Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

People voting with their feet


Sotha

Recommended Posts

I see a further issue here.

 

The context is "what laws should be enacted" rather than "what do I personally feel about gay peoples' lifestyles".

 

If we are simply in the realm of the latter, then perhaps bigotry is not the correct term as bigotry is an external act of hostility. As long as you are not proselytizing the concept then that is not bigotry?

 

Bigotry:

 

"I hate Catholics! I wish they were gone!"

 

Not Bigotry:

 

Q: How do you feel about Catholics?

A: I wish they would stop praying to Mary, I personally don't like that activity but that is their own personal choice just not my cup 'o tea.

 

But this example gets a bit blurry...

 

Bigotry or Not?

 

Q: How do you feel about black people?

A: I wish they were brighter colored, I personally don't like their color it's too dark but that is the way they were born so I guess I can't offer any qualms. Just not my cup 'o tea.

Edited by nbohr1more

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know what your reading.

 

I'm reading your words.

 

What you wrote:

I see no reason to take away their right to those views ... people will always not like other people.

 

What I said:

You said that people have the right to "not like other people"

 

So how did I get your meaning wrong, exactly?

 

@ ungoliant:

People have the right to not like other people based on their sexual orientation,

 

If you choose to dislike someone purely because of their sexual orientation, then you're a bigot. Which is not to say that you can't make a case that people have the right to be a bigot. I just want to be clear about whether that's the proposal here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context is "what laws should be enacted" rather than "what do I personally feel about gay peoples' lifestyles".

 

I think this is closer to the issue at at bar. I don't think its quite as touchy-feely teletubby as people not liking eachother and proclaiming "i have the right to not like you!", "well we should all like eachother!". But if you don't want to like someone for the worst possible reasons imaginable its still your right. But enacting laws against those people you don't like is a different matter. My feeling is that you should only be able to apply laws to those parties 'you don't like' when its 'in YOUR house'.

 

If i don't want purple people to be married under my roof, that's my damn right. If I'm the president of a supersecret exclusive club of cool not-purple-people-only, then i should be able to say "no purple people marrying in the clubhouse!", or even "no purple people in the clubhouse at all!" Outside the clubhouse? none o my damn business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm the president of a supersecret exclusive club of cool not-purple-people-only, then i should be able to say "no purple people marrying in the clubhouse!", or even "no purple people in the clubhouse at all!"

 

Interesting. So someone should have the right to say, "No black people are allowed in my store because it's my store"?

 

I don't like how you micro analyze what you read Spring.

 

I happen to think words are important (especially when communicating through writing), and so I tend to assume people actually pick their words carefully and mean what they say. If that's not true in your case, let me know and I'll stop paying so much attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spring: LOL you were too fast I had a brain bubble. ;)

 

 

There's many different definitions of Bigot but I think this is the best:

 

Bigot:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

 

From the same site:

 

Intolerance:

"Lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own"

 

Combined:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own."

 

Don't you think this definition applies to both sides of the debate when the act in the behavior I described previously? Yes people have the right to be bigots, and there always will be bigots, (that doesn't make it right) but by acting bigoted towards the bigots isn't going to help anything imo. It's fighting fire with fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Yes people have the right to be bigots, and there always will be bigots, (that doesn't make it right) but by acting bigoted towards the bigots isn't going to help anything imo. It's fighting fire with fire.

 

Er, no I don't think it is wrong. In fact, it is the right thing to do. Otherwise It is like being tolerant to intolerant people. That doesn't work. You need to stop disruptive (or flatly "wrong") behaviour, or they is now reason for the other ones to stop, so they continue to cause harm.

 

(What is considered "wrong", is of course, on debate and changing for thousand of years. That's called progress I think...)

 

(Causing harm: You have to consider that no man is an island, many humans are greatly influenced what other people do and think, and if you allow f.i. bigots, you have the negative consequences that other people get bullied and suppressed, then develop evasive measures (e.g. hiding their feelings) and then get at least depressed, if not outright harmed (suicide f.i.). Not good at all.)

 

I think its fair favor to your own group or people like you and everyone does it. Your wife, friends and family are the result of you favoring your own cultural group. So does this favoring of your own cultural group and not favoring another group make individuals bigots even if they do not lack respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own?

 

Thinking "my group is better than your group" is basic deep-down human behaviour, but it is still wrong in many occasions. Yes, it does help (it makes you stronger because you consider yourself better, boosting your confidence), but when it crosses the line from "we are better than them" to "they are worse than us" it quickly gets to "they are worth nothing" and then you got a lot of problems.

 

And that is why bigotry, hating gays, hating jews (insert your own "general" category here), hating animals, hating other people etc is simply wrong.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

 

"Remember: If the game lets you do it, it's not cheating." -- Xarax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gays are no different than straights: They have sex - who cares whether it's boy-girl, boy-boy or girl-girl action. And it's not like that's a conscious choice anyway!

 

That's not what this is about. Not sex per se. This is a question of legality and religion.

 

There is NO evidence to suggest that straight people are any better in either marriage or raising children than gays. If a union (civil or religious) between two people is a happy one and they love each other, children grow up happy, too. Maybe a slight exaggeration there, but you get the point. Straights and gays both can f*ck up a marriage just the same - so they should have the same rights AND responsibilities. That's the point of equality under the law.

 

An argument is made by even the people who accept gays: You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your home and bedroom. That's not what should be argued. If you see a straight couple - a girl and a boy - kissing or hugging in the street, you think it's ok - socially acceptable public behavior. What if the couple was two girls or two boys doing the same? How many - even the accepting ones - would say "hey, that's ok, too"? Because it SHOULD be ok. You can't accept one type of public social behavior and restrict another type. This is the western world, after all. It's what happens in the public eye that makes the rules for socially acceptable behavior - it's way too easy to confine gays to the privacy of their homes and expect them to stay there. In that case it would be no different than not having any rights at all anyway.

 

As for religion, these church people, bible enthusiasts, etc. seem to think that if one is gay, one cannot be a true believer or a good christian or a fundamentalist. That's just so wrong. It violates religious tenets of loving thy fellow man. When the church tries to become THE voice of authority over peoples' individual faith, then no wonder masses of people vacate as quickly as possible. It is wrong - ethically at the very least - for the church to hold one group of people (straights) as better than another (gays). After all, the church is supposed to be composed of people who come together to share their faith, not a safe haven for biggots, racists and sexists who as an organization attack a group of people for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (unless it's a sex religion, which there should probably be more at this point). God's house is supposed to for EVERYONE, right? Not just those who claim it to be "my house".

 

People do have the right to voice their opinions, sure, but to start claiming their view is THE one and only right view, that's when not only should people stop listening, but they should start making noise of their own! Because if you don't, then their voice is the only one being heard - and unfortunately that's the one people will then base their opinions on.

 

Cultural tolerance is not a valid defense for an argument. Just because you tolerate something, doesn't mean you accept it. Unless the distinction is made clear, no real change - positive or negative - will happen. The same opposing arguments just get repeated over and over again. Cultural tolerance is being used as a fix-all point of view that people resort to to avoid taking a stand one way or the other. Favored by politicians everywhere. But a person just can't tolerate or accept every damn thing. Social change is inevitable, but the outcome is not written in stone.

 

As an anthropologist, being objective is expected: I should always try to look at things from all possible angles - even if I have already formed an opinion of my own. But to use the cultural defense is, if not illegal, unethical: All cultures have their pros and cons. Say, for example, the muslim culture and circumcision of young girls. Their argument is that it's a part of their culture. They have a point, but that doesn't make it right. That's when you make your counter-argument and try to make a damn good one! That's the point of the western civilization: Every voice counts - even if they are unethical, amoral or down-right filled with hatred, judgement and ignorance. if you agree, say it. If you disagree, say that. Culture as a whole should never be used as a defense against social change for the betterment of people - or a group of people, like gays.

 

Pardon for the wall of text... And I absolutely don't want to start any wars of opinions here. Just voicing mine. If you disagree, by all means: Say it. sleep.gif

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, no I don't think it is wrong. In fact, it is the right thing to do. Otherwise It is like being tolerant to intolerant people. That doesn't work. You need to stop disruptive (or flatly "wrong") behaviour, or they is now reason for the other ones to stop, so they continue to cause harm.

 

And that is why bigotry, hating gays, hating jews (insert your own "general" category here), hating animals, hating other people etc is simply wrong.

 

You're just presenting a paradox imo. The issue at hand between religion and homosexuality is that homosexuality is not condoned as moral by religion. You could say it is "lacking respect" for homosexuality. When you say, perhaps all those who don't accept homosexuality are ignorant, are immoral in themselves and so on, you are bigoted towards them. Then you're pro homosexuality group is "lacking respect" for the religious group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I don't like hippies and nature-protecting activists, who always have to chain themselves to the rails where a transport train of atomical waste will travel through. That's just nonsense to me... But I still don't offer them hatred or try to enforce any rules on them. That's the big difference. Although, what the referenced group mostly does is against the law, so this is probably a bad example.

 

This is all very wishy-washy. For example, where is the fine line between not liking how women act in a specific situation and sexism? To a certain degree you are allowed to not like something, but you are never allowed to take action. I honestly don't get it sometimes, so some people might tend to see me as intollerant occasionally, although I just think I have a strong opinion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon for the wall of text... And I absolutely don't want to start any wars of opinions here. Just voicing mine. If you disagree, by all means: Say it. sleep.gif

 

Aye! I'm not disagreeing at all. :laugh:

 

Instead I'm gonna continue the story, because it's getting even more exciting.

 

Remember that christian party leader who said that homosexuality is a flaw in one's sexuality?

 

Because of her talks, the christian party is getting more members!

 

Also, at the same time SETA (Sexual Equality organization in Finland) memberships are increasing faster than normal.

 

Note that church memberships are decreasing by thousands: 28000 last time I checked. And christian party and SETA memberships are increasing by hundreds.

 

So basically it looks like:

  • liberal people leaving church (mass movement)
  • conservative, non political, people joining the christian party as a gesture of support.
  • normal/liberal people joining sexual equality organizations. (since more liberal people probably are already members)

 

Lots of people voting with their feet. People choosing sides... Interesting times...

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes people have the right to be bigots, and there always will be bigots, (that doesn't make it right)

 

I'm confused. Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with being a bigot, or are you saying that bigotry is wrong but we can't do anything about it?

 

I would disagree with both of those statements, actually, but they're saying very different things.

 

You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your home and bedroom. That's not what should be argued. If you see a straight couple - a girl and a boy - kissing or hugging in the street, you think it's ok - socially acceptable public behavior. What if the couple was two girls or two boys doing the same? How many - even the accepting ones - would say "hey, that's ok, too"? Because it SHOULD be ok

 

Some people don't seem to be able to separate things that make them uncomfortable from things that should not be allowed. I don't particularly enjoy seeing senior citizens making out in public. Imagining obese people having sex creeps me out. But I would never suggest either group shouldn't have the right to do those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument is made by even the people who accept gays: You can do whatever you want in the privacy of your home and bedroom. That's not what should be argued. If you see a straight couple - a girl and a boy - kissing or hugging in the street, you think it's ok - socially acceptable public behavior. What if the couple was two girls or two boys doing the same? How many - even the accepting ones - would say "hey, that's ok, too"? Because it SHOULD be ok. You can't accept one type of public social behavior and restrict another type. This is the western world, after all. It's what happens in the public eye that makes the rules for socially acceptable behavior - it's way too easy to confine gays to the privacy of their homes and expect them to stay there. In that case it would be no different than not having any rights at all anyway.

 

 

 

What I meant by that was simply that sexual behavior is generally in private. Honestly I don't care if they show public affection either.

My point is just that it's a personal decision that really only effects those involved, so it should be up to them. (not that I don't care as long as I never see it)

 

But like I said, it's one of those topics...

-----------

 

Funny right now in the US there are all kinds of stuanch, anti-gay, conseratives for life who are all of a sudden being caught in gay affairs. Now that's Bigotry, preaching against human rights that you yourself participate in behind closed doors.

 

The main anti-gay guy On Bush Jr's staff has recently come out of the closet. How's that? Make your carreer on gay bashing, then after all the damage is done, come out as gay.

Dark is the sway that mows like a harvest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if you're a hard core moral relativist...or maybe a solipsist.

Substitute "homosexuality" for "slavery" and see if you still agree with that sentence.

 

As a moral nihilist, I would agree with it too, because statements about "right" and "wrong" are entirely meaningless. Of course moral nihilism could just be interpreted as an extreme form of moral relativism ("it's so relative it doesn't even exist").

 

Regarding the definition of "bigot", it seems such an arbitrary and emotionally-loaded term that it's largely without any real value. Nobody wants to admit to being a "bigot", but don't we all have groups of people we hate? I particularly despise stupid people, but you could well argue that that is just another aspect of their genetic make-up that they didn't choose any more than their height or skin colour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a moral nihilist, I would agree with it too, because statements about "right" and "wrong" are entirely meaningless

 

I could see making a case that they're subjective, but how do you argue that they're without meaning?

 

I particularly despise stupid people, but you could well argue that that is just another aspect of their genetic make-up that they didn't choose any more than their height or skin colour.

 

Do you despise people who are developmentally delayed or mentally challenged? I'll go out on a limb and say that you probably don't. I suspect that what you actually dislike is willful ignorance, which isn't a genetic issue, but a behavioral one.

 

Even though the religious view of homosexuality is technically bigoted I don't think it is dangerous

 

Really? Religion provides the only socially acceptable justification of hatred towards homosexuals. How many homosexuals have been bullied, beaten or killed by people who thought their hatred was justified? How can you say anything that fosters such acts is not "dangerous"?

 

You might as well say racism isn't dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see making a case that they're subjective, but how do you argue that they're without meaning?

 

I hold statements such as "$X is right" or "$X is wrong" to be without meaning insofar as they assert the existence of some framework of moral truths outside the mind of the speaker, which is an assertion for which I can see no basis. The closest one can get to a true statement is "$X is compatible/incompatible with my personal value system", which is simply a statement of personal preferences, not a statement about the world.

 

The burden is therefore on the person making the statement "$X is against my personal preferences" to justify the application of their personal value system to other people who may not share it. Of course, it's precisely because they can't do this that they need to elevate their preference to a "moral truth" in the first place.

 

Do you despise people who are developmentally delayed or mentally challenged? I'll go out on a limb and say that you probably don't. I suspect that what you actually dislike is willful ignorance, which isn't a genetic issue, but a behavioral one.

 

Right. One might still argue though that the ability and inclination to seek out information about a topic and come to a rational conclusion is itself an inherent trait, and in many cases a person might have all of the relevant data and still be unable to come to a correct conclusion because of deficiencies in their ability to reason.

 

The real difference in my mind is that hating people because of their skin colour is inherently irrational and with basis, in contrast to hating stupid people because they fuck everything up for the rest of us. This would be excluded by a definition of "bigot" that specifically included irrationality as a criterion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden is therefore on the person making the statement "$X is against my personal preferences" to justify the application of their personal value system to other people who may not share it. Of course, it's precisely because they can't do this that they need to elevate their preference to a "moral truth" in the first place.

 

I certainly don't believe in "moral absolutes" in the technical sense of the term. However, I do think there are ways to justify certain value systems as being superior to others. Would you really say that acting to cause misery to the greatest number of people possible is morally equivalent to acting to cause happiness to the greatest number of people possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hold statements such as "$X is right" or "$X is wrong" to be without meaning insofar as they assert the existence of some framework of moral truths outside the mind of the speaker, which is an assertion for which I can see no basis. The closest one can get to a true statement is "$X is compatible/incompatible with my personal value system", which is simply a statement of personal preferences, not a statement about the world.

 

Wouldn't this at the very least compose of the fact that all people are basically the same - and thus equal and should have the same rights and obligations?

 

People find it hard to comprehend larger wholes or issues, so they divide things and people into categories their brains can wrap their thoughts around. An equality within the species, if you will, is not exactly a definition of a grand moral truth, I know. But that's basically the thought behind the argument that a person's view on someone else's sexual orientation etc. is not a valid defense for bigoted behavior or unjust laws.

 

The burden is therefore on the person making the statement "$X is against my personal preferences" to justify the application of their personal value system to other people who may not share it. Of course, it's precisely because they can't do this that they need to elevate their preference to a "moral truth" in the first place.

 

 

As for this, what you say makes sense - it's a cornerstone of western thought: freedom of thought and speech. But in real life it's not that simple. There's a difference when a person says "all gays should die, I hate them so much" and when a world-wide religious organization with millions of followers, like the Catholic churc, says the same. The ramifications are on a totally different scale. For the church it becomes an easy, morally-void argument to say that because they can say it and millions of people believe it to be the religious truth. The church can distance itself from any consequences their statements might cause and the believers can justify their own actions to themselves: "God wants all gays to die, our priests tell us so".

 

 

 

What I meant by that was simply that sexual behavior is generally in private. Honestly I don't care if they show public affection either.

My point is just that it's a personal decision that really only effects those involved, so it should be up to them. (not that I don't care as long as I never see it).

 

 

Just for the record, sexual orientation is NOT a conscious choice, it's biology, it's genetic - you're born with it. It's not something you can change - even if the bible people claim that prayers and cold showers do the trick.

 

 

Sotha, as well as everyone else, does well to bring this discussion into the foreground. It's problematic for social equilibrium when such heated discussions begin to involve huge amounts of people. But that's how society changes - blood, sweat and tears. It's a good thing that here in Finland people are starting to take a stance on this issue. Politicians, fundamentalists and conservatives would all prefer to not rock the boat, keep things as they are, never taking a side on anything controversial. Perhaps now some changes will actually happen and take hold. Whether they're positive or negative... Too soon to say.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. Are you saying that there is nothing wrong with being a bigot, or are you saying that bigotry is wrong but we can't do anything about it?

 

Basically attacking isn't the key to gain ground.

I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it

 

 

Just for the record, sexual orientation is NOT a conscious choice, it's biology, it's genetic - you're born with it. It's not something you can change - even if the bible people claim that prayers and cold showers do the trick.

 

btw: I didn't want to get into this yet Summers but since you brought it up. According to my Intro to Psychology class taken in a public university (4 years ago) there's no reason to think that homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuals have no different chemistry or brain structure. (EI: increasing testosterone does not increase a homosexuals propensity to be attracted to women) Some people report having homosexual feelings early in life as children others develop them later in life as adults or even being elderly. But these same people could have at one point been attracted to women too. It's an inexplicable phenomena at the moment, science hasn't pinned down what its source is.

 

If you can show me some reliable thorough sources that confirm it's genetic I'll be open to changing my knowledge about the issue. I haven't heard of any breakthroughs in the subject since learning about it in school though. Otherwise the idea that it's strictly genetic is just perpetuating an ignorant stereotype. And I appreciate the religious bigotry, what a paradoxical world we live in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw: I didn't want to get into this yet Summers but since you brought it up. According to my Intro to Psychology class taken in a public university (4 years ago) there's no reason to think that homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuals have no different chemistry or brain structure. (EI: increasing testosterone does not increase a homosexuals propensity to be attracted to women) Some people report having homosexual feelings early in life as children others develop them later in life as adults or even being elderly. But these same people could have at one point been attracted to women too. It's an inexplicable phenomena at the moment, science hasn't pinned down what its source is.

 

If you can show me some reliable thorough sources that confirm it's genetic I'll be open to changing my knowledge about the issue. I haven't heard of any breakthroughs in the subject since learning about it in school though. Otherwise the idea that it's strictly genetic is just perpetuating an ignorant stereotype. And I appreciate the religious bigotry, what a paradoxical world we live in...

 

Ahem...

The American Academy of Pediatrics, 2004:

Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

 

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers, 2006

Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual—including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual.

 

The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007

Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

 

Please note that typically later publications have more information sources, so the conclusions get more accurate. Of course, there is no 100% proof as there seldom are with complex systems like this one. But basically these conclusions made by the scientific community are a big red flashing arrow pointing to a certain direction... ;)

Clipper

-The mapper's best friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't want to get into this yet Summers but since you brought it up. According to my Intro to Psychology class taken in a public university (4 years ago) there's no reason to think that homosexuality is genetic. Homosexuals have no different chemistry or brain structure. (EI: increasing testosterone does not increase a homosexuals propensity to be attracted to women) Some people report having homosexual feelings early in life as children others develop them later in life as adults or even being elderly. But these same people could have at one point been attracted to women too. It's an inexplicable phenomena at the moment, science hasn't pinned down what its source is.

 

If you can show me some reliable thorough sources that confirm it's genetic I'll be open to changing my knowledge about the issue. I haven't heard of any breakthroughs in the subject since learning about it in school though. Otherwise the idea that it's strictly genetic is just perpetuating an ignorant stereotype. And I appreciate the religious bigotry, what a paradoxical world we live in...

 

 

It's true that at this point in time the scientific community has not reached a consensus about the possible genetic origin of homosexuality. Several studies have been conducted, but all have failed to meet the acceptable criteria for adequate scientific proof.

 

However, there is a more pressing reason why the consensus has not been reached other than the one I mentioned above: If homosexuality is found to be genetic in origin, then as science and technology develop it could conceivably become possible to "cure" homosexuality, i.e. eliminating it from existence. Most scientists and scholars obviously have reservations about this view and the Pandora's box it opens up for both interpretation and medical development. It does, after all, in a way confirm the views of those people who already - without proof - believe that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured. A dangerous way of thinking - for laymen and scientists alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you really say that acting to cause misery to the greatest number of people possible is morally equivalent to acting to cause happiness to the greatest number of people possible?

 

I might well consider causing happiness to be preferable, as would presumably the majority of the thinking population, but it would be difficult to prove that it is objectively "better". No matter how rational one is, ultimately most statements about how the world "should be" have to be accepted as unprovable axioms, which makes reasoning about their truth values impossible.

 

But that's basically the thought behind the argument that a person's view on someone else's sexual orientation etc. is not a valid defense for bigoted behavior or unjust laws.

 

Right, that's the difference between having a personal value system which disagrees with others, and forcing your own value system on others against their will. The problem with the moral absolutists/realists is that they consider their own personal values to be representative of some greater objective truth, which in their minds justifies the coercive behaviour towards others.

 

Homosexuals have no different chemistry or brain structure.

 

I don't have a source to hand, but I remember reading about a study that suggested that homosexuals respond differently to the hormones of others than do heterosexuals, for example homosexual men are attracted towards testosterone (as would be a hetersexual woman), whereas heterosexual men are repelled by it. You're right however that the jury is still out on what the precise causes are, as Sotha's links confirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So within a large book, the following quote: "A man shall not lie with another man" has inspired people to foster hatred around the world and beat kill and bully people to death? A tad bit dramatic don't you think?

 

Wow, do you actually pay attention to what goes on in the rest of the world? Have you never heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? Fred Phelps? There may not be a lot of gay-bashing in Toronto, but here's what I could find in about thirteen seconds of research:

 

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

http://www.bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htm

 

And a list from another website (emphasis added):

All of the anti-gay sites listed appear to be fundamentalist Christian in belief. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists 19 of them.

 

Abiding Truth Ministries at www.abidingtruth.com

American Vision at www.americanvision.org

Chalcedon Foundation at www.chalcedon.edu

Family Research Institute at www.familyresearchinst.org (not to be confused with the Family Research Council)

Mass Resistance at www.massresistance.org

Traditional Values Coalition at www.traditionalvalues.org

Watchmen on the Walls at www.watchmenonthewalls.com

Westboro Baptist Church at: www.godhatesfags.com

www.godhatesamerica.com

www.westborobaptistchurch.com

www.godhatescanada.com

www.hatemongers.com

www.thesignsofthetimes.net

etc.

 

fred_phelps-signs.jpg

 

 

You may also wish to read, "God hates fags: the rhetorics of religious violence" By Michael L. Cobb.

 

For the record, the verse you quoted above is one of the most mild in the Bible. Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 both describe homosexuality as “an abomination”, and order that anyone who engages in it be "be cut off from among their people". Most Christians believe Soddom (from which we get the word Soddomy) was destroyed by God because the people engaged in homosexual sex. In the New Testament, Paul calls homosexual activity "vile" and those that engage in it "unrighteous".

 

So yes, I think those people who are predisposed to hate homosexuals can find a great deal of justification in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Summer.

 

Meh, maybe. But it hasn't been proven. I happen to think there are more factors involved. I actually think there are probably endless possibilites for why someone is gay.

 

It could be genetic, could be upbringing, could be deviation (doing it to spite parents), could be abuse, could be society/peer pressure...

 

Until it can be proven HOW/WHY people are gay you shouldn't assume it is just genetics. And I don't care what the reason is, just saying that 'it's genetic' is a cop out imo. It's a way to try to justify it, but why does it need justified anyway?

 

Seems like everything lately is 'genetic'. Being overwieght is genetic, but we all know the true cause of that, Americans are the most overweight, sedentary nation in the world. We have easily accessed food that is horrible for the human body that we consume like it's going out of style.

So did Americans evolve from the 50's and now have the 'obiesety gene'? No, while some peoples genes might predispose them to being heavy set that excuse doesn't work for 95% of people who are lazy and over eat junkfood.

 

I'm not trying to prove it's true or false, nor do I really care. Just saying you can't use scientific proof to prove something if that proof is a 'rumor'.

 

Last night I watched a show on aliens visitiing ancient cultures in History. One guy had a reason for every little find that proved aliens have been here, the other guys was like 'that's not really proof, that's speculation'.

That's how I feel about the genetic thing, might be the reason, might be a reason, but hasn't been proven.

 

 

Dark is the sway that mows like a harvest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fat is genetic.

 

In the wild, we must scavenge and battle for even the smallest amount of food. Our genetic makeup is designed not to waste these calories. Only over the thousands of years of civilization have we begun to evolve higher metabolism to represent the new model of "fit" for a world with plentiful food through agriculture. If civilization and agriculture fail all the thin "high metabolism" folks will be truly fucked. I have a co-worker who has such a high metabolism he has to eat constantly throughout the day or he gets sick. I suspect that he would not last out in nature... The fat folk will be fine if society crumbles because they can live on crumbs and fumes. Fat folk don't have wasteful gas-guzzling metabolisms. Does this let fat folk off-the-hook for not controlling their temptations? No! But that is an entirely other topic.

 

 

Gay? C'mon it's gotta be genetic.

 

I simply can't see any scenario where I would want another male's genitals near me.

 

Even if I were the most rebellious teen, that would not be on my list of options. No "peer" could convince me that another man's wang is the cool thing to "try". I had the worst father in the world, that does not make a protruding genital sound like fun in my book. I simply can't see any way someone can be into same-gender genitals unless it was programmed from birth. Yes, there are sexual gray areas but I'd say the bias towards one gender verses another seems pretty clear to me. Unless most straight men are happy to be in close proximity of each others' dongs and I'm just a weird anomaly with... penile aversion? or Ithyphallophobia? :laugh:

 

(Sorry to be so crude but someone had to say it...)

 

I can't fathom any scenario that would make me change that preference. I don't buy any "nurture" explanation of the phenomenon.

Please visit TDM's IndieDB site and help promote the mod:

 

http://www.indiedb.com/mods/the-dark-mod

 

(Yeah, shameless promotion... but traffic is traffic folks...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 1 reply
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...