually a school of thought that the prohibitions in Leviticus were largely ones of a father to children who weren't old enough to understands whys and were meant to fall away as the children grew up and learned more. Just because dad sets and 8 pm bedtime when you're five doesn't mean it's meant to be your bedtime always.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickIIRC, the release of the 3rd edition patch was promised to be apocalyptic. Even if it wasn't, you'd likely end up with an edition war on your hands.
Oh god I'm so sick of hearing about the time of judgement. It has been in development hell for like forever.
hashtagsarestupid
Not to mention how the american fundamentalists keep adding on extra storylines to it.
The writer strike didn't help.
hashtagsarestupidWhen I was a kid, I heard the 3.0 patch was released in North America in the first half of the 19th Century, but almost everyone I've talked to since then says it was just fan-made content not endorsed by the IP holder.
The regional versions didn't help either. I mean, you had the Orthodox build, the Catholic build, the Protestant build and in a few places you got really corrupted versions.
Not Three Laws compliant.Ah, compared to other systems' fanbases that's not too bad. The fan wars between the Sunni and Shi'ite builds got pretty extreme.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Last time I heard that, all that happened was Naxxramas getting recycled into easymode. Four Horsemen and all. And the next time there was another apocalypse.
Several come to mind, none of which are particularly difficult to wrap one's head around.
- Surrounding cultures regularly raping war prisoners and sexually hazing foreigners/children? That's a paddlin'.
- Rival pagan faiths have temple orgies? That's a paddlin'.
- Potentially crippling your standing army with avoidable disease and/or septic shock while rival tribes are trying to kill you? Oh, you'd better believe that's a paddlin'.
- Corollary: Desert nomads -> very limited hygiene and medicine -> dick in butt bad.
And...none of them happen to be relevant anymore. Well, war rape is very much still a thing in some places, but it's not relevant to two dudes getting married. Anal sex is still somewhat physically riskier than vaginal, but not much if obvious precautions are taken.
Again, look at the word used to describe the offense of anal sex. It's the exact same one used to describe this.◊
edited 20th Oct '13 8:08:05 PM by Pykrete
South Carolina mayor: ‘God is against queers and don’t ram gay marriage down my throat!’
I had problems deciding if this belonged in the 'LGBT Rights and America' thread or the 'LGBT Rights and Religion' thread.
I choose this thread because it seemed like the safer option.
edited 20th Oct '13 9:21:07 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. Ever. He did condemn people for being overly legalistic and adhering way too much to the letter of the law.
And, lady, that's a horrible attitude. How do you think the gay people who want to get married feel? Admittedly, she probably would never think about it.
edited 20th Oct '13 9:18:29 PM by Zendervai
Not Three Laws compliant.Honestly I'm surprised that a South Carolina town would elect a woman as mayor.
hashtagsarestupidSociopathy is a stapple of evangelical christianity.
Pykrete: I happen to agree with you about the "landmines" in Thomist moral reasoning. At the very least, I can't decide how well all of Aquinas' particular natural-law arguments on that subject currently apply. At first blush, some of them look wobblier than when he penned them—but not all. And if I'm not mistaken, the neo-Scholastic philosophers helped to resolve a few muddy-looking arguments that actually weren't so muddy, much less fallacious ... don't know if they did much with his moral philosophy, but it's possible. Even taking all that into account, though, my earlier answer to Peryton stands: none of those arguments have been conclusively refuted in any way that justifies simply breezing past them. Q.E.D.
Mwah hah hah hah. [polishes hockey mask]
edited 21st Oct '13 4:56:38 AM by Jhimmibhob
Hollywood alone probably warps that statistic a bit.
edited 20th Oct '13 8:25:33 AM by Zendervai
Not Three Laws compliant.