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.

Cheesecat wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:The idea that any sexual orientation or fetish is morally right or wrong is quite laughable really as well as hypocritical.

I would argue that someone who has a sexual harassment fetish is immoral because it harms others.

Then we're discriminating based on sexual orientation/fetish and thats a bigger evil. I really don't care what people fap to in their own homes. Of course, laws apply so harassment law would cover this. Then again...that could be discrimination to.

In general, if someone is campaigning for more equality then to turn around and deal the exact same treatment to another orientation just reeks of hypocrisy.

mattyrm wrote:

Rampage wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.

I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?

Well of course its their perception, there are loads of nice Christians, the homophobic thing seems to be a uniquely American Christian thing, namely Southern Baptists. I know there is a little from some Catholics, and plenty from Muslims, but in the States it seems to be that sort of 20-30 million strong, Tea Party/guns are great/climate change is lies/young earth/hate fags (they all believe the exact same thing) crowd.

It is probably true that Christians in the US are "unique." Especially the part where they look over the part where Judas kissed Jesus with passion and fire and Jebus didn't punch him in the face and call him a cigarette. Wierd. That silly bible.
Get some Jesus:for tomorrow you may die.

TheRobotLol wrote:

AustonT wrote:

TheRobotLol wrote:Oh well i'm very sorry for your lack of speed.

don't be a ...jerk.

Why talk like ...this?

Because I use jerk in place of a rather more apt description somewhat frowned upon in polite discussion. Although in retrospect "pedantic" is apt.

carlos13th wrote:People who share hobbies with you have no relation to you as a person so you shouldn't feel dirty or blame the hobby. You will find people with views like this all over the world. It would be the equivalent of vegetarians or painters feeling dirty because Hitler was both.

I absolutely don't 'blame' the hobby, I don't don't understand why it's shared with such people. I think it's sad this corner of it, it marred by it. As I said, I've been involved with so many forms of SF and fantasy fandom and it's almost always so accepting and liberal. To see this really frustrates and baffles me. I've come across one such person in Doctor Who fandom, just the one that stands out, and I have to ask... do you even understand Doctor Who? How do you enjoy a series centred around a person fighting for fairness and ending oppression, putting science over superstition, and then without irony they justify oppressing gay people, denying them any equality and taking away their rights based on a fantastical piece of fiction, the bible?

Kovnik Obama wrote:
At this point in time, choosing not to reproduce (which is what homosexuals tend to do, because, really, homosexuality is only a minor obstacle to reproduction) no longer endanger anyone. It's a personal liberty.

In fact, as many homosexuals seem to want children, and there seems to be a surplus of them at the moment (and artificial insemination is possible), its arguable that homosexuality is a net good even given the only circumstances in which reproduction is valuable.

AustonT wrote:

SINNERS!!!

Howard A Treesong wrote:

carlos13th wrote:People who share hobbies with you have no relation to you as a person so you shouldn't feel dirty or blame the hobby. You will find people with views like this all over the world. It would be the equivalent of vegetarians or painters feeling dirty because Hitler was both.

I absolutely don't 'blame' the hobby, I don't don't understand why it's shared with such people. I think it's sad this corner of it, it marred by it. As I said, I've been involved with so many forms of SF and fantasy fandom and it's almost always so accepting and liberal. To see this really frustrates and baffles me. I've come across one such person in Doctor Who fandom, just the one that stands out, and I have to ask... do you even understand Doctor Who? How do you enjoy a series centred around a person fighting for fairness and ending oppression, putting science over superstition, and then without irony they justify oppressing gay people, denying them any equality and taking away their rights based on a fantastical piece of fiction, the bible?

I really like your avatar, where did you find it? Doctor who is great, I'm glad the brits got it back from fox.

Plus with the new episodes it really calls into question the doctors sexuality. so its easy to see how that demographic would be more accepting seeing how the lead character is BI.

Why must people always attempt to counter asshat statements made by supposedly religious people with equally asshat statements or expressions of their own? Any 'point' that puts you on the same level of ignorance and douchebaggery as your opponent is the wrong kind of point to be making.

As far 'design' goes, there's no argument against the fact that sexual reproduction can only occur with a male and female...that's pretty basic.

That said, however, I don't see why people shouldn't be free to live as they please in that regard. If you can find someone you're happy with and have a relationship with that person, that's great.

Troy wrote:Wasn't this thread supposed to be about a mural?

Troy this is dakka dakka.... everything gets turned into a homosexuality/guns/North Korea debate.

Speaking of sexy animals and lobsters..... All I have to say is Hey Now!!!



Don't be bigoted against me,,I'm turning on the Marvin Gay song right now...

GG

Ronin-Sage wrote:Why must people always attempt to counter asshat statements made by supposedly religious people with equally asshat statements or expressions of their own? Any 'point' that puts you on the same level of ignorance and douchebaggery as your opponent is the wrong kind of point to be making.

As far 'design' goes, there's no argument against the fact that sexual reproduction can only occur with a male and female...that's pretty basic.

That said, however, I don't see why people shouldn't be free to live as they please in that regard. If you can find someone you're happy with and have a relationship with that person, that's great.

generalgrog wrote:

Troy wrote:Wasn't this thread supposed to be about a mural?

Troy this is dakka dakka.... everything gets turned into a homosexuality/guns/North Korea debate.

CHALLANGE ACCEPTED!

That guy looks cold.

Uh... Wolverines!?

MrDwhitey wrote:That guy looks drunk.

Corrected your typo

Sooooo...I win?

AustonT wrote:Sooooo...I win?

No, Sex Robot won this thread long ago, friend. What does he want? Sssseeeeexxxx.

That's bs, I combined homosexuality, guns, and what could possibly be North Korea in the most unlikely of found photos and you give it away to uninspired sex robot...lame.

Sorry, the aviators brought it below the Sex Robot threshold. Don't blame me, blame Science.

I, for one, welcome our Gun-toting, Aviator-wearing, North Korean, Homosexual overlords.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I, for one, welcome our Gun-toting, Aviator-wearing, North Korean, Homosexual overlords.

This...

This explains so much.

Is he trying to do the Robot?

Hazardous Harry wrote:Is he trying to do the Robot?

I think he might be "Yessing" to death.

Lucian Greymark wrote:
Sorry but homosexuality is wrong, there look its out. Sorry if I offended you. But lets face it. We wernt designed to be gay

Technically, we weren't designed to wipe our behinds, traditionally as a species, we have spent FAR longer not doing it. Should we go back to it Or are we capable of using intelligence and judgement to go beyond 'nature' and base thoughts and actions?

Frankly, your holding a monopoly on all the (non joke) morally ambiguous stuff I have seen in this thread so far.

CT GAMER wrote:Yes, humans fear the unknown.

However there is no excuse for embracing ignorance, nor in using one's own as an excuse for hatred.

As a species we should strive for enlightened and civilized behavior, not knowingly act like ass-hats and then blame it on "human nature"

I like that!! (serious)

CT GAMER wrote:I object to thinly veiled hated and paranoia that tries to hide behind a shield of "moral superiority"

Many peoples morals are ill-conceived, illogical, and dangerous.

So yes you can be as crazy as you wanna be, but expect to be called on it when you make unfounded statements in line with the typical homophobe agenda and talking points..

Exactly, it is debatable at best if there is any moral grounds for objection. That being said I think some people genuinly BELIEVE they are doing it on those grounds.

Rampage wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.

I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?

The bible specifically states that homosexuals will not get into heaven. Denying a group of people an eternal afterlife of peace, love, harmony and fluffy white clouds, actually, that seems pretty gay to me.. Anyway, how is that not hateful? It does not explictly state as you said, but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven. Besides, I am reasonably confident someone more learned in the bible and church policies would find those explicit statements. Fred Phelps maybe, was that his name?

Btw, slippery slopes ftw..

Clara from Drawn Together wrote:"If gays get married, the institution of marriage will be destroyed! Societies will crumble! Rivers will run with blood! Nazis will once again ride dinosaurs!"

Angelic_Scars wrote:

Rampage wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Its not, its their Religion that causes this hatred, they are following what they perceive to be the rules of their precious faith, and its one of the great many reasons I have such loathing for organised Religion.

I know of no religion that explictly tells its followers to hate people due to their sexual tendancies. You are completely right when you use the word 'percieve'. It is not the religion telling people to be homophobic, it is down to those who read it who take it to mean that they should be homophobic, and therefore you could argue that they would be a homophobe anyway if that is the first thing that springs to their minds. So why loath religion if it is the fault of those who misinterpret what it is saying that are causing the problem?

The bible specifically states that homosexuals will not get into heaven. Denying a group of people an eternal afterlife of peace, love, harmony and fluffy white clouds, actually, that seems pretty gay to me.. Anyway, how is that not hateful? It does not explictly state as you said, but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven. Besides, I am reasonably confident someone more learned in the bible and church policies would find those explicit statements. Fred Phelps maybe, was that his name?

Btw, slippery slopes ftw.

Do not lecture me on my own beliefs, especially when half of your post is incorrect.

Angelic_Scars wrote:but it does tell people that homosexuals are not worthy of the 'greatest' reward of heaven

It says nothing of the sort. Everyone is worthy of heaven, all we need to do is ask for forgiveness. How is this hateful in any way? The door is always open but we also have the choice to ignore it if we want to. Nobody is being denied anything.

Also, if Fred Phelps was so learned of the Bible he wouldn't be doing half of the things that he does.

Having to ask forgiveness for being gay pretty strongly implies it's a bad thing.

Corpsesarefun wrote:Having to ask forgiveness for being gay pretty strongly implies it's a bad thing.

But it doesn't mean that we should hate people, which is my point. I personally have no issue with others choosing to be gay. It's not a choice that I would make myself, but if others want to, that's fine.

But anyway, that's where I stand. I'm going to leave this thread now.

Most of us don't think it's a choice. I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to girls.

Alan Turing didn't choose to be gay. If it was something you could choose, I think he would certainly chosen to be straight, and avoided criminal prosecution, chemical castration, and death.

Condemning (or even judging with compassion) people as immoral for loving/lusting after the people they are naturally attracted to, presuming those people are other consenting adults, does not make sense, IMO.

If a religion teaches that they are to be condemned, as parts of Christianity do, then those are bad teachings. Thankfully the negative comments about homosexuality in Christianity are fairly few, and mostly come from Leviticus and one gospel, written by a guy who seems to have hated all sex in general. Modern, tolerant Christians mostly seem to recognize that and realize that a lot of other things Jesus said were a lot more important.

Mannahnin wrote:Most of us don't think it's a choice. I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to girls.

Alan Turing didn't choose to be gay. If it was something you could choose, I think he would certainly chosen to be straight, and avoided criminal prosecution, chemical castration, and death.

Condemning (or even judging with compassion) people as immoral for loving/lusting after the people they are naturally attracted to, presuming those people are other consenting adults, does not make sense, IMO.

If a religion teaches that they are to be condemned, as parts of Christianity do, then those are bad teachings. Thankfully the negative comments about homosexuality in Christianity are fairly few, and mostly come from Leviticus and one gospel, written by a guy who seems to have hated all sex in general. Modern, tolerant Christians mostly seem to recognize that and realize that a lot of other things Jesus said were a lot more important.

Actually, find me a quote from Baby Jebus on it. I dare's ya.

In the words of the immortal bard: if Baby Jebus didn't say it, it aint
- Frazzled Sunday school lesson #2.

People be crazy. This be very crazy. I am confused as to how there can actually be a problem with this, but not surprised. People just can't live and let live, its quite sad really.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Most of us don't think it's a choice. I certainly didn't choose to be attracted to girls.

Alan Turing didn't choose to be gay. If it was something you could choose, I think he would certainly chosen to be straight, and avoided criminal prosecution, chemical castration, and death.

Condemning (or even judging with compassion) people as immoral for loving/lusting after the people they are naturally attracted to, presuming those people are other consenting adults, does not make sense, IMO.

If a religion teaches that they are to be condemned, as parts of Christianity do, then those are bad teachings. Thankfully the negative comments about homosexuality in Christianity are fairly few, and mostly come from Leviticus and one gospel, written by a guy who seems to have hated all sex in general. Modern, tolerant Christians mostly seem to recognize that and realize that a lot of other things Jesus said were a lot more important.

Actually, find me a quote from Baby Jebus on it. I dare's ya.

In the words of the immortal bard: if Baby Jebus didn't say it, it aint
- Frazzled Sunday school lesson #2.

So did Baby Jebus ever say we needed to punish criminals?

And there's a fair bit in Timothy that directly condemns homosexuals (or at the very least male homosexuals).