|
||||||
 |
Recent Posts | Search by username | |
Contact Us | |
Login | |
Register |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > Whether and how gay church members pictures should appear in a pictorial church directory |
| Moderated by: 24HourNut | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7   |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
JustifiedByFaith Pioneer100© Member  Without Jesus we fall short...
|
  |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourNut wrote: JustifiedByFaith wrote:24HourNut wrote:pmh1nic wrote:24hn Let's start with #1. So how do you explain the 40 writters of the bible with many being several hundred years apart got together and conspired the 66 books?
 Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you." Matthew 24:4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Erinna "What has changed is our understanding of what makes homosexuals express the preferences they do. What has changed is our understanding of the sociological factors at work that homosexuals being true to themselves doesn't harm or threaten anyone. What has changed - for most of us - is the understanding that change, when it rectifies outdated thinking, is a good thing." Understanding the cause of an abnormal behavior or orientation doesn't change the fact that it is abnormal, neither does it mean that society has to recognize it as normal or grant it the same recognition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"The principles of freedom and equality support the notion that we are not required to treat gays as second class, or to punish them. In fact, it is those principles which serve as the foundation for the anti-discrimination laws that apply to gays and other minorities." You seem to define treating them as second class citizens as recognizing that they have an abnormal sexual orientation. The recognition of an abnormality is NOT rendering an individual a second class citizen. The presence of an abnormality is used by society as the basis for denying certain rights, privileges and/or recognition. While I think great care should be taken when this is done it is not necessarily a violation of the principles of freedom.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation 
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "The principles of freedom and equality support the notion that we are not required to treat gays as second class, or to punish them. In fact, it is those principles which serve as the foundation for the anti-discrimination laws that apply to gays and other minorities." "Normal" and "abnormal" are statistical calculations. Abnormal behavior is not necessarily indicative of mental illness. Physical handicaps are also "abnormal". Does that mean that the handicapped should get fewer rights? Denying someone the same right you grant to others ought to be based on some kind of practical rationale. e.g., you might be on solid ground to deny a blind man a hunting license. But denying someone a right you grant others just because you disagree with the way they live their lives is, I think, unconscionable.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator  Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JustifiedByFaith wrote: 24HourNut wrote:1. I have no reason to believe that any text is something other than done and thought up by humans. I don't see what is so convincing about text from long ago that was edited and fashioned into a cohesive story book. Am I supposed to act brain dead and just assume it was some magical editing, as if telling connected or matching tales is the convincing way God let me know it was written by a God? There is even evidence of manipulation or omission - anything could have happened. What a weak thing for someone to have to believe as evidence that God wrote it. Please ... "God wrote a book" is silly enough, now I have to believe it was written by God because of some cohesive writing and/or editing from archaic days? Like I said, I have no reason to think that someone other than people thought and wrote that stuff. I don't need to inject some divine action because someone wrote something 200 years after the Christ drama and it fit the stuff written 100 years before it.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Erinna What has changed is our need to penalize people based on gender or pretend we have to "do something" about consenting adults loving each other or having sex for reasons other than having babies. We don't have to have sex "just for babies" like some Quaker or religious fanatic. We've learned that there is nothing wrong with your girlfriend or wife giving you a blowjob and that you don't have to go your whole life without sex because you didn't choose to get married. So, being "normal" or Bible-condoned is not a criteria by which we all have to feel dislike or the desire to punish. YOU may, but that's you. You shouldn't expect everyone to feel that because a couple has the same body parts or can't make babies that we should frown upon it.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
24HourNut Administrator Body pillows rock!
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: "The principles of freedom and equality support the notion that we are not required to treat gays as second class, or to punish them. In fact, it is those principles which serve as the foundation for the anti-discrimination laws that apply to gays and other minorities." I don't define it that way. You made that up. The recognition of an abnormality is NOT rendering an individual a second class citizen. Who cares what you recognize? The point is, we all don't have to penalize or dislike people due to their gender. Many of us realize that is not a valid criteria in so very many circumstances. That is the principle the anti-discrimination laws are based upon. Modern society is realizing that is not necessary to penalize people based on gender/for being gay. The presence of an abnormality is used by society as the basis for denying certain rights, privileges and/or recognition. While I think great care should be taken when this is done it is not necessarily a violation of the principles of freedom. The anti-discrimination laws utilize the universal and basic principles of freedom and equality. The fact that they are being applied to gays by our Government and hundreds of millions of people around the world and growing is evidence of how universal or general those principles can be. The principles of freedom and equality generally demand that we do not penalize or demean people based upon race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. You put religious baloney before the principles of freedom and equality. That was one of the things the Founders did differently as they engaged in unprecedented, revolutionary, and radical things with religion. They were very concerned and specifically warned about the desire of organized religions to put freedom and equality after their agenda and dogma. The history and culture they studied and were in natural contrast with, being revolutionary and radical, is what made them put the principles of freedom and equality on a higher pedestal and more protected than ever before. So, while you want to respect the Biblical command to effectively penalize or correct people for having the "wrong" kind of sex, not having sex for babies, having kinky oral sex, whatever ... I would rather respect the principles of freedom and equality which teach that while one may not prefer or like homosexuality, if your homosexual neighbor, son, brother, whatever is not infringing upon your rights, working to penalize or demean them is wrong - especially using tax dollars.
The best human beings start good new topics and vote on the better posts. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian ""Normal" and "abnormal" are statistical calculations." What percentage of homosexual relationships produce children? 0% "Abnormal behavior is not necessarily indicative of mental illness." Illness? Maybe not. Disorder? Always. "Physical handicaps are also "abnormal". Does that mean that the handicapped should get fewer rights?" It depends on the handicap and what rights or privileges are being discussed. "Denying someone the same right you grant to others ought to be based on some kind of practical rationale." I agree. "But denying someone a right you grant others just because you disagree with the way they live their lives is, I think, unconscionable." Again, I think that depends on the abnormality and the right, privilege or recognition being sought/granted. I think it requires an unbiased evaluation of the cost/benefit to society as a whole. This is true with respect to homosexual and heterosexual behavior. Unfortunately in our PC saturated society any comment no matter how objective or scientific that illustrates the abnormal, dysfunctional or negative characteristics of homosexuality are lambasted as biased and homophobic. Some have try (and I expect will in this thread) to use the argument that since dysfuntion exist in heterosexual relationship that the inherent dysfunction that exist in homosexual relationships should be ignored. That doesn't seem to me to be a rational argument. Rather you work to eliminate the dysfunctions not excuse or condone them.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member  The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is precisely this sort of ill-informed, ideological debate I was hoping we could avoid.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I move that the thread be adjourned until there are further developments related to the pictorial directory.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Who cares what you recognize?" Who said anything about me as an individual. I was talking about society as a whole. "The anti-discrimination laws utilize the universal and basic principles of freedom and equality." The anti-discrimination laws prevent discrimination with respect to a particular abnormality, condition or orientation in areas where that abnormality, condition or orientation has NO bearing on the health, safety or quality of life of society as a whole. Society does discriminate when corporately it concludes that an abnormality, condition or orientation does negatively affect the health, safety or quality of life of society as a whole. Some of the questions that might be considered are: Are there any negative consequences for children raised by homosexual couples? Are there increased health risk in monogamous homosexual relationships versus monogamous heterosexual relationships? And while many minimize the issue of reproduction in these arguments without reproduction humanity ceases to exist. Reproduction is an essential and fundamental aspect of human sexuality.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
pmh1nic Pioneer100© Member
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Construct "I move that the thread be adjourned until there are further developments related to the pictorial directory." Agreed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm sorry, pmh1nic. A motion is on the table to adjourn. That motion does not permit discussion. I am entaining only "yes" and "no" votes on adjourning.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
construct Pioneer100© Member The Boy Next Door
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote:Construct Thank you. Are there any objections to adjourning?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Grand Poobah of Moderation
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pmh1nic wrote: Brian What does producing children have to do with the definition of "normal" or "abnormal"? Your response is about as relevant as, "I slipped on a banana." pmh1nic wrote: "Abnormal behavior is not necessarily indicative of mental illness." What are you using as your definition of "disorder"? And how is non-conventional thinking or behavior in any way necessarily "disordered"? pmh1nic wrote:
What I'm asking is, does the fact that someone is "abnormal" -- in and of itself -- mean they are deserving of fewer rights? pmh1nic wrote: But denying someone a right you grant others just because you disagree with the way they live their lives is, I think, unconscionable." The reason the comments are lambasted as biased is because they invariably come from people who are biased. The mainstream scientific community has, for many years, shunned the idea that homosexuality is bad, in and of itself. They have, of course, judged certain behaviors to have negative consequences, and have advocated different precautions. But the idea that homosexuality itself is bad or negative in a psychological sense has been thoroughly discredited. The idea only has theological validity. pmh1nic wrote: Some have try (and I expect will in this thread) to use the argument that since dysfuntion exist in heterosexual relationship that the inherent dysfunction that exist in homosexual relationships should be ignored. That doesn't seem to me to be a rational argument. Rather you work to eliminate the dysfunctions not excuse or condone them. The dysfunction you're talking about only counts as "dysfunction" if you consider the goal of intercourse to be reproduction. But reproduction isn't the only goal of reproduction. Arguably, it's not even the primary goal for heterosexual couples. The ratio of instances of intercourse to attempts at pregnancy is very high for most heterosexual couples. Most of the time people are having sex, it's not to play Johnny Appleseed.
"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last." -- "A Long December", Counting Crows |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > Whether and how gay church members pictures should appear in a pictorial church directory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Site Supporters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Posts Of The Day | Mock Forums | WowClassic | |
Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez