Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality is illegal in some countries

Foodiesoul
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.

Human rights should not be squandered for the sake of "social stability." Order should not be preferred to justice.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 3:12:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

But remember, Islam is a great religion that has never oppressed anyone!

(If you look at the world map, you will see that all the countries outlined in green are places where LGBT rights exist, and all the ones in red don't have them. Almost all of those countries are Middle Eastern and North African countries, and the rest are Islamic countries in other parts of the world.)
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 5:26:21 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 3:12:15 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

But remember, Islam is a great religion that has never oppressed anyone!

Every ideology/culture/religions has oppressed someone at some point.

(If you look at the world map, you will see that all the countries outlined in green are places where LGBT rights exist, and all the ones in red don't have them. Almost all of those countries are Middle Eastern and North African countries, and the rest are Islamic countries in other parts of the world.)

It has more to do with lack of American/European influence than it does with religion. Many countries keep a prohibition in place as a hangover from colonial rule (Singapore, India, many southern African nations, Micronesia/Polynesia). Others have strong cultural anti-gay currents (Carribean machismo-oriented countries, Russia). And others view the vociferous rejection of gay rights as a way to spit in the face of America (African, Central American, and South American nations which, while clinging to colonial-era laws, ironically see themselves as rejecting European influence instead of affirming and reinforcing it).
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 5:39:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.

No it isn't. I'm sure you get plaudits from self-important leftists for saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

Human rights should not be squandered for the sake of "social stability." Order should not be preferred to justice.

There can be no justice without order. And justice is ephemeral anyway, the Laelian interpretation is long-discredited. Time has proven Philus to be right:

'it was surely worthy of those heroes of philosophy to ennoble by their genius a virtue so eminently beneficent and liberal, which every where exalts the social interests above the selfish, and teaches to love others rather than ourselves. It was worthy of their genius, we say, to elevate this virtue to a divine throne, close to that of Wisdom. Certainly they wanted not the intention to accomplish this. What else could be the cause of their writing on the subject, or what could have been their design? Nor could they have wanted genius, in which they excelled all men. But the weakness of their cause was too great for their intention and their eloquence to make it popular. In fact, this justice on which we reason may be a civil right, but no natural one; for if it were natural and universal, then justice and injustice would be recognized similarly by all men, just as the elements of heat and cold, sweet and bitter.

Now if any one, carried in the chariot of winged serpents, of which the poet Pacuvius makes mention, could take his flight over all nations and cities, and accurately observe their proceedings, he would see that the sense of justice and right varies in different regions. In the first place he would behold among the unchangeable people of Egypt, which preserves in its archives the memory of so many ages and events, a bull adored as a deity, under the name of Apis, and a multitude of other monsters, and all kinds of animals admitted by the natives into the number of the gods.

The Persians, on the other hand, regard all these forms of idolatry as impious, and it is affirmed that the sole motive of Xerxes for commanding the conflagration of the Athenian temples, was the belief that it was a superstitious sacrilege to keep confined within narrow walls the gods, whose proper home was the entire universe. Afterwards Philip, in his hostile projects against the Persians, and Alexander, in his expedition, alleged this plea for war, that it was necessary to avenge the temples of Greece. And the Greeks thought proper never to rebuild these fanes, that this monument of the impiety of the Persians might always remain before the eyes of their posterity.

How many, such as the inhabitants of Taurica along the Euxine Sea -- as the King of Egypt Busiris -- as the Gauls and the Carthaginians -- have thought it exceedingly pious and agreeable to the gods to sacrifice men. Besides these religious discrepancies, the rules of life are so contradictory that the Cretans and "tolians regard robbery as honourable. And the Laced"monians say that their territory extends to all places which they can touch with a lance. The Athenians had a custom of swearing by a public proclamation, that all the lands which produced olives and corn were their own. The Gauls consider it a base employment to raise corn by agricultural labour, and go with arms in their hands, and mow down the harvests of neighbouring peoples. And our Romans, the most equitable of all nations, in order to raise the value of our vines and olives, do not permit the races beyond the Alps to cultivate either vineyards or oliveyards. In this respect, it is said, we act with prudence, but not with justice. You see then that wisdom and policy are not always the same as equity. Lycurgus, the inventor of a most admirable jurisprudence, and most wholesome laws, gave the lands of the rich to be cultivated by the common people, who were reduced to slavery.

If I were to describe the diverse kinds of laws, institutions, manners, and customs, not only as they vary in the numerous nations, but as they vary likewise in single cities, as Rome for example, I should prove that they have had a thousand revolutions. For instance, that eminent expositor of our laws who sits in the present company, I mean Malilius, if you were to consult him relative to the legacies and inheritances of women, he would tell you that the present law is quite different from that he was accustomed to plead in his youth, before the Voconian enactment came into force -- an edict which was passed in favour of the interests of the men, but which is evidently full of injustice with regard to women. For why should a woman be disabled from inheriting property? Why can a vestal virgin become an heir, while her mother cannot? And why, admitting that it is necessary to set some limit to the wealth of women, should Crassus' daughter, if she be his only child, inherit thousands without offending the law, while my daughter can only receive a small share in a bequest?

If this justice were natural, innate, and universal, all men would admit the same law and right, and the same men would not enact different laws at different times. If a just man and a virtuous man is bound to obey the laws, I ask what laws do you mean? Do you intend all the laws indifferently? Virtue does not permit this inconstancy in moral obligation -- such a variation is not compatible with natural conscience. The laws are, therefore, based not on our sense of justice, but on our fear of punishment. There is, therefore, no natural justice, and hence it follows that men cannot be just by nature.'
- Cicero, De Re Publica -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 11:12:09 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

India prohibits homosexuality. I don't see how that brings "social stability," from an Indian context, because nobody cares -- in fact, every person I've asked (which is *all* friends and family) are for repealing such laws, and go further to support legalizing same-sex marriage.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 11:19:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Sex with 16 yro is legal in most of W Europe. Some countries have lower ages.
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 11:23:36 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.

Human rights should not be squandered for the sake of "social stability." Order should not be preferred to justice.

Quite right. The Nazis enjoyed implementing social stability, pity about the Jews. And several hundred thousand homosexuals joined them in the death camps, along with anyone else considered undesirable.

Taking away people's rights is a double-edged sword: they might decide to take away yours....
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,086
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:01:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
The big companies which boycotted North Carolina are probably doing plenty of business in these countries.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:12:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 11:19:31 AM, Daedal wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Sex with 16 yro is legal in most of W Europe. Some countries have lower ages.

Exactly, but in the US people would freak out if anyone proposed lowering it. It's not there for any rational reason, just because of public sentiment.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:15:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 11:12:09 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

India prohibits homosexuality. I don't see how that brings "social stability," from an Indian context, because nobody cares -- in fact, every person I've asked (which is *all* friends and family) are for repealing such laws, and go further to support legalizing same-sex marriage.

Then they'll probably legalize it. I'm not saying that illegality is always legitimate, but that it can be legitimate, and that trying to change the law before changing hearts and minds can be disastrous. India's laws, if I remember correctly, are a vestige of a colonial prohibition which public sentiment is on the cusp of discarding. If sentiment has reached that point, then discard the prohibition.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:17:40 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 8:12:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2016 11:19:31 AM, Daedal wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Sex with 16 yro is legal in most of W Europe. Some countries have lower ages.

Exactly, but in the US people would freak out if anyone proposed lowering it. It's not there for any rational reason, just because of public sentiment.

It's just a matter of education. Slavery was considered respectable for a long time, but not so much now, likewise anti-semitism. Gay marriage is now legal in some parts of W Europe, and some US States. People are realising that everyone is created equal, and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which includes getting laid.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:29:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 8:17:40 PM, Daedal wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:12:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2016 11:19:31 AM, Daedal wrote:

Sex with 16 yro is legal in most of W Europe. Some countries have lower ages.

Exactly, but in the US people would freak out if anyone proposed lowering it. It's not there for any rational reason, just because of public sentiment.

It's just a matter of education. Slavery was considered respectable for a long time, but not so much now,

That was more due to advances in technology. Salvery/serfdom were just necessities in an age in which agricultural labor had to be manual.

likewise anti-semitism.

Lol, anti-semitism is rampant, especially among the far left and alt-right, and on the left it's creeping into the mainstream more and more each year.

Gay marriage is now legal in some parts of W Europe, and some US States.

People are realising that everyone is created equal, and has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

You have an overly rosy outlook on humanity. Gay rights happened because the West and the US are wealthy enough that gay people worked their way into the middle class and then held the government accountable while launching a brilliant PR campaign (well, it was brilliant; the gay lobby is moronic nowadays).

Also, people only have what rights are granted to them by government. 'Unalienable rights' was a brilliant moment in rhetoric, rights don't actually exist outside of a social framework.

which includes getting laid.

You have a right to get laid? That sounds a wee bit rape-y to me.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 8:38:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
No it wasn't. Some people have morals, and exercise them.

Far fewer people are anti-semitic now.

So gay people claimed their rights, and that's wrong? I seem to remember the suffragettes and the civil rights movement, do you object to those too?

The social framework is changing to recognise equal rights for everyone.

If you equate the right to have sex with rape then you have a very strange attitude.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 9:13:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love

Social stigma coupled with a collectivist attitude. The majority of the population is against homosexuality and the majority of the population also believes that "majority rules."
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:28:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 5:39:42 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.

No it isn't. I'm sure you get plaudits from self-important leftists for saying that, but it doesn't make it true.

Human rights should not be squandered for the sake of "social stability." Order should not be preferred to justice.

There can be no justice without order. And justice is ephemeral anyway, the Laelian interpretation is long-discredited. Time has proven Philus to be right:

'it was surely worthy of those heroes of philosophy to ennoble by their genius a virtue so eminently beneficent and liberal, which every where exalts the social interests above the selfish, and teaches to love others rather than ourselves. It was worthy of their genius, we say, to elevate this virtue to a divine throne, close to that of Wisdom. Certainly they wanted not the intention to accomplish this. What else could be the cause of their writing on the subject, or what could have been their design? Nor could they have wanted genius, in which they excelled all men. But the weakness of their cause was too great for their intention and their eloquence to make it popular. In fact, this justice on which we reason may be a civil right, but no natural one; for if it were natural and universal, then justice and injustice would be recognized similarly by all men, just as the elements of heat and cold, sweet and bitter.

Now if any one, carried in the chariot of winged serpents, of which the poet Pacuvius makes mention, could take his flight over all nations and cities, and accurately observe their proceedings, he would see that the sense of justice and right varies in different regions. In the first place he would behold among the unchangeable people of Egypt, which preserves in its archives the memory of so many ages and events, a bull adored as a deity, under the name of Apis, and a multitude of other monsters, and all kinds of animals admitted by the natives into the number of the gods.

The Persians, on the other hand, regard all these forms of idolatry as impious, and it is affirmed that the sole motive of Xerxes for commanding the conflagration of the Athenian temples, was the belief that it was a superstitious sacrilege to keep confined within narrow walls the gods, whose proper home was the entire universe. Afterwards Philip, in his hostile projects against the Persians, and Alexander, in his expedition, alleged this plea for war, that it was necessary to avenge the temples of Greece. And the Greeks thought proper never to rebuild these fanes, that this monument of the impiety of the Persians might always remain before the eyes of their posterity.

How many, such as the inhabitants of Taurica along the Euxine Sea -- as the King of Egypt Busiris -- as the Gauls and the Carthaginians -- have thought it exceedingly pious and agreeable to the gods to sacrifice men. Besides these religious discrepancies, the rules of life are so contradictory that the Cretans and "tolians regard robbery as honourable. And the Laced"monians say that their territory extends to all places which they can touch with a lance. The Athenians had a custom of swearing by a public proclamation, that all the lands which produced olives and corn were their own. The Gauls consider it a base employment to raise corn by agricultural labour, and go with arms in their hands, and mow down the harvests of neighbouring peoples. And our Romans, the most equitable of all nations, in order to raise the value of our vines and olives, do not permit the races beyond the Alps to cultivate either vineyards or oliveyards. In this respect, it is said, we act with prudence, but not with justice. You see then that wisdom and policy are not always the same as equity. Lycurgus, the inventor of a most admirable jurisprudence, and most wholesome laws, gave the lands of the rich to be cultivated by the common people, who were reduced to slavery.

If I were to describe the diverse kinds of laws, institutions, manners, and customs, not only as they vary in the numerous nations, but as they vary likewise in single cities, as Rome for example, I should prove that they have had a thousand revolutions. For instance, that eminent expositor of our laws who sits in the present company, I mean Malilius, if you were to consult him relative to the legacies and inheritances of women, he would tell you that the present law is quite different from that he was accustomed to plead in his youth, before the Voconian enactment came into force -- an edict which was passed in favour of the interests of the men, but which is evidently full of injustice with regard to women. For why should a woman be disabled from inheriting property? Why can a vestal virgin become an heir, while her mother cannot? And why, admitting that it is necessary to set some limit to the wealth of women, should Crassus' daughter, if she be his only child, inherit thousands without offending the law, while my daughter can only receive a small share in a bequest?

If this justice were natural, innate, and universal, all men would admit the same law and right, and the same men would not enact different laws at different times. If a just man and a virtuous man is bound to obey the laws, I ask what laws do you mean? Do you intend all the laws indifferently? Virtue does not permit this inconstancy in moral obligation -- such a variation is not compatible with natural conscience. The laws are, therefore, based not on our sense of justice, but on our fear of punishment. There is, therefore, no natural justice, and hence it follows that men cannot be just by nature.'
- Cicero, De Re Publica -
"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [..] I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow"

-MLK Jr
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:32:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:28:00 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 5:39:42 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
Human rights should not be squandered for the sake of "social stability." Order should not be preferred to justice.

There can be no justice without order. And justice is ephemeral anyway, the Laelian interpretation is long-discredited. Time has proven Philus to be right:

'it was surely worthy of those heroes of philosophy to ennoble by their genius a virtue so eminently beneficent and liberal, which every where exalts the social interests above the selfish, and teaches to love others rather than ourselves. It was worthy of their genius, we say, to elevate this virtue to a divine throne, close to that of Wisdom. Certainly they wanted not the intention to accomplish this. What else could be the cause of their writing on the subject, or what could have been their design? Nor could they have wanted genius, in which they excelled all men. But the weakness of their cause was too great for their intention and their eloquence to make it popular. In fact, this justice on which we reason may be a civil right, but no natural one; for if it were natural and universal, then justice and injustice would be recognized similarly by all men, just as the elements of heat and cold, sweet and bitter.

Now if any one, carried in the chariot of winged serpents, of which the poet Pacuvius makes mention, could take his flight over all nations and cities, and accurately observe their proceedings, he would see that the sense of justice and right varies in different regions. In the first place he would behold among the unchangeable people of Egypt, which preserves in its archives the memory of so many ages and events, a bull adored as a deity, under the name of Apis, and a multitude of other monsters, and all kinds of animals admitted by the natives into the number of the gods.

The Persians, on the other hand, regard all these forms of idolatry as impious, and it is affirmed that the sole motive of Xerxes for commanding the conflagration of the Athenian temples, was the belief that it was a superstitious sacrilege to keep confined within narrow walls the gods, whose proper home was the entire universe. Afterwards Philip, in his hostile projects against the Persians, and Alexander, in his expedition, alleged this plea for war, that it was necessary to avenge the temples of Greece. And the Greeks thought proper never to rebuild these fanes, that this monument of the impiety of the Persians might always remain before the eyes of their posterity.

How many, such as the inhabitants of Taurica along the Euxine Sea -- as the King of Egypt Busiris -- as the Gauls and the Carthaginians -- have thought it exceedingly pious and agreeable to the gods to sacrifice men. Besides these religious discrepancies, the rules of life are so contradictory that the Cretans and "tolians regard robbery as honourable. And the Laced"monians say that their territory extends to all places which they can touch with a lance. The Athenians had a custom of swearing by a public proclamation, that all the lands which produced olives and corn were their own. The Gauls consider it a base employment to raise corn by agricultural labour, and go with arms in their hands, and mow down the harvests of neighbouring peoples. And our Romans, the most equitable of all nations, in order to raise the value of our vines and olives, do not permit the races beyond the Alps to cultivate either vineyards or oliveyards. In this respect, it is said, we act with prudence, but not with justice. You see then that wisdom and policy are not always the same as equity. Lycurgus, the inventor of a most admirable jurisprudence, and most wholesome laws, gave the lands of the rich to be cultivated by the common people, who were reduced to slavery.

If I were to describe the diverse kinds of laws, institutions, manners, and customs, not only as they vary in the numerous nations, but as they vary likewise in single cities, as Rome for example, I should prove that they have had a thousand revolutions. For instance, that eminent expositor of our laws who sits in the present company, I mean Malilius, if you were to consult him relative to the legacies and inheritances of women, he would tell you that the present law is quite different from that he was accustomed to plead in his youth, before the Voconian enactment came into force -- an edict which was passed in favour of the interests of the men, but which is evidently full of injustice with regard to women. For why should a woman be disabled from inheriting property? Why can a vestal virgin become an heir, while her mother cannot? And why, admitting that it is necessary to set some limit to the wealth of women, should Crassus' daughter, if she be his only child, inherit thousands without offending the law, while my daughter can only receive a small share in a bequest?

If this justice were natural, innate, and universal, all men would admit the same law and right, and the same men would not enact different laws at different times. If a just man and a virtuous man is bound to obey the laws, I ask what laws do you mean? Do you intend all the laws indifferently? Virtue does not permit this inconstancy in moral obligation -- such a variation is not compatible with natural conscience. The laws are, therefore, based not on our sense of justice, but on our fear of punishment. There is, therefore, no natural justice, and hence it follows that men cannot be just by nature.'
- Cicero, De Re Publica -
"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice [..] I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow"

-MLK Jr

MLK was wrong, and obviously emotionally invested in the issue. That's a good thing. If he hadn't been wrong about this, he wouldn't have pushed for it. Society works best when the drive for revolutionary change is tempered by reactionary forces, and society advances at a moderate pace.

Your quote also has nothing to do with mine, which attacks the idea of an effusive, all-encompassing justice. King drew his concept of justice from religion, but something tells me that your don't believe that religions should determine what is and is not just.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:35:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

When there are conflicts, should we change hearts or should we change laws? That seems to be an important question to ponder...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:35:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 8:38:10 PM, Daedal wrote:
No it wasn't. Some people have morals, and exercise them.

Lol, who eliminated slavery and serfdom prior to the advent of mechanized farming? *crickets*

Far fewer people are anti-semitic now.

Depends on where you're looking. In the Middle East, far more people are antisemitic due to the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Jews used to flee from Europe to Muslim-held lands). Compared to decades before, Europe is less antisemitic overall, but antisemitism on the left has risen. In both America and Europe, the right has become much less antisemitic because of alliances with Israeli advocates.

So gay people claimed their rights, and that's wrong? I seem to remember the suffragettes and the civil rights movement, do you object to those too?

It's not wrong or right, it's just a product of a certain environment which doesn't exist everywhere. I think that the argument that economic growth leads to democracy and individual rights, and not the reciprocate, holds water.

The social framework is changing to recognise equal rights for everyone.

That's nonsensical. Societies agree on different sets of rights, some of which are contradictory. There's no such thing as some apex which societies all tend towards. That take on history is known as 'whig historiography', and has been a laughingstock among professional historians since Butterfield eviscerated it in the early twentieth century.

If you equate the right to have sex with rape then you have a very strange attitude.

How can you not? If I have a right to sex, but nobody wants to have sex with me, either I have a right to take sex, or a don't have a 'right' to sex at all. That's the logical consequence, and it's why the idea of a 'right to sex' is abhorrent.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:35:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:35:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

When there are conflicts, should we change hearts or should we change laws? That seems to be an important question to ponder...

Hearts first, and then laws.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:36:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:35:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/3/2016 2:35:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

When there are conflicts, should we change hearts or should we change laws? That seems to be an important question to ponder...

Hearts first, and then laws.

Haha, true. And I think laws can be used to change hearts, to some extent.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:38:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.
Marrying a 16-year-old was a normal thing in our grandparents' generation.
Human rights should not be squandered for the sake of "social stability." Order should not be preferred to justice.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:39:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:36:39 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/3/2016 2:35:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/3/2016 2:35:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

When there are conflicts, should we change hearts or should we change laws? That seems to be an important question to ponder...

Hearts first, and then laws.

Haha, true. And I think laws can be used to change hearts, to some extent.

Oh, I definitely agree. Same sex marriage in the US is the perfect example. They didn't rule in favor of it until the tide of public opinion had turned, cemented by age demographics. Now, as people in more traditional states are exposed to same-sex couples, hearts and minds will follow. As long as the gay lobby stops being stupid and trying to force it on everyone.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:39:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:38:18 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.
Marrying a 16-year-old was a normal thing in our grandparents' generation.
What are you trying to say? Is that a good thing?
Because it's not.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 2:40:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:39:32 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/3/2016 2:38:18 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/2/2016 2:43:27 AM, bhakun wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Comparing the age of consent to homosexual rights is like comparing apples to elephants.
Marrying a 16-year-old was a normal thing in our grandparents' generation.
What are you trying to say? Is that a good thing?
Because it's not.
It's not to us. Our grandparents could have said the same thing about gay marriage.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Foodiesoul
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 8:37:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:35:50 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/3/2016 2:35:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

When there are conflicts, should we change hearts or should we change laws? That seems to be an important question to ponder...

Hearts first, and then laws.
I agree with you and I like how you summed it up rather quickly.

By saying "Hearts first, and then laws.", I assume that you mean that governmental figures should learn to let go of double standards that encourage sexism, racism, ageism, etc and see the good in both males and females, whites and blacks, teachers and students, doctors and patients, etc so that they can effectively establish laws that do not encourage discrimination of any sort or encourage double standards that affect certain peoples' rights in a negative way.
Daedal
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2016 9:45:45 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/3/2016 2:35:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/2/2016 8:38:10 PM, Daedal wrote:
No it wasn't. Some people have morals, and exercise them.

Lol, who eliminated slavery and serfdom prior to the advent of mechanized farming? *crickets*

Far fewer people are anti-semitic now.

Depends on where you're looking. In the Middle East, far more people are antisemitic due to the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Jews used to flee from Europe to Muslim-held lands). Compared to decades before, Europe is less antisemitic overall, but antisemitism on the left has risen. In both America and Europe, the right has become much less antisemitic because of alliances with Israeli advocates.

So gay people claimed their rights, and that's wrong? I seem to remember the suffragettes and the civil rights movement, do you object to those too?

It's not wrong or right, it's just a product of a certain environment which doesn't exist everywhere. I think that the argument that economic growth leads to democracy and individual rights, and not the reciprocate, holds water.

The social framework is changing to recognise equal rights for everyone.

That's nonsensical. Societies agree on different sets of rights, some of which are contradictory. There's no such thing as some apex which societies all tend towards. That take on history is known as 'whig historiography', and has been a laughingstock among professional historians since Butterfield eviscerated it in the early twentieth century.

It's certainly the case in W Europe and the US. There's been a trend in that direction. Hopefully other countries will catch up.

If you equate the right to have sex with rape then you have a very strange attitude.

How can you not? If I have a right to sex, but nobody wants to have sex with me, either I have a right to take sex, or a don't have a 'right' to sex at all. That's the logical consequence, and it's why the idea of a 'right to sex' is abhorrent.

There should be no laws prohibiting sex between consensual adults: that constitutes the right to sex. If no one wants to consent then that's hard luck, it doesn't mean you can rape someone.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 4:37:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

Maybe I don't know how to frame this but I get irked by the equivocation of social stability and upholding what amounts to a legislative attack on a segment of a given population.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2016 5:19:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 6/2/2016 12:47:41 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/1/2016 11:34:31 PM, Foodiesoul wrote:
I am not homophobic and I support every sexuality, so why is it that some countries can't just let people love who they want to love (male, female, transgender, etc)? Why do some countries go as far as to make homosexuality illegal? I feel like that's just taking it a little too far. Also, people act as if homosexuality affects them when it really doesn't. No one is forcing you to be gay or straight or other so if you don't like homosexual people so much, then just let them be and ignore them. Society makes homosexuality seem like a sin when it's perfectly normal. After all, homosexuals are humans too.

For the same reason that we make sex with a sixteen year old illegal: because it outrages people enough that outlawing it provides social stability. Laws have to be written on hearts, not just paper, and where there is a deep-seated cultural animosity towards homosexuals the legalization of it would have disastrous consequences.

So, it is legal for homosexuals to get married etc in my home country. Doesn't look like there are any "disastrous consequences".
Meh!