[Salty]

Originally Posted by besson3c

And another thing...

Perhaps post-modern thinking is used to rationalize moral relativity (it can probably be used to rationalize many other things too), but let's be honest here... religions, Christianity included, are often used to justify extremism.

Is one inherently better or worse than the other, Salty?

I'd sooner take religious extremism than blatant hedonism. Because at least then you've got a distortion of truth that can be rectified and the potential of religious works actually being read and understood... under the result of a truly morally relativistic mentality there is no reason for anything aside from selfish desire... though to be true... both our bad

[budster101]

I think this thread has stopped being gay... but it's still smok'n hot baby...

[Salty]

Originally Posted by budster101

I think this thread has stopped being gay... but it's still smok'n hot baby...

Anything with me is smokin hot... that said... I'm gona have to drop out now cause I'm at 6% battery... and I left my charger at a friend's house last night when I left and didn't tell the fam where I was... I needed a vacation ... that said I ALWAYS FORGET SOMETHING!

Anyway just got the warning I'm at 5%... later

[OogaBooga]

I don't preach to gays, and they don't preach to me. In any normal circumstance I wouldn't mind so much what one's personal preferences are, but in this case it's a little different: AIDS.

This is the only definable negative to homosexuality.

We don't have a cure for it, and 1 / 4 don't even realize they have it. We need to be more careful.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

I don't preach to gays, and they don't preach to me. In any normal circumstance I wouldn't mind so much what one's personal preferences are, but in this case it's a little different: AIDS.

This is the only definable negative to homosexuality.

We don't have a cure for it, and 1 / 4 don't even realize they have it. We need to be more careful.

Did you know you can get AIDS from sexy cheerleading?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Salty

I'd sooner take religious extremism than blatant hedonism. Because at least then you've got a distortion of truth that can be rectified and the potential of religious works actually being read and understood...

Best_Freudian_Post_EVAR!!!!

Yes, that's exactly what the religious right is doing now, - distorting the "truth" and then abusing their power to shove it down everybody else's throat.

The truth is, post modern philosophy HAS made religous authoritarianism (or any other authoritarian form) in terms of literalism pretty much obsolete.

When reading and interperting any text it is always a completely subjective endeavor, and can in no way be used to assess or "enforce" any kind of moral authority.

That's why there is so much religious extremism in the world at the moment, imo.

[qnxde]

Originally Posted by I♥MacNN

Come on Super. You know as well as I do everything is going to hell in a handbasket.

Helena Handbasket is a fabulous drag name.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Warung

Best_Freudian_Post_EVAR!!!!

Yes, that's exactly what the religious right is doing now, - distorting the "truth" and then abusing their power to shove it down everybody else's throat.

The truth is, post modern philosophy HAS made religous authoritarianism (or any other authoritarian form) in terms of literalism pretty much obsolete.

When reading and interperting any text it is always a completely subjective endeavor, and can in no way be used to assess or "enforce" any kind of moral authority.

That's why there is so much religious extremism in the world at the moment, imo.

When reading and interpreting any text it is always a completely subjective endeavour? So then are you OK with me reinterpreting your post to mean that there is always one true intended meaning of a text and we should search out that? The problem with relativistic philosophy, is that contradictions abound far too much.

By the way unless you're going to claim to be a Christian you're skating on very thin ice telling us how we should interpret our text. The common attitude of today's Agnostics and Atheists is that Christians simply don't know how to read their own texts... even forgetting the fact that that's a very arrogant position to take. We have records of interpretation of scripture dating back to very soon after each work was written. And the correct way of reading has been argued for thousands of years.
The religious right as you call it is not as mindless as you may think. Sure we have some not so bright people that draw wrong conclusions and distort scripture into what it isn't mean to mean. But when you paint all of Christendom with one large brush you prove just how little you understand.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

When reading and interpreting any text it is always a completely subjective endeavour? So then are you OK with me reinterpreting your post to mean that there is always one true intended meaning of a text and we should search out that? The problem with relativistic philosophy, is that contradictions abound far too much.

By the way unless you're going to claim to be a Christian you're skating on very thin ice telling us how we should interpret our text. The common attitude of today's Agnostics and Atheists is that Christians simply don't know how to read their own texts... even forgetting the fact that that's a very arrogant position to take. We have records of interpretation of scripture dating back to very soon after each work was written. And the correct way of reading has been argued for thousands of years.
The religious right as you call it is not as mindless as you may think. Sure we have some not so bright people that draw wrong conclusions and distort scripture into what it isn't mean to mean. But when you paint all of Christendom with one large brush you prove just how little you understand.

There are several issues here.

1) It is hard to buy the notion that a guy (Noah) could throw a bunch of animals on a wooden boat and survive a storm like described in the bible. It's hard to believe that the Earth was created in 6 days given what Science has revealed. There are a lot of metaphors in the bible, and a lot that has to be put into context to account for our modern times. This is fine, and not a criticism of Christianity - just pragmatism. Where things begin to unravel is whether to interpret the bible literally, and if not, how to interpret it. Sorry, there is no universal interpretation of the bible. If there was, why do so many different Christian churches exist?

2)

So then are you OK with me reinterpreting your post to mean that there is always one true intended meaning of a text and we should search out that? The problem with relativistic philosophy, is that contradictions abound far too much.

Sorry, I'm not following what you are trying to say. Better clarify...

3) It is easy to paint Christiandom as fragmented, because it is. There is no universal truth, accept it.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by qnxde

Helena Handbasket is a fabulous drag name.

Post of the day.

[Kerrigan]

teh god is teh wurst

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

I don't preach to gays, and they don't preach to me. In any normal circumstance I wouldn't mind so much what one's personal preferences are, but in this case it's a little different: AIDS.

This is the only definable negative to homosexuality.

We don't have a cure for it, and 1 / 4 don't even realize they have it. We need to be more careful.

Yeah, cause we all know HIV only spreads among gay men.

Get out of last century would ya?



Did you know that HIV is spreading more quickly amongst women than men in North America? And that more than 70% of all HIV infections worldwide occur through heterosexual sex.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Yeah, cause we all know HIV only spreads among gay men.

Get out of last century would ya?



Did you know that HIV is spreading more quickly amongst women than men in North America? And that more than 70% of all HIV infections worldwide occur through heterosexual sex.

Wow... I didn't know that! My wife did though (she reads a lot more medical-related stuff than me). This really blows the whole homophobia thing open, doesn't it?

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Salty

So then are you OK with me reinterpreting your post to mean that there is always one true intended meaning of a text and we should search out that? .

Actually, by any stretch of the imagination, that is the exact opposite of what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Salty

The problem with relativistic philosophy, is that contradictions abound far too much..

Yes, that is part of (the) life of the text. It lives through these contradictions.

Originally Posted by Salty

By the way unless you're going to claim to be a Christian you're skating on very thin ice telling us how we should interpret our text. .

I'm not "telling you" how to do anyhting, I'm telling you how you are going to! "interpert" any text. As human beings we have very little choice.

Originally Posted by Salty

The common attitude of today's Agnostics and Atheists is that Christians simply don't know how to read their own texts... .

Again, it's not a matter of whether it is your "own" text or not, it's about how language and text work in general.

Originally Posted by Salty

And the correct way of reading has been argued for thousands of years..

Only natural. Humans will always do this.

Originally Posted by Salty

The religious right as you call it is not as mindless as you may think. .

No, they are actually quite calculating and dangerous as well. Fortunately for all of us they have a snoball's chance in hell succeeding anywhere else but the US.

Originally Posted by Salty

But when you paint all of Christendom with one large brush you prove just how little you understand.

I "understand" quite enough thank you, and just to let you know, - "literalism" isn't an exclusively Christian endeavor...this was just one example.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Are better doesn't take much. The last one was incredibly bad that he posted in the new user member directory a few weeks ago. He weighs 150 pounds and looks like christian baile in the movie "The Machinist".

For those who haven't seen it that isn't a good thing. The tailers on Apples site

But who cares, not like I will ever meet him or voluntarily look at pics of him.

I HARLDY look like Christian Baile.

As a matter of fact, I am betting I have more muscle tone than you do SWF.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Once again I am honored that an old thread gets pulled up for a personal reply to me.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Once again I am honored that an old thread gets pulled up for a personal reply to me.

Old thread?

It was on the second page.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

A reply to a week old post to me. Awww.

Instead of signing up 50 user names in a day to fight the mods perhaps you could have taken the time then

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Instead of signing up 50 user names in a day to fight the mods perhaps you could have taken the time then

It was posted well after that.

Anyhow, just how buff are you SWF? You make fun of people that are fat, you make fun of people that are skinny.

You MUST be really buff to be able to do that right?

[budster101]

Now it's on top of the page. Tanks.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by budster101

Now it's on top of the page. Tanks.

You are welcome.

[Demonhood]

how bout you both take your little quarrel elsewhere. we all know you both lack a certain amount of self control, so i'm sure it'll be wild.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

I don't preach to gays, and they don't preach to me. In any normal circumstance I wouldn't mind so much what one's personal preferences are, but in this case it's a little different: AIDS.

This is the only definable negative to homosexuality.

We don't have a cure for it, and 1 / 4 don't even realize they have it. We need to be more careful.

AIDS is not a consequence of being gay.

AIDS is the consequence of having unprotected sex with someone who's infected.

It doesn't matter if you're male, female, gay, straight, or crooked like a politician.

tooki

[Kevin]

AIDS is not a gay thing. AIDS is not a straight thing.

AIDS is mostly a irresponsible thing. AIDS is caused most of the time by lack of self discipline.

[Scientist]

I am a little disappointed that no has attempted to challenge my "theory"...

[budster101]

What page was it on. Oh never mind. You're wrong! <consider that a challenge, even though it's an empty one>

What was your theory again? Reader's Digest please.

[OogaBooga]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Yeah, cause we all know HIV only spreads among gay men.

Get out of last century would ya?



Did you know that HIV is spreading more quickly amongst women than men in North America? And that more than 70% of all HIV infections worldwide occur through heterosexual sex.

My bad. I forgot two wrongs made a right.



Look, I'm sorry if I come off a bit harsh on this topic, but I just don't see the benefit from homosexuality. Man or woman.

And it's probably because I'm a bit too logical-thinking, but I've been told that already.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

My bad. I forgot two wrongs made a right.

What is this supposed to mean? What two wrongs?

[OogaBooga]

Originally Posted by besson3c

What is this supposed to mean? What two wrongs?

In other words, mentioning other ways to spread AIDS doesn't suddenly make it OK.

It's just that it's common (or used to be, at least) for gay men to practice unprotected sex because there is no possible way either of the men can get pregnant. And most people only see the immediate benefit from protected sex -- to avoid pregnancy.

Now that AIDS is more prevalent people realize protected sex also serves to prevent the spread of disease.


And BTW -- I'm against all unprotected sex before marriage, and protected sex before marriage should be controlled as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

In other words, mentioning other ways to spread AIDS doesn't suddenly make it OK.

It's just that it's common (or used to be, at least) for gay men to practice unprotected sex because there is no possible way either of the men can get pregnant. And most people only see the immediate benefit from protected sex -- to avoid pregnancy.

Now that AIDS is more prevalent people realize protected sex also serves to prevent the spread of disease.


And BTW -- I'm against all unprotected sex before marriage, and protected sex before marriage should be controlled as well.

Yes, but the poster was debunking the relationship between being gay and AIDS. He put the poster he was responding to in his place quite nicely, I think, as well he should.

In many ways Gays have become our new scapegoat, our new Jews/Blacks, etc. Anything that tears apart homophobia at its seams is worth being said, this gave this poster a wonderful excuse to do so.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by besson3c

There are several issues here.

1) It is hard to buy the notion that a guy (Noah) could throw a bunch of animals on a wooden boat and survive a storm like described in the bible. It's hard to believe that the Earth was created in 6 days given what Science has revealed. There are a lot of metaphors in the bible, and a lot that has to be put into context to account for our modern times. This is fine, and not a criticism of Christianity - just pragmatism. Where things begin to unravel is whether to interpret the bible literally, and if not, how to interpret it. Sorry, there is no universal interpretation of the bible. If there was, why do so many different Christian churches exist?

2)



Sorry, I'm not following what you are trying to say. Better clarify...

3) It is easy to paint Christiandom as fragmented, because it is. There is no universal truth, accept it.

Regardless of the fact that Christendom is fragmented doesn't mean that there is no universal truth... it means we don't agree on what that is and that some of us are wrong I think the United Church is the only one willing to pretend that everyone's right

Lastly about the age of the earth. Could be a metaphor lots of people believe that, that said Scripture talks about God creating trees, not seeds that became trees. Those trees would have been thus created with age, just like the rest of the earth. Quite frankly we don't really know for sure what happened at the beginning of the universe or the earth... and we have no way of knowing for certain. When you factor in an all powerful all knowing, and generally confusing God... you stop making some statements as matter of fact if you're wise

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

Regardless of the fact that Christendom is fragmented doesn't mean that there is no universal truth... it means we don't agree on what that is and that some of us are wrong I think the United Church is the only one willing to pretend that everyone's right

This is a pie-in-the-sky argument. In theory there is an actual truth... maybe... who cares? Civilization will never reach that truth as a whole, nor would we agree upon it even if it were put in front of our faces. Find what is right for you, and be a living example of your ideals. Preaching your beliefs at every opportunity you have is a big turnoff, and really doesn't accomplish anything productive.

Lastly about the age of the earth. Could be a metaphor lots of people believe that, that said Scripture talks about God creating trees, not seeds that became trees. Those trees would have been thus created with age, just like the rest of the earth. Quite frankly we don't really know for sure what happened at the beginning of the universe or the earth... and we have no way of knowing for certain. When you factor in an all powerful all knowing, and generally confusing God... you stop making some statements as matter of fact if you're wise

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we should take the tales of Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and tales like it with a grain of salt?

[Salty]

Originally Posted by besson3c

This is a pie-in-the-sky argument. In theory there is an actual truth... maybe... who cares? Civilization will never reach that truth as a whole, nor would we agree upon it even if it were put in front of our faces. Find what is right for you, and be a living example of your ideals. Preaching your beliefs at every opportunity you have is a big turnoff, and really doesn't accomplish anything productive.



I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that we should take the tales of Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, and tales like it with a grain of salt?

Simply because nobody will agree with you when you're right doesn't mean you stop being right. Or doesn't mean you should give up on being right. If what's right for me is right for me, it should be right for you. If it is wrong for me to rape someone it should also be wrong for you to rape someone.
Quite frankly if you find the idea of a universal moral code offensive... I think there is something wrong with you. Though I imagine if you find this offensive you probably think that it's OK for me to think that and OK for you to think something different

And what I am saying is that, Ancient Middle Eastern Cosmology should not be read as a modern North American text book. The point of the Genesis stories beyond anything else are to say that we owe life to God. You have to keep that in mind above anything else. That said the areas of contention most people might have with Genesis are barely if at all related to foundational Christian truths. So while I may believe them, I would not break fellowship with someone who feels differently about them the same way I might consider if for example someone believed in a screwed up doctrine of the trinity.

And my earlier comment was simply to say, God loves confusing people. If the Earth was created in 7 days, you can be God wouldn't make it super easy to look back and see that. If believing was supposed to be easy it would be. God doesn't want mindless thoughtless drones following Him. He wants those following because of love. If you read 1st Corinthians 1 you might understand this a bit better.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

Simply because nobody will agree with you when you're right doesn't mean you stop being right. Or doesn't mean you should give up on being right. If what's right for me is right for me, it should be right for you. If it is wrong for me to rape someone it should also be wrong for you to rape someone.
Quite frankly if you find the idea of a universal moral code offensive... I think there is something wrong with you. Though I imagine if you find this offensive you probably think that it's OK for me to think that and OK for you to think something different

Universal morals such as murder, rape, etc. being wrong are moral because these crimes are counter-culture, do not make sense to embrace as a society, and simply conflict with the notion of humanity and the innate loving spirit that most, if not all of us, inherit at birth. A lot of what we consider moral comes from our puritanical roots.

Your religious, political beliefs, or anything like this are completely individualized. To state that what's write for you is what's right for me (in the context of religion) is not spreading morality, but religious dogma (i.e. your version of how you see the world). Moreover, it is offensive, nearly single-handendly responsible for most of the world wars in our history, and has created nothing but conflict and bloodshed in our history. It is ironic that at the center of this are "morals", and perhaps even well-intentioned morals.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

In many ways Gays have become our new scapegoat, our new Jews/Blacks, etc. Anything that tears apart homophobia at its seams is worth being said, this gave this poster a wonderful excuse to do so.

Not all people that are against homosexual sex are homophobes.

Nor should they be treated as such.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Universal morals such as murder, rape, etc. being wrong are moral because these crimes are counter-culture, do not make sense to embrace as a society, and simply conflict with the notion of humanity and the innate loving spirit that most, if not all of us, inherit at birth. A lot of what we consider moral comes from our puritanical roots.

Your religious, political beliefs, or anything like this are completely individualized. To state that what's write for you is what's right for me (in the context of religion) is not spreading morality, but religious dogma (i.e. your version of how you see the world). Moreover, it is offensive, nearly single-handendly responsible for most of the world wars in our history, and has created nothing but conflict and bloodshed in our history. It is ironic that at the center of this are "morals", and perhaps even well-intentioned morals.

Did we just learn the word dogma today? I'm sorry but the way you're using that word is GENUINELY irritating. Especially since if you mean to use it in a rude manner. Uhh... wars were around before Jesus started walking around, and wars have been around since. Wars have gone on in places that had no connection to Christianity. And wars are the reasons for few if any wars.
You want the reason for war? You have something I want, I believe I have the right to take it. In some cases people have had the right to take it. In most cases they haven't had the right to take it. Most wars are started because people want things that aren't their own. This is called coveting. Thus since at least Christianity denounces the act of coveting. You can NOT attack a belief system that out right condemns something that you are claiming it causes.
Just because people often say God wants me to have what you have, doesn't mean He does. And doesn't mean He said I could take it.

Stop making Christianity out to be something it's not.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

I don't preach to gays, and they don't preach to me. In any normal circumstance I wouldn't mind so much what one's personal preferences are, but in this case it's a little different: AIDS.

This is the only definable negative to homosexuality.

We don't have a cure for it, and 1 / 4 don't even realize they have it. We need to be more careful.

OH Give me a ****ing break, and I guess monkeys that have the Monkey version of HIV are all gay monkeys too huh? Tell u what I would pay every cent on my next 3 paychecks to fly you out here, and pay for 20 hookers under the condition you dont use a condom, and in one year from now you get a Aids test. BTW I pick out the hookers for you.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

My bad. I forgot two wrongs made a right.



Look, I'm sorry if I come off a bit harsh on this topic, but I just don't see the benefit from homosexuality. Man or woman.

And it's probably because I'm a bit too logical-thinking, but I've been told that already.

whats the benefit of a man and woman having sex and loving each other if they dont want or cant have children?

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Athens

whats the benefit of a man and woman having sex and loving each other if they dont want or cant have children?

They get to express their love for each-other, have a lot of fun, and if they're Christians have something very rich to help them understand their relationship with God... and no God doesn't have a thing for feet.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Athens

whats the benefit of a man and woman having sex and loving each other if they dont want or cant have children?

It's still biblical to have sex without the intentions of having children.

Sex is for pleasure as well as procreation.

EDIT: Oh wait. I saw what you were responding to. Bait away.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Salty

They get to express their love for each-other, have a lot of fun, and if they're Christians have something very rich to help them understand their relationship with God... and no God doesn't have a thing for feet.

I think his point was that that goes for gay couples too, in response to OogaBooga's comment about not seeing the benefit from homosexuality.

If we accept that he said because homosexual sex cannot lead to sex, and thus is not beneficial in any way, there is no benefit to a man and a woman having protected sex, or sex without the purpose (or rather, result) of offspring; which makes it more of a “no benefit in sex for pleasure” point than a “no benefit in homosexuality” point, really.

Unless of course that wasn't what OogaBooga was referring to at all.

[ASIMO]

One does not choose homosexuality; homosexuality chooses you. I am certain that a certain salty chicken from the great white north concurs.

[Athens]

OogaBooga, you ever going to answer my question?

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by budster101

What page was it on. Oh never mind. You're wrong! <consider that a challenge, even though it's an empty one>

What was your theory again? Reader's Digest please.

Sure, here's an unedited version of what I said in my previous post on the subject. It seems to conflict with just about every theory presented here yet no one has come forth to challenge it.

Originally Posted by Scientist

Homosexuality does occur in nature, however I don't think it evolved directly. My guess is that homosexuality is the result of exposure to environments which differ from those in which the mechanisms of sexual identity development evolved. In this way it is much like adoption which is also maladaptive and also occurs occassionally in humans and nature.

If this idea is correct we would expect species to exibit a frequency of homosexuality that correlates positively with the degree that their current environment differs from that of their recent evolutionary history. Most (all?) humans today are raised in environments that differ greatly from those in which they evolved. Community size, social interactions, cultural norms, disease exposure, workload, diet, etc all combine to make humans some of the most "out-of-place" animals on the planet. We also appear to have a very high incidence of homosexuality compared to other species. For similar reasons I would expect pets and zoo animals to have higher proportions of homosexual individuals.

I am also aware of an unpublished study on homosexuality in ducks. Ducks (one species at least) can be raised to exhibit exclusive homosexual behavior if raised in a specific way. I don't recall the details of how this was done.

Meme theorist Susan Blackmoor has an interesting (and I suppose obvious) idea which may help to explain the prevelence of homosexuality in humans. She posits that the very cultural stigmas against homosexuality that homosexuals resist may have prevented evolution away from these maladaptive traits. This is because many homosexual members of past societies presumably bowed to social pressure by starting families and producing children. In this way their fitness relative to their neighbors may not have been significantly impaired allowing the genes to persist in the population. Compare this to other animals that do not have a mechanism to counter the evolutionary change away from homosexuality that may occur when a species' developmental environment changes. Ironically the burgeoning acceptance of homosexual lifestyles may start to reduce the size of future populations of homosexuals because they will have fewer children. In a way the intellectual ancestors of today's homophobes made widespread homosexuality possible while its supporters today may be inadvertently eliminating it. Of course egg and sperm donations may counteract this.

Some scientists, like respected sociobiologist E.O. Wilson believe homosexual behavior is an adaptive trait. I find these arguments to be pretty weak, but I thought I'd throw the possibility out there.

So in summary I suspect that homosexuality is genetic in that members of society have differing levels of genetic predisposition towards developing into homosexuality individuals. It did not evolve directly and is not adaptive. I suspect that there is little a homosexual person can do to change their desires. In other words it is not a choice.