Jump to content


Photo

Stockholm Terror Attack


  • Please log in to reply
87 replies to this topic

#51 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:19 AM

False. Democratic Republic of the Congo imprisons gays and encourages lynchings of them, all thanks to Christian Missionaries propping up their dictator.

 

True. I was generalizing. By exception Belarus is a secular heaven of communism but... you know what Mr. Lukashenko says. Shame he can't explain it rationally. At least one of his crimes could get a mitigating circumstance. But his kind don't live up to that discussion in court.


Edited by Anderson, 09 April 2017 - 10:20 AM.


#52 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:19 AM

I disagree Anderson. If people restrict homosexuality, they can restrict interracial marriage and interfaith marriage. It basically says that two people who are in love and give consent can't be with each other. Again, it just sounds like you're a child going "They're icky, so no civil rights for them!"
  • Anderson likes this

#53 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5524 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:21 AM

What makes you say that this is progress?

 

My values say it is progress. I feel it is very conservative and backwards to do otherwise. I can see you have the opposite view and I respect that. We do not need to be in agreement, but it is interesting to see your justification why LGBT should not have the same rights as everyone else. What benefit does their prosecution (or condemnation) provide to the society?

 

 

The truth is - people still don't see LGBT people as normal and prefer to ignore them.

 

You cannot say it is the truth without presenting some demographics indicating so. Polls in Finland indicate most people in cities have no issue with LGBT. Rural areas are more conservative.

 

​Economic growth happens when the demographic crisis of an aging Europe is overcome. That's the priority. Not adopting children by LGBT's.

 

But for the individual it is a big deal. Why should they not have the same rights as others have?

 

Are we truly setting our priorities right?

 

Sure, there are always bigger problems... But it should be no justification for not letting the little things progress. Little things are Big Things for some individuals. If we can improve their lives with simple measures, why not do it?


Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#54 Judith

Judith

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:23 AM

Also, adoption rights for LGBT community aren't a bad thing, gay couples are doing well enough financially that there's been a "prosperous middle-class gay" stereotype in western pop-culture for years now. This is while good catholic couples leave their newborns in hospitals, orphanages, or street dumpsters.



#55 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:31 AM

OK, but those behaviours are not intraspecies, they are interspecies !

Humans rape other humans and not for reproductive urges.

There are examples of both. Problem here is, that for some species reape is the normal procedure while mating, so it is difficult to tell the difference. Also, it is hard to tell, if intercourse is consentual, if you have no idea how the consent is expressed for a specific species.

Regarding urges, I can, again, only refer to dolphins and apes, who both are known to have sex for pleasure. As I said, this appears to be something that is more common in more intelligent species.

 

@Anderson: I agree, that LGBT rights appear small compared to other problems that are more pressing in most states in the world. But as you said yourself: there should be an equality of opportunities, regardsless of your sexual prefenrence. And this should include the opportunity to have a family. Adopting children should have the same restircitions that apply for heterosexual couples: They should provide a stable invironment and be able to provide for the children. It is definitely wrong to say that "most of these people are also not exactly the people to work their lives to feed 3 or more children". At least, not the gay people I know. And there are really more than enough heterosexual couples, who cannot feed their children. Homosexuals, at least, are sure that they want a child, when they adopt one...

 

This is while good catholic couples leave their newborns in hospitals, orphanages, or street dumpsters.

And why not let these children, that are abandoned by their heterosexual parents, be raised by homosexual ones, who would acutally be glad if they could do that. Additionally, as it was already established that homosexuality rather has a genetic cause than a trained one, you also do not have to "fear" that the child will be gay, just because the parents are. So there are no downsides to orphans/abandoned children being brought up by a homosexual couple, in my opinion.


  • Judith likes this

#56 Judith

Judith

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:40 AM

Unfortunately, at least in my country there's still a lot of fear in conservative politicians and especially among the clergy (numerous cases of pedophilia among their ranks somehow bother them less), and they're viewing homosexuality as a disease.



#57 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:41 AM

 

My values say it is progress. I feel it is very conservative and backwards to do otherwise. I can see you have the opposite view and I respect that. We do not need to be in agreement, but it is interesting to see your justification why LGBT should not have the same rights as everyone else. What benefit does their prosecution (or condemnation) provide to the society?

 

 

You cannot say it is the truth without presenting some demographics indicating so. Polls in Finland indicate most people in cities have no issue with LGBT. Rural areas are more conservative.

 

 

 

 

I'm against having homosexuality as a criminal offense. But I do not regard it a person seriously with such a condition neither. For the same reasons by analogy why people have a restriction of movement in psychiatric institutions. Do you believe we went really far with our methods there? We still use primitive sedatives to combat the occasional anguish or aggressive psychosis.

 

It's not the end of the world if they get 100% rights as heterosexuals but it's still not the same traditional family. There's still no father/mother figure from which a child could mould their potential future soulmate by compatibility. Because you notice that approximately the way a mother-child relationship goes, the same way a boy searches for some resemblance qualities in his future lover. And vice versa for girls - they look up to their fathers for traits to find with their future boyfriend.

This is just one of the psychological things that gets screwed. I'm not saying it's better to be orphan than raised in a homosexual family. But I have earnest doubts on how serious the intentions of such people from these LGBT communities can be.

 

To me having no issues with LGBT is just a way to avoid conflict. But most people in this category still won't really understand LGBT's. Even if they claim they are fine with it. It's not a race thing after all.



#58 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:42 AM

Unfortunately, at least in my country there's still a lot of fear in conservative politicians and especially among the clergy (numerous cases of pedophilia among their ranks somehow bother them less), and they're viewing homosexuality as a disease.

 

Same here. Pedophilia here though is not common due to the clergy being allowed to have families.



#59 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:44 AM

 

 

 

And why not let these children, that are abandoned by their heterosexual parents, be raised by homosexual ones, who would acutally be glad if they could do that. Additionally, as it was already established that homosexuality rather has a genetic cause than a trained one, you also do not have to "fear" that the child will be gay, just because the parents are. So there are no downsides to orphans/abandoned children being brought up by a homosexual couple, in my opinion.

 

Yeah, I can accept that one. Nobody in the world should be without something resembling a family. Orphanages suck.



#60 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:52 AM

Another idea to throw around: same sex marriage women are more likely not to adopt children but rather to use in vitro fertilization. Are you okay with that? Are those going to be healthy families with their heterosexual equivalent?



#61 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5524 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:09 AM

 

But I do not regard it a person seriously with such a condition neither. For the same reasons by analogy why people have a restriction of movement in psychiatric institutions. Do you believe we went really far with our methods there?

 

This makes it seem that homosexuality is a mental illness from your point of view. Is this correct?

 

Current western scientific view does not support this idea.

 

It's not the end of the world if they get 100% rights as heterosexuals but it's still not the same traditional family. There's still no father/mother figure from which a child could mould their potential future soulmate by compatibility. Because you notice that approximately the way a mother-child relationship goes, the same way a boy searches for some resemblance qualities in his future lover. And vice versa for girls - they look up to their fathers for traits to find with their future boyfriend.

This is just one of the psychological things that gets screwed.

 

I think I read a newspaper story about a child grown by homosexual parents. They became just an ordinary heterosexual. But that was just one instance, more is needed for statistical meaning.

 

Children are brought up in completely different family environments: father working only, never with family; other parent dead or left; alcholist parents: etc; etc. There are large diversity there. I do not think homosexual parents are such a big deal for the development of the individual. Now that liberal countries give these rights to LGBT, we will get a lot of statistically meaningful data. This is a good thing for science (another benefit for giving the rights!)

 

 

Another idea to throw around: same sex marriage women are more likely not to adopt children but rather to use in vitro fertilization. Are you okay with that? Are those going to be healthy families with their heterosexual equivalent?

 

I think they will be perfectly fine families, for reasons stated previously. Human children can grow in a multitude of different family arrangements and mostly fine and stable individuals are "produced" as long as there is no beating, abuse, or similar criminal activity.


Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#62 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:11 AM

Well, at least they definitely chose to get children and will (hopefully) be able to care for them better than a teenage couple that had an "accident". I am not sure if there are any restrictions to in vitro fertilization, although I doubt it, as I know of at least one woman who got pregnant way after her forties (and age would be one restriction I would introduce, as the pregnancy gets more risky with increased age), but it is at least costly, so the financial stability should be given.



#63 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:34 AM

Biomedicine still argues on the ethics of in vitro fertilisation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss long term effects on the life of an individual born in those conditions.

 

 

This makes it seem that homosexuality is a mental illness from your point of view. Is this correct?

 

Current western scientific view does not support this idea.

 

If I had the power, homosexuals would certainly not be in the category of people to get psychiatric treatment. Lots of people get there wrongfully. It is even worse than prison because of the isolation and not even knowing why you're there. Very high chances of abuse by staff.

But I will say that the methods of psychiatry raise question on where the limits are of pathology and normality. These are vary shaky and treacherous grounds. I'm only thankful that law is hard and slow to change.

​The reason why we even got so far from terrorism to this - is because modern society's moral compass is under scrutiny. We can do better than that. That's why to me conservatism matters. The struggle goes on.

 

In the 1970's a work called  "Comportamento sessuale e personalità". (English: Sexual Behavior and Personality) Milan by Siegfried Schnabl - he speculated that polygamy might be legalized in the US and elsewhere. We know that never happened. The sexual revolution was not that crazy.

My conclusion is that it might be part of the same current as legalizing drugs. So we should definitely give it consideration. It's probably an overreaction to completely legalize marriages of same sex couples.

At the end of the day each countries does it as it sees fits. The bare minimum is the protection of non discrimination policies against LGBT. That's about it.

 

Homosexuality is eccentric and always will be a minority. That's for certain.


Edited by Anderson, 09 April 2017 - 11:45 AM.


#64 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:39 AM

When I'm talking exaggeration and overreacting I mean to avoid these scenarios. It's old but real, real appropriate:



#65 Kurshok

Kurshok

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 11:52 AM

If conservatism is anything like the authoritarianism that Russia displays, or the religious nuttery the Republicans in America eschew, then I'll vote liberal every day for the rest of my life.

#66 Sotha

Sotha

    Vertical Contest Winner

  • Active Developer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5524 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 12:12 PM

 

​The reason why we even got so far from terrorism to this - is because modern society's moral compass is under scrutiny. We can do better than that. That's why to me conservatism matters. The struggle goes on.

 

I can sort of see the benefits and reasons of conservatism. The world changes at a rapid pace. Just as it started to make sense, it changes again and leaves one scared and dumbfounded, completely in a new situation.

 

But I am more of a liberal than conservatist. Looking back in history, it is obvious that yesterday was worse than today. Progress brings benefits for everyone. Too much conservatism will block this progress and we will get stagnant. Water gets foul in stagnant pools.

 

Ethics and morals... With what right do we condemn those who are different? Homosexuality is an intrinsic property and will not change in the individual. Sure it will always be in the minority like you say, but here is a simple check for you:

 

What if you won in the lottery? What if it turned out that you like the same sex. The conservative community will hate and fear you. Your options in life will be lower. Would that be fair? It is not your fault: you just were born that way. This mental exercise shows one more reason why LGBT should have the same rights as others. It is a big thing for the individual. Benefit for the community comes from the individual's contribution to the community. For example, Alan Turing took his own life, and his denied homosexuality must have been one contributing thing. That they were not let to be the person they were. What wonders would he have contributed to the UK should the community been more tolerant?

 

Is it ethical to condemn these people to have less rights than the majority?

 

Our moral compass in indeed under scrutiny. But the terrorists will win if any changes to it will occur because of the attacks. The correct way to respond is simply to keep calm and carry on with our lives.


Clipper
-The mapper's best friend.

#67 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 12:22 PM

I could only accept more rights for LGBT if they were a humble and righteous community. Not arrogant, hypocrite and ugly as they are at present. They do not deserve those rights at least for these reasons if they can't get better representatives.

Chaikovsky became a great classical composer not due to his homosexuality, but because he kept it to himself. It's not a bragging right. Therefore we are at present where everyone gets what they deserve.

 

I don't deny the value of liberalism either. Liberalism is a natural way for a human being to exist. But anarchy is awful. For our society, in my region at any rate it will be at least another 20 years before it can be embraced by society. A layman uninitiated into thinking in these categories will have a hard time wrapping his head around all this and the reasons for it all.

 

In due time all things will come to be considered properly I guess.



#68 Destined

Destined

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 958 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 01:10 PM

I could only accept more rights for LGBT if they were a humble and righteous community. Not arrogant, hypocrite and ugly as they are at present. They do not deserve those rights at least for these reasons if they can't get better representatives.

Well, I don't know what experience you have with the LGBT community, but I think this is rather harsh. I agree insofar as I also think being gay is nothing to brag about. Just as being heterosexual or being born in the right place is nothing to brag about (or be ashamed about for that matter). It is something you were born with and have to live with. However, as a minority you are easily dismissed for the exact fact that you are one. This is why there are gay pride marches etc. I am also not overly fod of these, but I understand that they want to be heard. And this is one way to achieve that. The homosexual people I know are absolutely not like that. They are just "normal" people who live just like rest of us, with the simple difference that they prefer the same sex. And this is, in my opinion, the way it should be. They should conribute to society as much as the rest and, in turn, have the same rights as the rest.


  • Anderson likes this

#69 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35903 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 01:45 PM

In religion slavery is a metaphor. A huge allegory that goes as a synonym for all followers.

 

 

Right.  So when the Bible spells out who you can enslave, and for how long, and the specific markings you put on them to indicate ownership, and the conditions under which they can be passed down to your children as property, that's metaphor.  You should, perhaps, read Exodus 21.  It would be fun to get into this further, but I think it would have to be its own thread, as it has little connection to the rest of the topics here.
 

 

The two major points is ​one​ - equality of chances, and decriminalization and non discrimination. That I agree with completely. The state is not supposed to be an absolute guardian of morality. It's not rational and it's not realistically possible to regulate all human activity. If we have a group of hipsters, let them live as they see fit until they reach maturity.

 

 

 

Ok, so we seem to agree here, more or less.

 

The ​second​ point is allowing LGBT communities to get civil partnerships (domestic partnerships, it's called variously in different countries) and/or full marriage equivalent to traditional families. On this is my fundamental disagreement. The state should not legalize and get involved in normalizing this situation. My argument is that as long we have torture, capital punishment, rape, religious, racial segregation - why do we talk about LGBT? Far as I'm concerned it's a whim.

 

 

There is a lot to disagree with here.

 

1.  "The state should not legalize and get involved in normalizing this situation"

The state issues marriage licenses, so clearly they ARE the institution that needs to be involved.

 

2.  "as long we have torture, capital punishment, rape, religious, racial segregation - why do we talk about LGBT?"

You may rank marriage equality as a lower concern than rape or racial segregation without a huge amount of argument, I suspect.  But there is a big difference between "X is not as important as Y" and "We can't solve X until we solve Y".

 

"Sadistic torture is worse than tax evasion, so why do we bother doing anything about tax evasion while we still have people being tortured?"  I'm sure you can see the flaw in that argument.

 

 

 

 

I could only accept more rights for LGBT if they were a humble and righteous community. Not arrogant, hypocrite and ugly as they are at present.

 

 

Luckily, we don't establish people's rights based on whether we like their attitude or not.


Posted Image

#70 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 02:16 PM

 

Right.  So when the Bible spells out who you can enslave, and for how long, and the specific markings you put on them to indicate ownership, and the conditions under which they can be passed down to your children as property, that's metaphor.  You should, perhaps, read Exodus 21.

 

 

I'm not the prototype religious person but The Old Testament/Hebrew Bible shouldn't be read outside the context of the whole book and the contextual, logical ending of it.

Slavery of course became immoral with the New Testament. Not in as much of a religious current as also a cultural reshape of the whole society. A sort of a collective penance. But of course each denomination saw it in their own way. And of course the discussable and vastly engaging apocrypha...

 

 

 

Luckily, we don't establish people's rights based on whether we like their attitude or not.

 

Yes, we do in countries that haven't recognized same sex marriages documents from abroad, haven't legalized the process nationally and especially if they have a constitutional restriction. It's a subjective matter of a vote in Parliament. It's also not a condition to enter the EU in Europe. Only non discrimination laws are mandatory.



#71 Springheel

Springheel

    Creative Director (retired)

  • Admin
  • 35903 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 02:26 PM

I branched off the slavery discussion:

http://forums.thedar.../18763-slavery/

 

Yes, we do in countries that haven't recognized same sex marriages documents from abroad, haven't legalized the process nationally and especially if they have a constitutional restriction. It's a subjective matter of a vote in Parliament. It's also not a condition to enter the EU in Europe. Only non discrimination laws are mandatory.


I don't know what any of that has to do with establishing rights based on whether we like someone's attitude? Can you show me an acceptable example of where a group's rights were revoked because the group in question was "arrogant" or "ugly"?
 

 

Another idea to throw around: same sex marriage women are more likely not to adopt children but rather to use in vitro fertilization. Are you okay with that? Are those going to be healthy families with their heterosexual equivalent?

 

 

All the available data we have suggests "yes".  What reason would there be to think otherwise?


Posted Image

#72 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 02:41 PM

 


I don't know what any of that has to do with establishing rights based on whether we like someone's attitude? Can you show me an acceptable example of where a group's rights were revoked because the group in question was "arrogant" or "ugly"?
 

 

All the available data we have suggests "yes".  What reason would there be to think otherwise?

 The same reason why not every national minority gets autonomy within a country. Same reason why Texas is not an independent state even if it really wants to.

 

In Vitro is a relatively new method and we may have very little data to operate with to make a prognosis of long term effects. But that's just speculation for now.

 

 

 

There is a lot to disagree with here.

 

1.  "The state should not legalize and get involved in normalizing this situation"

The state issues marriage licenses, so clearly they ARE the institution that needs to be involved.

 

2.  "as long we have torture, capital punishment, rape, religious, racial segregation - why do we talk about LGBT?"

You may rank marriage equality as a lower concern than rape or racial segregation without a huge amount of argument, I suspect.  But there is a big difference between "X is not as important as Y" and "We can't solve X until we solve Y".

 

"Sadistic torture is worse than tax evasion, so why do we bother doing anything about tax evasion while we still have people being tortured?"  I'm sure you can see the flaw in that argument.

 

 

The state can be involved, but it may choose not to.

 

Tax evasion and sadistic torture affect the state in a bad way. The state gets involved only when the society needs it. The state should not be involved in a way that would cause harm to society. While an objective minority with dubious prospects to raise families? Remains to be seen if it's as good as polygamy in Islam. Or the aforementioned failed attempt to legalize polygamy in developed countries. Time will tell.


Edited by Anderson, 09 April 2017 - 02:42 PM.


#73 jaxa

jaxa

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1172 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 02:51 PM

>login

>46 notifications

 

GG, Mr. Anderson.

 

Back on-topic: some Christians aspire to be as militant as the minority of Islamic extremists. They are just too coddled with wealth and distracted with entertainment at the moment to get with it. And when Christians do bull or kill for example, an LGBT youth, it doesn't make headline news like an Islamist killing 1-3 people with a machete would. Once the middle classes of the West collapse, you can expect Christians to get to work bullying homosexuals, bombing abortion clinics, assassinating fertility and biotechnology scientists, etc. They'll look at social and technological progress in the world, and see the telltale signs of the Antichrist and end times.



#74 Judith

Judith

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 03:04 PM

I think comparing polygamy to LGBT couples rights is somewhat ridiculous. The former was, at least in western culture, a dream of 70s flower-power era, fuelled by LSD, weed, and rage against the oppressive state. LGBT couples wanting to have families and children, and not being able to, is a sad, long-term reality.



#75 Anderson

Anderson

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 647 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 03:14 PM

I think comparing polygamy to LGBT couples rights is somewhat ridiculous. The former was, at least in western culture, a dream of 70s flower-power era, fuelled by LSD, weed, and rage against the oppressive state. LGBT couples wanting to have families and children, and not being able to, is a sad, long-term reality.

 

Even if it's an acceptable practice in Islam and elsewhere? They can have children too.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users