Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexual Teachers

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 8:52:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I came across an interesting, if somewhat disturbing, poll the other day; it basically states that in Peru, almost 61% of respondents believed that homosexual teachers were a danger around students. You can find that poll here: http://www.angus-reid.com...

Now I find this a curious poll. Granted, Peru is not the United States or Canada, but I'm willing to bet that some of the same attitudes prevail or are at least somewhat prevalent in our countries. But, and this may seem like a naive question, why?

Is it due to some perceived correlation between homosexuals and child molestation, or is it just a general distrust of homosexuals altogether? I simply don't understand this, which is why I'm putting out the question here; why are homosexuals perceived to be a danger to children?
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 8:57:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 8:52:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
I came across an interesting, if somewhat disturbing, poll the other day; it basically states that in Peru, almost 61% of respondents believed that homosexual teachers were a danger around students. You can find that poll here: http://www.angus-reid.com...

Now I find this a curious poll. Granted, Peru is not the United States or Canada, but I'm willing to bet that some of the same attitudes prevail or are at least somewhat prevalent in our countries. But, and this may seem like a naive question, why?

Is it due to some perceived correlation between homosexuals and child molestation, or is it just a general distrust of homosexuals altogether? I simply don't understand this, which is why I'm putting out the question here; why are homosexuals perceived to be a danger to children?

You bring up a very good point. One plausible answer is that most parents fear that the if the teacher has chosen an "improper" sexual orientation, then that teacher may have weird child perverions. It does not really correlate, but I assume that is most peoples' fears. Many kids at my school think a teacher is homosexual, but that teacher is a great teacher, and I have no problem with it. I think parents are just trying to be too overprotective.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 9:15:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 8:57:00 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
You bring up a very good point. One plausible answer is that most parents fear that the if the teacher has chosen an "improper" sexual orientation, then that teacher may have weird child perverions. It does not really correlate, but I assume that is most peoples' fears. Many kids at my school think a teacher is homosexual, but that teacher is a great teacher, and I have no problem with it. I think parents are just trying to be too overprotective.

Good response, but I can't help but find that kind of thought so silly. Heterosexual teachers can and most likely are just as "dangerous" as homosexual teachers - absolutely stupid to single them out like that.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 9:20:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 8:52:01 PM, Volkov wrote:
But, and this may seem like a naive question, why?

[...] why are homosexuals perceived to be a danger to children?

They aren't. Not in particular, anyways.

/thread
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 9:30:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sounds like the same rhetoric aimed at same sex parenting - the idea that there is a special 'gay' way of doing things that magically imparts homosexuality in those that are forced near.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 8:22:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Because homosexuality is unnatural/sinful and shows a loss of self control.
Also, homosexuality often IS transmuted by (if not physically then verbally) from an adult to a child.
And lastly, by having homosexuals in positions of authority we are saying 'this is ok, this is normal' when that is the exact opposite is the truth.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 8:28:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 8:22:00 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Because homosexuality is unnatural/sinful and shows a loss of self control.
Also, homosexuality often IS transmuted by (if not physically then verbally) from an adult to a child.
And lastly, by having homosexuals in positions of authority we are saying 'this is ok, this is normal' when that is the exact opposite is the truth.

This kind of thing falls perfectly in line with your "rights are bad" ideology.

Let me ask you this, DATC; are homosexuals evil people? Or is the action evil.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 8:47:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 8:28:27 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/31/2009 8:22:00 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Because homosexuality is unnatural/sinful and shows a loss of self control.
Also, homosexuality often IS transmuted by (if not physically then verbally) from an adult to a child.
And lastly, by having homosexuals in positions of authority we are saying 'this is ok, this is normal' when that is the exact opposite is the truth.

This kind of thing falls perfectly in line with your "rights are bad" ideology.

Let me ask you this, DATC; are homosexuals evil people? Or is the action evil.

It's not an either/or situation: People are inherently evil.
Homosexuality is a sin, an 'abomination to the Lord'.
So to answer your question, before they CHOSE to become homosexual they were still fallen in nature.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 2:47:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 8:47:39 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
It's not an either/or situation: People are inherently evil.
Homosexuality is a sin, an 'abomination to the Lord'.
So to answer your question, before they CHOSE to become homosexual they were still fallen in nature.

So they chose to become homosexual, but they're still fallen in nature.. but does that not just mean they're "naturally sinful," so it isn't really a choice anyways?

What is this nonsense about people being "inherently evil" as well.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 4:46:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 2:47:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/31/2009 8:47:39 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
It's not an either/or situation: People are inherently evil.
Homosexuality is a sin, an 'abomination to the Lord'.
So to answer your question, before they CHOSE to become homosexual they were still fallen in nature.

So they chose to become homosexual, but they're still fallen in nature.. but does that not just mean they're "naturally sinful," so it isn't really a choice anyways?

We are naurally sinful AND we choose to sin.

What is this nonsense about people being "inherently evil" as well.

It is nonsensical to anyone who cannot grasp that morality must be objective: that what they 'just happen to regard as wrong and right' (as reflected in the time, place and culture of their environment) CANNOT be 'right'.

We are all 'good' if we compare ourselves to war criminals or serial killers etc (as the News reports constantly invite us to do) BUT if we compare ourselves to Jesus Christ we begin to get a TRUE picture of who we REALLY are:
Self-centered, greedy, hypocritical and endlessly vain liars!
All of our greatest works are as 'filthy rags to God'; the OBJECTIVE standard you all hate the very idea of.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 4:47:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We are all 'good' if we compare ourselves to war criminals or serial killers etc (as the News reports constantly invite us to do) BUT if we compare ourselves to Jesus Christ we begin to get a TRUE picture of who we REALLY are:
Self-centered, greedy

That part sounds quite good here :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 4:58:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 4:47:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We are all 'good' if we compare ourselves to war criminals or serial killers etc (as the News reports constantly invite us to do) BUT if we compare ourselves to Jesus Christ we begin to get a TRUE picture of who we REALLY are:
Self-centered, greedy

That part sounds quite good here :).

hypocritical and endlessly vain liars!
All of our greatest works are as 'filthy rags to God'; the OBJECTIVE standard you all hate the very idea of.

But better UNedited..
The Cross.. the Cross.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:02:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 4:58:58 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/31/2009 4:47:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
We are all 'good' if we compare ourselves to war criminals or serial killers etc (as the News reports constantly invite us to do) BUT if we compare ourselves to Jesus Christ we begin to get a TRUE picture of who we REALLY are:
Self-centered, greedy

That part sounds quite good here :).

hypocritical and endlessly vain liars!
All of our greatest works are as 'filthy rags to God'; the OBJECTIVE standard you all hate the very idea of.

But better UNedited..

What do our greatest works being toilet paper have to do with anything? And what is God an objective standard for anyways?

All R_R was saying was that he is fine with being labeled greedy and self-centered.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:09:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
he means morality, though I don't know by what argument God is to be established as the objective standard thereof.

Care to prove your accusation that I am hypocritical and a liar? For that matter define vain :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:18:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 5:09:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
he means morality, though I don't know by what argument God is to be established as the objective standard thereof.

Care to prove your accusation that I am hypocritical and a liar? For that matter define vain :).

Why would I want to prove that which we both absolutely KNOW?
(and don't take it personally, I would say exactly the same to ANY human bar One)
The Cross.. the Cross.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:20:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 5:18:47 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/31/2009 5:09:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
he means morality, though I don't know by what argument God is to be established as the objective standard thereof.

Care to prove your accusation that I am hypocritical and a liar? For that matter define vain :).

Why would I want to prove that which we both absolutely KNOW?
(and don't take it personally, I would say exactly the same to ANY human bar One)

I was unaware of it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:20:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 8:22:00 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Because homosexuality is unnatural/sinful and shows a loss of self control.

If showing homosexuality is a loss of self control, either you are arguing that it is a standard (everyone suffers with it like everyone thinks about murdering their enemies, but no one acts on it) or that the expression of any sexuality is a loss of control (as arguably the same control would be needed to express/not express sexuality).

Also, homosexuality often IS transmuted by (if not physically then verbally) from an adult to a child.

Um ... linguistic alchemy? If sexuality could be changed by talking to people about it, then homosexuals could be made straight by everyday life.

And lastly, by having homosexuals in positions of authority we are saying 'this is ok, this is normal' when that is the exact opposite is the truth.

It is okay by me. There is no objective harm in it.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:31:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 5:20:27 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/31/2009 8:22:00 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Because homosexuality is unnatural/sinful and shows a loss of self control.

If showing homosexuality is a loss of self control, either you are arguing that it is a standard (everyone suffers with it like everyone thinks about murdering their enemies, but no one acts on it) or that the expression of any sexuality is a loss of control (as arguably the same control would be needed to express/not express sexuality).

No, becoming a homosexual is a loss of self control. As is becoming a full time thief or becoming obese.

Also, homosexuality often IS transmuted by (if not physically then verbally) from an adult to a child.

Um ... linguistic alchemy? If sexuality could be changed by talking to people about it, then homosexuals could be made straight by everyday life.

Homosexuality is actually a 'spirit of deception' and I believe people accept this spirit via, among other things, being impressed by others.

And lastly, by having homosexuals in positions of authority we are saying 'this is ok, this is normal' when that is the exact opposite is the truth.

It is okay by me. There is no objective harm in it.

Oh but there is: We have a society were everyone has to accept a lie: were we cannot simply say that 2+2=4 any more.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 5:40:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 5:31:08 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

No, becoming a homosexual is a loss of self control. As is becoming a full time thief or becoming obese.

So a part time thief is alright, and genetic skinniness = holiness? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that theft is wrong, gluttony is wrong, and wanton lust is wrong? Wouldn't your argument properly be that homosexuality is wanton lust? And if it is wanton lust simply by matter of who you choose to sleep with (and not how you establish relationships) then wouldn't sexual activity with anyone outside of a Christian marriage be a lustful failing as severe as homosexuality?

Homosexuality is actually a 'spirit of deception' and I believe people accept this spirit via, among other things, being impressed by others.

How does it deceive? To deceive is to tell an untruth; this requires a lie. If a person is attracted to another person, is the denial or the acceptance of that fact a lie?

Oh but there is: We have a society were everyone has to accept a lie: were we cannot simply say that 2+2=4 any more.

People aren't numbers, though; nor do they serve no better end than breeding, which is the only objective benefit between the two categories of sexuality that have been constructed. Clearly, relationships must also be about compatibility of personality as much as they are about form and purpose ... perhaps more so, if you believe sterile people have a right to relationships at all.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:05:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 5:40:43 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/31/2009 5:31:08 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

No, becoming a homosexual is a loss of self control. As is becoming a full time thief or becoming obese.

So a part time thief is alright, and genetic skinniness = holiness? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that theft is wrong, gluttony is wrong, and wanton lust is wrong? Wouldn't your argument properly be that homosexuality is wanton lust? And if it is wanton lust simply by matter of who you choose to sleep with (and not how you establish relationships) then wouldn't sexual activity with anyone outside of a Christian marriage be a lustful failing as severe as homosexuality?

Part time in the sense of someone who occasionally steals BUT knows it's wrong and trys really hard not to.. as opposed to someone who gives in and NOW believes stealing is ok because 'society is corrupt' etc.. Same with the full time 'out of the closet' homosexual: they have passed from temptation to indulgence to (self) deception..

Homosexuality is actually a 'spirit of deception' and I believe people accept this spirit via, among other things, being impressed by others.

How does it deceive? To deceive is to tell an untruth; this requires a lie. If a person is attracted to another person, is the denial or the acceptance of that fact a lie?

The attraction (if it is a same sex attraction) IS the lie..

Oh but there is: We have a society were everyone has to accept a lie: were we cannot simply say that 2+2=4 any more.

People aren't numbers, though; nor do they serve no better end than breeding, which is the only objective benefit between the two categories of sexuality that have been constructed. Clearly, relationships must also be about compatibility of personality as much as they are about form and purpose ... perhaps more so, if you believe sterile people have a right to relationships at all.

I wasn't talking about people as numbers.. I was talking about everyone TURNING THEIR BACKS on what they KNOW to be true.. When you stand before God and you see how utterly ridiculous the fear of other men is; and he asks you 'IS homosexuality right?' you will not batter an eye-lid when you say: 'no, of course not.' because somewhere, you KNOW it, right now.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:26:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:05:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Part time in the sense of someone who occasionally steals BUT knows it's wrong and trys really hard not to.. as opposed to someone who gives in and NOW believes stealing is ok because 'society is corrupt' etc.. Same with the full time 'out of the closet' homosexual: they have passed from temptation to indulgence to (self) deception..

But someone who isn't trying to hide homosexuality is probably less likely to spread HIV to unaware partners ... this would make the person who sins less the one who harms more.

The attraction (if it is a same sex attraction) IS the lie..

Is if it is a lie, it is one that it would seem no one wants to believe. How many people could be deceived by the lie no one wants to accept as true?

I wasn't talking about people as numbers.. I was talking about everyone TURNING THEIR BACKS on what they KNOW to be true.. When you stand before God and you see how utterly ridiculous the fear of other men is; and he asks you 'IS homosexuality right?' you will not batter an eye-lid when you say: 'no, of course not.' because somewhere, you KNOW it, right now.

I think, standing before God, I would first say " Oh, you're real" and then, if he asked that question of me, I would ask him what he thought the answer was because, clearly, he would know, and I would be vain to presume the answer.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:41:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:26:29 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/31/2009 6:05:27 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Part time in the sense of someone who occasionally steals BUT knows it's wrong and trys really hard not to.. as opposed to someone who gives in and NOW believes stealing is ok because 'society is corrupt' etc.. Same with the full time 'out of the closet' homosexual: they have passed from temptation to indulgence to (self) deception..

But someone who isn't trying to hide homosexuality is probably less likely to spread HIV to unaware partners ... this would make the person who sins less the one who harms more.

This is a separate issue to whether homosexuality is right or wrong though.. It the same argument they use in Holland for legalized prostitution: "It's more out in the open so we can regulate it" somebodies daughter! all of them hooked on drugs..

The attraction (if it is a same sex attraction) IS the lie..

Is if it is a lie, it is one that it would seem no one wants to believe. How many people could be deceived by the lie no one wants to accept as true?

Well, homsexuality is only one deceiving spirit among thousands.. I won't say the thought has never crossed my mind but it never had a chance because I come from a typical working class background with the normal aversion to anything 'effeminate' etc.. BUT I was deceived into a life of petty crime for a number of years: and I'm not trying to escape blame.. I was WILFULLY deceived. So there ARE cultural aspects to any deception.

I wasn't talking about people as numbers.. I was talking about everyone TURNING THEIR BACKS on what they KNOW to be true.. When you stand before God and you see how utterly ridiculous the fear of other men is; and he asks you 'IS homosexuality right?' you will not batter an eye-lid when you say: 'no, of course not.' because somewhere, you KNOW it, right now.

I think, standing before God, I would first say " Oh, you're real" and then, if he asked that question of me, I would ask him what he thought the answer was because, clearly, he would know, and I would be vain to presume the answer.

This is what I'm trying to convey to you: you will NOT be surprised.. you will have arrived at that true place within yourself that has 'always' known there is a God and 'always' known what is right and what is wrong..
When we are kids we are always doing things we KNOW to be wrong.. in order to 'live with ourselves' we lie to ourselves.. in this way we desroy our own consciences.. piece by piece..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 6:59:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:41:34 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

This is a separate issue to whether homosexuality is right or wrong though.. It the same argument they use in Holland for legalized prostitution: "It's more out in the open so we can regulate it" somebodies daughter! all of them hooked on drugs..

Well, okay ... what evil comes from homosexuality itself that makes it wrong?

Well, homsexuality is only one deceiving spirit among thousands.. I won't say the thought has never crossed my mind but it never had a chance because I come from a typical working class background with the normal aversion to anything 'effeminate' etc.. BUT I was deceived into a life of petty crime for a number of years: and I'm not trying to escape blame.. I was WILFULLY deceived. So there ARE cultural aspects to any deception.

Different sins for different types of people - an acceptable answer, somewhat. However, petty crime, depending on the crime, is wrong because there is a clear harm ... loss of property, personal harm, etc. What loss or harm does giving into homosexuality (working on your temptation paradigm) entail?

This is what I'm trying to convey to you: you will NOT be surprised.. you will have arrived at that true place within yourself that has 'always' known there is a God and 'always' known what is right and what is wrong..
When we are kids we are always doing things we KNOW to be wrong.. in order to 'live with ourselves' we lie to ourselves.. in this way we desroy our own consciences.. piece by piece..

How do we know? Is a thing wrong inherently or because of its end? If we lived in a world where you could murder someone and that person would immediately come back to life younger and healthier than before, would an act of murder be inherently wrong?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 4:21:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/31/2009 6:59:01 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 8/31/2009 6:41:34 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

This is a separate issue to whether homosexuality is right or wrong though.. It the same argument they use in Holland for legalized prostitution: "It's more out in the open so we can regulate it" somebodies daughter! all of them hooked on drugs..

Well, okay ... what evil comes from homosexuality itself that makes it wrong?

No, that's upside down; like asking 'WHY can't the answer to 2+2 be 5?'
Because it isn't! And we were MADE to fit with women.

Well, homsexuality is only one deceiving spirit among thousands.. I won't say the thought has never crossed my mind but it never had a chance because I come from a typical working class background with the normal aversion to anything 'effeminate' etc.. BUT I was deceived into a life of petty crime for a number of years: and I'm not trying to escape blame.. I was WILFULLY deceived. So there ARE cultural aspects to any deception.

Different sins for different types of people - an acceptable answer, somewhat. However, petty crime, depending on the crime, is wrong because there is a clear harm ... loss of property, personal harm, etc. What loss or harm does giving into homosexuality (working on your temptation paradigm) entail?

Loss of REALITY: a wife, children, normality.

This is what I'm trying to convey to you: you will NOT be surprised.. you will have arrived at that true place within yourself that has 'always' known there is a God and 'always' known what is right and what is wrong..
When we are kids we are always doing things we KNOW to be wrong.. in order to 'live with ourselves' we lie to ourselves.. in this way we desroy our own consciences.. piece by piece..

How do we know? Is a thing wrong inherently or because of its end? If we lived in a world where you could murder someone and that person would immediately come back to life younger and healthier than before, would an act of murder be inherently wrong?

But we do not live in that world. A thing is ultimately wrong ONLY because an objective standard says it's wrong.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 6:02:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 4:21:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

No, that's upside down; like asking 'WHY can't the answer to 2+2 be 5?'
Because it isn't! And we were MADE to fit with women.

Is slavery right? God once said it was, under certain circumstances. Is it therefore still right under certain circumstances?

Is rape cured by marriage? God once said it was, under certain circumstances. Is it therefore still cured under certain circumstances?

My point: If the answer is no, then what is right can change. If what is right can change, it would be rational to assume that what is wrong must, in relation, change. If what is wrong can change, then what determines wrong? 5 will always be five. Would you really argue that anything God found right and wrong will always be right and wrong?

Loss of REALITY: a wife, children, normality.

What if you don't want children and a wife? Are bachelors and impotent men also deprived of 'reality?'

As for normality ... normality suggests that someone is unexceptional. The unexceptional accomplish nothing. Who would want to be unexceptional?

Everyone worth knowing is kind of abnormal.

But we do not live in that world. A thing is ultimately wrong ONLY because an objective standard says it's wrong.

If this is an admission that an act is wrong because of its results, then there must be a correlation between homosexual acts and negative results to necessitate censure --- what, then, is the objective loss?
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 6:14:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 6:02:55 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 9/1/2009 4:21:58 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

No, that's upside down; like asking 'WHY can't the answer to 2+2 be 5?'
Because it isn't! And we were MADE to fit with women.

Is slavery right? God once said it was, under certain circumstances. Is it therefore still right under certain circumstances?

No, God once told the Iraelites it was OK for THEM. And you must never compare that slavery with how Europeans enslaved Africa.

Is rape cured by marriage? God once said it was, under certain circumstances. Is it therefore still cured under certain circumstances?

Again, you are taking a Judaic covenant completely out of context.

My point: If the answer is no, then what is right can change. If what is right can change, it would be rational to assume that what is wrong must, in relation, change. If what is wrong can change, then what determines wrong? 5 will always be five. Would you really argue that anything God found right and wrong will always be right and wrong?

Absolutely. The Judaic laws must be seen in the context of the Old Testament.


Loss of REALITY: a wife, children, normality.

What if you don't want children and a wife? Are bachelors and impotent men also deprived of 'reality?'

Not everyone is made to be married or a parent: to use this as an argument for homosexuality is absurd.

As for normality ... normality suggests that someone is unexceptional. The unexceptional accomplish nothing. Who would want to be unexceptional?

Everyone worth knowing is kind of abnormal.

The two are in no way mutually exclusive. And being homosexual is hardly being exceptial nowadays.

But we do not live in that world. A thing is ultimately wrong ONLY because an objective standard says it's wrong.

If this is an admission that an act is wrong because of its results, then there must be a correlation between homosexual acts and negative results to necessitate censure --- what, then, is the objective loss?

Not at all: Objective morality means there is a universal standard APART from the zeitgeist.. APART the majority.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2009 6:37:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 6:14:17 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Absolutely. The Judaic laws must be seen in the context of the Old Testament.

Including the law against homosexuality?

Not everyone is made to be married or a parent: to use this as an argument for homosexuality is absurd.

It rationally follows, DAT. It is only absurd if you can draw a reasonable line between the two properties. The only difference between what a sterile bachelor would be robbed of and what a homosexual would be robbed of, in the sense of simple have-have not dichotomy, is that the sterile bachelor lacks a companion. I doubt you would accept this as a reason for sterile bachelors to engage in homosexual acts; straight sterile bachelors do not want homosexual relations. How then could one argue that homosexuals should be bachelors or straight, when they neither want the opposite gender nor want to be alone?

The two are in no way mutually exclusive. And being homosexual is hardly being exceptial nowadays.

Being oneself is fairly exceptional, though. Most people wear what masks they may. Those rare few who do not hide must be exceptional.

And, furthermore, if most people are unexceptional, how can one be normal and exceptional? Unless you mean to say that everyone is exceptional, which would obviate any value judgment at all ... in which case, it is just a subjective choice as to whether or not to accept that which is different from oneself.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2009 11:15:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/1/2009 6:37:40 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
At 9/1/2009 6:14:17 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Absolutely. The Judaic laws must be seen in the context of the Old Testament.

Including the law against homosexuality?

Because I am under a new covenant (of the Spirit) I no longer need an external law telling me homosexuality is wrong; I KNOW.
Society however, (which from day one has been built on the Ten commands) does need external laws, especially regarding our children.

Not everyone is made to be married or a parent: to use this as an argument for homosexuality is absurd.

It rationally follows, DAT. It is only absurd if you can draw a reasonable line between the two properties. The only difference between what a sterile bachelor would be robbed of and what a homosexual would be robbed of, in the sense of simple have-have not dichotomy, is that the sterile bachelor lacks a companion. I doubt you would accept this as a reason for sterile bachelors to engage in homosexual acts; straight sterile bachelors do not want homosexual relations. How then could one argue that homosexuals should be bachelors or straight, when they neither want the opposite gender nor want to be alone?

What does what people WANT have to do with anything? it's what is RIGHT and TRUE that matters.. many people WANT sexual relations with children or animals.. we have laws against such wants.
But because we are talking about 'consenting adults' people believe it makes it ok.. it does not.. because we have to recognise that homosexuality is a DELUSION, which we must protect people from.

The two are in no way mutually exclusive. And being homosexual is hardly being exceptial nowadays.

Being oneself is fairly exceptional, though. Most people wear what masks they may. Those rare few who do not hide must be exceptional.

What a romantic notion.. everyone is far TOO much themselves! too much me, me, me.. You believe the 'real humanity' is latent and ready to emerge? let me tell you: when it does it looks like Belson.. or Vietnam circa '72.

And, furthermore, if most people are unexceptional, how can one be normal and exceptional? Unless you mean to say that everyone is exceptional, which would obviate any value judgment at all ... in which case, it is just a subjective choice as to whether or not to accept that which is different from oneself.

Being exceptional has nothing to do with sexuality or delusions. Period.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2009 5:08:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/2/2009 11:15:37 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

Because I am under a new covenant (of the Spirit) I no longer need an external law telling me homosexuality is wrong; I KNOW.
Society however, (which from day one has been built on the Ten commands) does need external laws, especially regarding our children.

Does this mean that, arguably, if you knew something, through God, different from the the Judaic law, that you would not be under any mandate to obey the Judaic law ... and that people who do not know what you know, regardless, should obey the Law?

Also, where do the ten commandments talk about homosexuality. I thought the big sin there was that you couldn't lust after your neighbor's wife ... so arguably this only applies to lesbians, am I right? Actually, reading the commandments again it seems like in the same breathe there is an edict not to covet after a male or female slave ... curious ...

What does what people WANT have to do with anything? it's what is RIGHT and TRUE that matters.. many people WANT sexual relations with children or animals.. we have laws against such wants.
But because we are talking about 'consenting adults' people believe it makes it ok.. it does not.. because we have to recognise that homosexuality is a DELUSION, which we must protect people from.

You say that homosexuality is a delusion that results in a loss -- but you can not explain how the delusion deceives or what loss it entails that would or could matter to a person.

What a romantic notion.. everyone is far TOO much themselves! too much me, me, me.. You believe the 'real humanity' is latent and ready to emerge? let me tell you: when it does it looks like Belson.. or Vietnam circa '72.

It is too much 'me' when one's self interest endangers others or the group, not when it enhances or does not affect them. I doubt you would argue that everyone should wear a single simple tunic produced by the same manufacturer, eat the same food, etc. If you can't reasonably argue that everyone should be the same, how can you argue that people shouldn't be different?

Being exceptional has nothing to do with sexuality or delusions. Period.

It does require one to be abnormal though, almost by definition.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.