Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?

You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.

I thought man do the reproducing and women do the raising?

Maybe Romney has the right religious idea and we should do it like the lions do. One guy, many women, they do all the work while the guy just sleeps.

Similarly, sexuality itself is a complex issue, and is not simply "gay or straight". Tendencies for homosexuality is very likely carried within your genes-- yes, yours. Also probably mine, and the majority of the population to some extent or other. Within a small portion of society, these genes mix in the right way to produce someone who is naturally inclined towards homosexuality. Most people are, to some extent, bisexual rather than straight or gay.

This has many theorized benefits involving specialization. A tribal male can feel comfortable leaving a gay male to protect his mates as he goes off hunting, for example-- the gay male will not rape his wife and impregnate her. This actually coincides with a common employment for gay males during most of the Roman Empire's reign, for example, with homosexuality only being strongly condemned until late in the empire; for example, Emperor Justinian using an alternate interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah from punishment for inhospitality to punishment for homosexuality.

Another benefit is that the homosexual men, as they do not reproduce, actually help the society ensure that it doesn't need more food, while still providing benefits to the group-- be it hunting, farming, gathering, crafting, etc. They have no focus on rearing children and so they can instead focus on their craft.

Aerethan wrote:
The propagation and survival of the species isn't more rational than the exact opposite of that?

Of the two, only one ends with survival beyond a single generation.

First, why should we propagate the species? Why should I want successive generation of humans to exist?

Second, why do we want to make everyone want to do a thing that creates more of us? There is such a thing as overpopulation. If, in certain circumstances, we can prevent that why wouldn't we?

Third, its not binary. Sexuality doesn't work that way. I've seen plenty of straight men and women go home with plenty of homosexual men and women.

First, I suppose you are right, if you are an existentialist or a nihilist.

Second, not everyone who IS heterosexual wants to propagate. And in many cases homosexuals do want to propagate but can't and thus turn to the opposite sex to make a baby for them since they can't/won't.

Third, I didn't say that sexuality was binary. Procreation for humans however is.

Aerethan wrote:First, I suppose you are right, if you are an existentialist or a nihilist.

I'm an existential nihilist.

Aerethan wrote:
Second, not everyone who IS heterosexual wants to propagate. And in many cases homosexuals do want to propagate but can't and thus turn to the opposite sex to make a baby for them since they can't/won't.

Third, I didn't say that sexuality was binary. Procreation for humans however is.

You just gave two reasons why it isn't.

Not to mention that humans moved past the 'I must have sex to make more me's" stage quite a awhile ago. For the past couple a thousand of years we've been having sex because we like to have sex and not just for the purpose of procreation.

Also as far as marriage is concerned, historically its always been a contract between two men. "I will give you my daughter/son in exchange for X." The conccept of marriage being a contract between one man and one woman is vary recent, Usually it was a contract between family's or one man and a father or one man and multiple woman.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?

You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.

I thought man do the reproducing and women do the raising?

Maybe Romney has the right religious idea and we should do it like the lions do. One guy, many women, they do all the work while the guy just sleeps.

What religion is it you're talking about?

Relapse wrote:
What religion is it you're talking about?

That one that said to get a bunch of wives, and keep making babies until you die, then they repealed the first part so that they could "mainstream" and be socially accepted.

Nothing like changing your religion for the sake of fitting in.

Aerethan wrote:

Relapse wrote:
What religion is it you're talking about?

That one that said to get a bunch of wives, and keep making babies until you die, then they repealed the first part so that they could "mainstream" and be socially accepted.

Nothing like changing your religion for the sake of fitting in.

While I understand your point, mormans dropped the polygamy so they could be officially be accepted as a religion and so that utah could be accepted as a state, they didn't do it to become 'mainstream'

You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.

If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?

Pretty sure the New Testament, which Mormons also believe to be the Word of God, specifically says to NOT add or subtract from it, ever.

ib4 people quoting Old Law from Leviticus and saying how we don't stone the gays even though the bible says to. Research that whole part where the old law is OLD LAW and is over written by the two commandments of: Love God above all others, love others as God loves you.

youbedead wrote:Also as far as marriage is concerned, historically its always been a contract between two men. "I will give you my daughter/son in exchange for X." The conccept of marriage being a contract between one man and one woman is vary recent, Usually it was a contract between family's or one man and a father or one man and multiple woman.

This is a good point, but it's still too limited. There have been a lot of different kinds of marriage in many different cultures over the millenia. Some cultures did have gay "marriages", though marriage in ancient cultures was often a lot different than the institution we have in modern Western world. Male + female was the most common configuration, as breeding has obviously usually been one of the primary purposes. But not always. Single male multiple females has cropped up lots of places and time periods.

Heck, before Christianity got there, the Irish had nine different types/degrees of marriage, each spelling out a different relationship between the parties involved in their clans. First degree was between a man and a woman of equal rank and property, and the woman was not subjugated. Lower degrees included when one partner was higher status, when a woman was stolen from her clan in war, when a woman was taken as a second wife, and the ninth degree- marriage between two a male and female mentally incompetent, who were recognized as married by the community so any kids they had would be legitimate and part of the clan structure.

9th degree marriage sounds like some kind of relationship black belt.

Aerethan wrote:You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.

If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?

I'd have to think we should ask mainstream Christian groups the same thing. I mean, when David and Moses and a bunch of other great men of the bible had polygamous marriages, how much sense does it make to suddenly claim marriage is between one man and one woman?

Obviously we changed that when sensibilities changed.

Both had mistresses, both were against God's wishes. Neither case ended well for those men.

Solomon did the whole polygamy thing as well, and it didn't end well for him either.

What does this mean? That not everyone in the Bible was perfect.

That is not the same as the Book of Mormon saying that followers should take on multiple wives, and then Mormons retconning it out because they wanted to have a statehood.

dogma wrote: I don't even like Polish food.

Why's you hate on the Kielbasa? .....is delicious.

Aerethan wrote:You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.

If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?

Pretty sure the New Testament, which Mormons also believe to be the Word of God, specifically says to NOT add or subtract from it, ever.

ib4 people quoting Old Law from Leviticus and saying how we don't stone the gays even though the bible says to. Research that whole part where the old law is OLD LAW and is over written by the two commandments of: Love God above all others, love others as God loves you.

You should study the history of the Mormons a bit more closely to avoid making such ignorant statements. They had spent decades being persecuted, murdered, robbed and slandered because of their beliefs. They came out to the middle of the desert to land no one else wanted after having entire cities they had built stolen from them. In Illinois, an extermination order had been issued by the governer and a lot of Mormons were murdered.
It is against this backdrop in around the year 1890, they were looking at having everything again taken away that after prayer and consideration the desicion came to drop Polygamy:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-polygamy-in-mormon-history.html

You show an ignorance of the bible also. The book of Revelation says nothing is to be taken from or added to it. All of the books of the Bible were seperate and only compiled at a later date. By your logic, the compilers of the Bible were adding to the bible when they put the Revelations between the same covers as the other books of the Bible.

Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?

I'll concede the point on Revelation.

I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.

Aerethan wrote:Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?

I'll concede the point on Revelation.

I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.

There were Mormons that were quartered with sythes by Mobs, had their children murdered dragged to death, burned alive, etc. and had everything they owned stolen time and again.
God is not edited by Mormons, he gives revelation to his Prophets.

Relapse wrote:

Aerethan wrote:Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?

I'll concede the point on Revelation.

I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.

There were Mormons that were quartered with sythes by Mobs, had their children murdered dragged to death, burned alive, etc. and had everything they owned stolen time and again.
God is not edited by Mormons, he gives revelation to his Prophets.

So you are saying that God revises the Book of Mormon according to social trends?

That makes more sense than men editing the book when under pressure from society, if you don't really think about it.

Aerethan wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Aerethan wrote:Christianity was persecuted for centuries. The Roman Empire being a favored persecutor. They didn't change their beliefs because of it.
But no, I'm sure those decades were rough. How many Mormons were skinned alive and thrown in vats of salt?

I'll concede the point on Revelation.

I maintain that it is a ballsy move to edit God.

There were Mormons that were quartered with sythes by Mobs, had their children murdered dragged to death, burned alive, etc. and had everything they owned stolen time and again.
God is not edited by Mormons, he gives revelation to his Prophets.

So you are saying that God revises the Book of Mormon according to social trends?

That makes more sense than men editing the book when under pressure from society, if you don't really think about it.

Do you have deep dislike for Mormons or something, I mean sure I'm not particularly fond of the official church either but you being a bit dick,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Aerethan wrote:You missed the part where they dropped polygamy, which is in their bible, in order to do ANYTHING.

If it is the word of God, who the hell are they to edit it down because it benefits them in that moment?

Pretty sure the New Testament, which Mormons also believe to be the Word of God, specifically says to NOT add or subtract from it, ever.

ib4 people quoting Old Law from Leviticus and saying how we don't stone the gays even though the bible says to. Research that whole part where the old law is OLD LAW and is over written by the two commandments of: Love God above all others, love others as God loves you.

You should study the history of the Mormons a bit more closely to avoid making such ignorant statements. They had spent decades being persecuted, murdered, robbed and slandered because of their beliefs. They came out to the middle of the desert to land no one else wanted after having entire cities they had built stolen from them. In Illinois, an extermination order had been issued by the governer and a lot of Mormons were murdered.
It is against this backdrop in around the year 1890, they were looking at having everything again taken away that after prayer and consideration the desicion came to drop Polygamy:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-polygamy-in-mormon-history.html

You show an ignorance of the bible also. The book of Revelation says nothing is to be taken from or added to it. All of the books of the Bible were seperate and only compiled at a later date. By your logic, the compilers of the Bible were adding to the bible when they put the Revelations between the same covers as the other books of the Bible.

Ever read Mormon Settlement in Arizona by James McClintock. Its an interesting look at the impact of mormons on the southwest and the development of permanent infrastructure by the mormons

Here is a link to the LDS Articles of Faith:

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

As you'll notice, the 9th article states that we believe God has yet things to reveal.

Think about it in this context, when Jesus appeared, he offended people with the things he said in his ministry because they believed it went against the laws of Moses, an early Prophet.
There were things that Jesus needed to reveal and explain to the people though, because it was time for it to happen.
After his Resurrection and ascention, the Apostles had their hands full because of the errors creeping in to the doctrines of some of the churches.
After the last of the Apostles, except for John, were martyred,
things went south in a big way, because of the various interpretations people were putting to the scriptures without a living prophet to relay any further Revelations from God.
It wasn't until Joseph Smith over 1000 years later was there a living prophet, because up until that point, the world would not accept the things God had yet to reveal.
Nowadays, we don't need to know how to build an Ark, or how to sacrifice animals, as the Old Testiment people needed to know, but the modern day prophets, through revelation, let us know what we need to do in order to attain Salvation and live in the world today.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@youbedead,

I'll give it a look.

So that you can become gods of your own little universes and so on.

You know what? I apologize. Perhaps I have been a dick about all this.

I'll leave this thread to the rest of you.

/exit.

Aerethan wrote:So that you can become gods of your own little universes and so on.

You know what? I apologize. Perhaps I have been a dick about all this.

I'll leave this thread to the rest of you.

/exit.

Don't worry about it, I've had worse happen than someone disagree with what I believe.

Mit Romney is a friggen joke, Its sad, but Obama is your best bet really.... FOUR MORE YEARS!

Mannahnin wrote:Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.

As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".

Research also indicates that rape, incest, and pedophilia occurs in nature...so why are you stopping with the research that supports your agenda(Gay agenda)? Why are you stopping with gay dolphins and lions, what about the naturaly ocurring rape, incest, pedophilia and murder that happens in nature?

The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago and the modern gay activists are trying to change this with clever "It's only natural" argumentation.

GG

Japanese samurai often had homosexual relations with boys just entering puberty. This was seen as socially acceptable.

How did that get phased out?

Bring back NAMBLA!



EDIT: I know I said I left the thread, but then the topic shifted drastically and I couldn't stay away. OT will be the death of me.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The sad thing about all this is that there are people out there so brainwashed, that they actually think that homosexuality is rational.

No less rational than heterosexuality.

No one, rationally, thinks "Damn, that chick is fine."

Marriage in general is not all that natural. Shouldn't we be fething left and right to make as much offspring as possible?

You forgot the part where you have to raise them to.

I thought man do the reproducing and women do the raising?

Maybe Romney has the right religious idea and we should do it like the lions do. One guy, many women, they do all the work while the guy just sleeps.

Most women I know would respond with the thought that we could always do it like the black widow spiders do...

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Research indicates that having some gay people may be advantageous for the continuation of the species/tribal group, even if those individuals do not breed.

As a specific example, the Allies sure benefitted from having Alan Turing on our side. They helped make sure that our society won out over the rival "tribe".

Research also indicates that rape, incest, and pedophilia occurs in nature...so why are you stopping with the research that supports your agenda(Gay agenda)?

Your argument is morally offensive as well as intellectually bankrupt.

I was responding to the foolish argument that homosexuality is necessarily contrary to the continuation of the species. It's only so on the shallowest level of examination. In reality gay people keep being born to straight parents, and researchers have theories why in fact having some homosexuals may be helpful to the family/tribe's survival and collective continuation and passing on of its genetic material.

If you sincerely (as opposed to just being a troll) equate homosexuality with rape, incest, and pedophilia, then your reasoning on this subject is fundamentally flawed, and probably causing you to do evil in the world- working against the happiness and equality of innocent people who are doing no harm to you or anyone else.

generalgrog wrote:[The fact is that our society drew a line in the sand, regarding marriage, many many years ago...

Which one? It's been pointed out over and over and over again that marriage has changed MANY times, and modern Western marriage only vague resembles marriage in ancient societies. It's not even that similar to marriage two hundred years ago. We have changed the meaning of marriage quite a lot, and always in response to changing social mores.

You can get divorced now.
You can marry someone of a different race now.
You can marry someone of a different religion now.
You can't marry multiple women anymore.
The bride's father doesn't pay a dowry anymore.
The father of the bride and husband are no longer treated as a functional "owners" of the wife, as they used to be in many legal respects.
We don't force a woman to marry her rapist anymore.

Most women I know would respond with the thgouht that we could always do it like the black widow spiders do...

nice

Jihadin wrote:

Most women I know would respond with the thgouht that we could always do it like the black widow spiders do...

nice

Well when you live in house of raging estrogen hormones AND firearms, you have these thoughts, and walk softly...

Its something when the 17 year old boy and an ancient wiener dog are the most mentally stable people in the house.