Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Australian Judge: "Incest, paedophilia 'like being gay'"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Anti-LGB sentiment comes from a culture of men owning and raping women, so I can see how things might seem confusing or alarming to that alternate ethos.
    I figured anti-LugBoat sentiment would come more from things like gay/lesbian couples sodomizing:



    or mutilating their adopted children, actually.

    Comment


    • #32
      It seems that whenever homosexuality is mentioned among conservative groups, they invariably wind up commenting on "the destructiveness of sodomy" and how it may be easy to spread disease and cause physical harm. But I've never seen anyone comment on lesbian relations. Has it ever occurred to you that that also counts as homosexuality, and that disease/physical harm isn't more likely to occur through that manner? Seriously, it's like the first and only thing that pops into the conservative mind upon hearing the word "homosexuality" is men having sex with men, and only one form of it. People seem to completely forget about homosexual females or other forms of male-on-male relations.
      Homosexuality means "attraction to the same sex", so yes, it applies equally to lesbian relationships.
      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

      -Thomas Aquinas

      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

      -Hernando Cortez

      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
        There is no "slippery slope," there's just a plateau where free consent of those involved means sex is okay and lack of it means it isn't.

        Anti-LGB sentiment comes from a culture of men owning and raping women, so I can see how things might seem confusing or alarming to that alternate ethos.
        The Romans were sodomy friendly, they were misogynistic. The Europeans were against sodomy, they recognized women as having rights (like the right to own land) and 'not' being property.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #34
          The Romans were sodomy friendly, they were misogynistic.
          That was mainly a late-stage cultural decadence thing from what I've been gathering (not that we can exactly talk here.)

          The Europeans were against sodomy, they recognized women as having rights (like the right to own land) and 'not' being property.
          Granting women their rights is usually the first step down the slippery slope to that very late-stage cultural decadence.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
            That was mainly a late-stage cultural decadence thing from what I've been gathering (not that we can exactly talk here.)
            Pretty much - the culture changed radically after the second Punic war. But when people talk about "the Romans", the reference is usually to imperial Rome, so the criticism stands. In point of fact, the first step in Rome's slide would seem to be the revocation of the rights (which stopped short of voting rights) that Republican Rome extended to women .
            Granting women their rights is usually the first step down the slippery slope to that very late-stage cultural decadence.
            Attitudes toward homosexuality in Europe varied by region and era. According to available information (which may not be wholly accurate) it wasn't until the 11th century that homosexuality came under blanket prohibition.
            In historical references, it would seem that homosexuality was frequently considered acceptable in militarily focused societies.
            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              A 14 year old understands infertility issues? Really? They 'get' that they are risking both life and fertility by becoming sexually active? Funny, because NONE of the kids I've interviewed knew what sterility even meant, let alone that GC and CT could both cause it! Heck, most can't accurately tell me what HIV is - you can forget them knowing what HPV is - and this is the level of informed consent you get with a kid who isn't legal to drive for a reason!

              Some things are just stupid...
              *nod*

              While there may be exceptions, we've generally decided that the level of understanding early teens have is not enough to make a responsible choice. It's a bit like not letting younger people get tattoos. Sure, that thirteen year old might *want* one, but he probably doesn't fully grasp the concept of how long those stay on and how much his tastes will be changing soon. And we especially don't want adults marketing tattoos to that vulnerable age group.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                The Romans were sodomy friendly, they were misogynistic.
                The Romans were not friendly to same-sex partnerships. They were friendly to straight men taking advantage of boys (which, by the way, is probably what the Bible condemns).

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                  The Romans were not friendly to same-sex partnerships.
                  I don't know of any society that was. The ones I know turned a blind eye to homosexual, incestual, and pedophilic activity, but none actually supported exclusive same sex life partnerships.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                    The Romans were not friendly to same-sex partnerships. They were friendly to straight men taking advantage of boys (which, by the way, is probably what the Bible condemns).
                    Uh huh. "Straight" men.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                      The Romans were not friendly to same-sex partnerships. They were friendly to straight men taking advantage of boys (which, by the way, is probably what the Bible condemns).

                      It's pretty clear that all homosexual relationships are condemned in the Bible. Romans being the most explicit in this condemnation for both male/male relationships, and female/female relationships.

                      Romans 1:2525 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

                      26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

                      It's pretty clear that the only acceptable sex is between a man and a woman who are married to each other.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                        It's pretty clear that all homosexual relationships are condemned in the Bible. Romans being the most explicit in this condemnation for both male/male relationships, and female/female relationships.

                        Romans 1:2525 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

                        26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
                        The whole "gave them over to shameful lusts" and "inflamed with lust" bits cause problems here. This verse is cited as "proving" that Paul only had promiscuous homosexual relationships in mind. You need other passages to show that homosexual relationships of every kind are not approved.

                        It's pretty clear that the only acceptable sex is between a man and a woman who are married to each other.
                        You need other passages to show that - this one only addresses homosexual relationships.
                        1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                          The whole "gave them over to shameful lusts" and "inflamed with lust" bits cause problems here. This verse is cited as "proving" that Paul only had promiscuous homosexual relationships in mind. You need other passages to show that homosexual relationships of every kind are not approved.
                          You missed the part that these relationships are not "natural". This is no different than God giving people over to strong "delusion" either, both are already what the person wants anyway.

                          2 Thessalonians 2:10-12New International Version (NIV)

                          10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

                          Both are things that are already bad on their own, God is just giving them over to their own desires.

                          You need other passages to show that - this one only addresses homosexual relationships.
                          Genesis 2:21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

                          23 The man said,

                          “This is now bone of my bones
                          and flesh of my flesh;
                          she shall be called ‘woman,’
                          for she was taken out of man.”
                          24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

                          Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

                          4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

                          7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

                          8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

                          While divorce and polygamy were permitted, they were not God's intention, which Jesus shows was one woman, and one man who are married to each other.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            That was mainly a late-stage cultural decadence thing from what I've been gathering (not that we can exactly talk here.)
                            Eh, well, there's still others, such as the Vikings, or the Greeks.

                            Granting women their rights is usually the first step down the slippery slope to that very late-stage cultural decadence.
                            I don't see how seeing women as 'not' being property, and granting them the right to get jobs and own property would lead to something like that. The Medieval man still acknowledged the biological fact that men make better soldiers than women, which is why women were usually not involved in the military unless they were in non-combat roles, such as shield-maidens or tacticians, however, they sometimes did help fight, the queen of Spain fighting alongside her men to drive off an Islamic siege is an example, but that was not the norm. There was none of this PC "Women are just as good as men at fighting and jobs that involve hard-labor" crap.

                            As for your article, eh, no, said "cultural decadence" didn't arise again until very recently, so I don't see how you can make the connection.
                            Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                            -Thomas Aquinas

                            I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                            -Hernando Cortez

                            What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                            -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by seasanctuary View Post
                              The Romans were not friendly to same-sex partnerships. They were friendly to straight men taking advantage of boys (which, by the way, is probably what the Bible condemns).
                              Straight "men" taking advantage of "boys". I'm sorry, what?
                              Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                              -Thomas Aquinas

                              I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                              -Hernando Cortez

                              What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                              -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                The whole "gave them over to shameful lusts" and "inflamed with lust" bits cause problems here. This verse is cited as "proving" that Paul only had promiscuous homosexual relationships in mind. You need other passages to show that homosexual relationships of every kind are not approved.
                                There is no other kind of homosexual relationship.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 01:20 PM
                                9 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:16 AM
                                15 responses
                                101 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:15 AM
                                3 responses
                                34 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 09:02 AM
                                32 responses
                                223 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post KingsGambit  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 08:51 AM
                                3 responses
                                27 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X