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
So, sex for non-reproductive purposes in any situation is immoral? Why? We have 6 billion humans on the planet already.
Okay. I wish more people could admit that.
Reproduction does have justification in some places of the world, on the other hand, unless almost every couple is gay... that can't be a problem since enough will procreate. And it's also noted that even homosexual couples often have an opposite sex used to create a baby. A surrogate, if I remember the term correctly. So there's no excuse even then.
Pretty sure she admitted otherwise.
edited 7th Dec '12 8:52:13 PM by Hydronix
Quest 64 threadI understand now. Thanks for letting me know the faults of my arguments. One of the best ways to know if your line of thinking is valid is to have it tested. And while I do believe that sex for non-reproductive purposes is immoral, that's my problem and nobody else's.
edited 7th Dec '12 9:45:34 PM by CalamityJane
Please consider supporting my artwork on Patreon@Jhimmibob: one of the nice things about a relevance argument is that you can ignore something once you find it isn't applicable to the issue in question. Likewise, at some point, you have to be willing to turn down stuff that you haven't read and gone over with a fine-toothed comb, lest you become vulnerable to the Gish Gallop.
I'll admit my biases and my position. I'm a heterosexual atheist. I have no skin in this game, am in support of LGBTQ rights because I don't like how other people are treated unfairly, and I'd be happy to have the "faults of religion" discussion except that it's neither the topic of this thread nor appropriate for this forum. I am, unsurprisingly, not all that sympathetic to Aquinas (though I won't reject everything he says out of hand either).
However, if the Aquinas-quoting theological establishment shows evidence of having trained themselves to be bad at assessing arguments related to homosexuality (because they've been training themselves to be really good at preserving the arguments of old established authority regardless of their relevance or soundness) then religious people trying to reconcile their faith with their positions on LGBTQ rights are going to find said theological establishment worse than useless, and so the establishment arguments will get completely ignored when those religious people decide on their faith in that context. If theologians want to zone themselves out of the game that way, fine by me. What will happen is that a new theological establishment that's all for LGBTQ rights will arise, and 100 years from now they'll claim that their faith has always supported LGBTQ rights just like it always supported civil rights for racial minorities.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Another thing weakening "Because God says so" is that God didn't even make an attempt as saying why, not even with non-arguments such as "it will cause problems on the long run, that would take too long to explain". Instead, nothing but (supposedly) "it's an 'abomination'".
Also slightly off-topic, the "men who let women top will be denied heaven" thing; it's either pure misogyny or because "it's less likely to cause pregnancy, therefore doubleplusungood crimesex".
Edit: Now it's got me wondering if "it's an abomination to God" doesn't mean "God Himself is male and hetero, and doesn't want to see gay sex, and since God sees everything you musn't do it at all, for it always turns Him off."
Edit2: And then it was relaxed along with all those other rules in Bible NT™, because Mary likes her yaois.
edited 8th Dec '12 4:11:36 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."Even if I believed in God, and even if I believed that God held certain opinions on sex, there is still the underlying question as to why I (or any theist) should care. After all, what makes God's opinion on something any more or less valid than mine or anybody else's? I may like vanilla ice cream, and my neighbor may like chocolate. That doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong, and it doesn't give either of us the right to prevent the other from enjoying ice cream.
Or to put it another way, what if I said, "Yes, I agree that God says homosexuality is a sin. So what?"
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Well, God is supposedly that old wise guy you ought to listen to.
What if no one listened to Gandalf in Lord Of The Rings? They'd be screwed, that's what! xD
edited 8th Dec '12 6:55:07 AM by kay4today
