Jump to content

David Tyree is a moron


Recommended Posts

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your experience with atheists.

By your own argument an atheist can't be open-minded either. To be an atheist you denounce the belief in a higher divine authority. By doing so you are not being open-minded, by your own flawed definition.

The only open-minded people, according to you, are agnostics.

Basically if you want to call me closed minded for believing in God I can call you closed minded for being an atheist using your own line of reasoning.

Rather then prescribe to your line of reasoning I offer an alternative; that one's religious affiliation is not an indicator of their degree of "open-mindness." To jump to that assumption is a form of intolerance in and of itself.

Correct. I never said i was an atheist.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to

serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to

worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your experience with atheists.

By your own argument an atheist can't be open-minded either. To be an atheist you denounce the belief in a higher divine authority. By doing so you are not being open-minded, by your own flawed definition.

The only open-minded people, according to you, are agnostics.

Basically if you want to call me closed minded for believing in God I can call you closed minded for being an atheist using your own line of reasoning.

Rather then prescribe to your line of reasoning I offer an alternative; that one's religious affiliation is not an indicator of their degree of "open-mindness." To jump to that assumption is a form of intolerance in and of itself.

Correct. I never said i was an atheist.

No, but you dud say there were "open-minded people who just don't believe in [G-d]."

By your own argument these people, who are atheists, are not open-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to

serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to

worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your experience with atheists.

By your own argument an atheist can't be open-minded either. To be an atheist you denounce the belief in a higher divine authority. By doing so you are not being open-minded, by your own flawed definition.

The only open-minded people, according to you, are agnostics.

Basically if you want to call me closed minded for believing in God I can call you closed minded for being an atheist using your own line of reasoning.

Rather then prescribe to your line of reasoning I offer an alternative; that one's religious affiliation is not an indicator of their degree of "open-mindness." To jump to that assumption is a form of intolerance in and of itself.

Correct. I never said i was an atheist.

No, but you dud say there were "open-minded people who just don't believe in [G-d]."

By your own argument these people, who are atheists, are not open-minded.

That was the point I was trying to make.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=thespleenenator' timestamp='1308369872'

post='1569032]

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to

serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to

worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there

is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your

experience with atheists.

By your own argument an atheist can't be open-minded either. To be an atheist you denounce the belief in a higher

divine authority. By doing so you are not being open-minded, by your own flawed definition.

The only open-minded people, according to you, are agnostics.

Basically if you want to call me closed minded for believing in God I can call you closed minded for being an atheist using your own line of reasoning.

Rather then prescribe to your line of reasoning I offer an alternative; that one's religious affiliation is not an indicator of their degree of "open-mindness." To jump to that assumption is a form of intolerance in and of itself.

Correct. I never said i was an atheist.

No, but you dud say there were "open-minded people who just don't believe in [G-d]."

By your own argument these people, who are atheists, are not open-minded.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Then you shouldn't have called them "open-minded" if you trying to say that they weren't. Use your words man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name=thespleenenator' timestamp='1308369872'

post='1569032]

Again, I take issue. Open-minded, in the way you use it here, implies atheists. And this isn't a minor point of disagreement that I find offensive. It's something I find terribly offensive. In a broad sense lets look at one of the largest Christian churches in the world, the Anglican Church. They're marrying gays where it's legal to do so and the Church allows women and openly gay men to

serve as priests. Are they not "open-minded"?

In a personal sense lets take a look at myself. I've always supported same-sex marriage, racial equality, and the notion that all people have the right to worship or refuse to

worship as they see fit. Am I not "open minded" because I believe in the Almighty? Am I being excluded from the enlightened humanist club for subscribing to a belief structure that fits a category as large and broad as "organized religion"?

I hate to paint in broad strokes, but this is why the atheist movement has alienated me. I was never an atheist myself, but at one time I saw them as people I had a lot in common with. Like myself they're a religious minority (more or less). Like myself they want to make sure the church/state wall remains in place. Like myself they just want the right to believe what they believe without harassment from the state or other citizens. The more the church/state debate evolved, however, the more extreme the atheist movement got, and I came to realize that these similarities simply weren't enough for me to identity with them any longer. At the end of the day I'm going to be lumped in with Bible thumpers just because I maintain my own religious beliefs.

You're not being clumped with the evangelical crazies, but it is not possible to be 100% open minded if you are religious in any way. To be part of a religion, there are always certain beliefs that you have to adhere to. An open minded person is someone who accepts that anything is possible. If you were open minded, then you would have to accept that Jesus might not have been the most important profit, or that we are reincarnated after we die, or that there

is a flying spaghetti monster that rules over the heavens. I think atheist is a term used much to loosely. An atheist is someone who believes that there is no such thing as religion and that there is no possible way that religious beliefs could be correct. This is another group that many people get lumped in with. There are many open minded people who just don't belief in god, but they are always labeled as a evil atheist who wants religious people to die. This is what you were doing when you talked about your

experience with atheists.

By your own argument an atheist can't be open-minded either. To be an atheist you denounce the belief in a higher

divine authority. By doing so you are not being open-minded, by your own flawed definition.

The only open-minded people, according to you, are agnostics.

Basically if you want to call me closed minded for believing in God I can call you closed minded for being an atheist using your own line of reasoning.

Rather then prescribe to your line of reasoning I offer an alternative; that one's religious affiliation is not an indicator of their degree of "open-mindness." To jump to that assumption is a form of intolerance in and of itself.

Correct. I never said i was an atheist.

No, but you dud say there were "open-minded people who just don't believe in [G-d]."

By your own argument these people, who are atheists, are not open-minded.

That was the point I was trying to make.

Then you shouldn't have called them "open-minded" if you trying to say that they weren't. Use your words man.

I never said that they were. In fact, I said that they weren't. I was trying to say that there are many people who happen to not be religious that are labeled as atheists. There is a difference between not believing in god and being an atheist. However, that being said, there are many atheist who, while not fully open minded, are not raging hating people that you said they were.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say that. Only that the rhetoric coming from the atheist "camp" seems more hostile to all people of faith then it has in the past.

And I still find your "open-minded" argument ludicrous. I had no idea I wasn't a progressive-minded individual until you informed me I wasn't. Bravo good sir.

Edit- I'm getting tired of typing out responses on my phone. I'm done with line of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying it's impossible for you to be 100% open-minded because religion forces you to have certain beliefs and being open minded is accepting everything.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying it's impossible for you to be 100% open-minded because religion forces you to have certain beliefs and being open minded is accepting everything.

No, being open-minded is to be willing to accept everything, based on the evidence. It doesn't mean stupid or gullible.

Atheists can be open-minded. So can theists. Just because one has an already-formed opinion doesn't mean that they aren't continually challenging that opinion or are automatically opposed to changing it, based on new evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying it's impossible for you to be 100% open-minded because religion forces you to have certain beliefs and being open minded is accepting everything.

So in order to be open-minded one must confirm to a particular belief structure that you've laid out. That's not very open-minded, now is it? ;)

I'm saying it's impossible for you to be 100% open-minded because religion forces you to have certain beliefs and being open minded is accepting everything.

No, being open-minded is to be willing to accept everything, based on the evidence. It doesn't mean stupid or gullible.

Atheists can be open-minded. So can theists. Just because one has an already-formed opinion doesn't mean that they aren't continually challenging that opinion or are automatically opposed to changing it, based on new evidence.

Indeed. Holding one belief system does not preclude you from considering the validity of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrestle with this point on numerous levels, but I'll restrict it to only 3:

1.) Nature or the "science" aspect is reason enough to disallow civil unions or at least not promote homosexuality. Its a simple scenario, even elementary, but it proves the point. If all of society turned homosexual, than in roughly 100 years, the human race would cease to exist, since nature requires male and female to procreate, right? Now, I understand the aspects of a-sexual reproduction and nature's ability to adapt, but those adaptations were over thousands, possibly even millions of years... not 80-100 years. As I said, its rather elementary. Its so simple that it almost seems trivial.

2.) People are so quick to condemn incest and pedophilia (as they should be), but what makes homosexuality different? People claim that incest and pedophilia is a disordered approach to sexual nature. What makes homosexuality different? Most people would argue that pedophilia is wrong because its an adult and a child trying to make adult decision. They are correct. So they counter with, well, homosexuality is 2 adults making adult decisions. They are also correct. But incest is 2 adults making adult decisions, but its so taboo, so disgusting that people won't even hold discussions on it except to make redneck/hillbilly jokes. Each time, people claim the adults to have some sort of mental illness causing them to feel that way about a child or family member. Incest, pedophilia, and homosexuality all claim true love with those involved... so why are 2 of the 3 disgusting, terrible acts, while the other is being portrayed as beautiful, gorgeous displays of true love? If an adult (pedophilia) or 2 adults (incest) can be labeled as sick or mental illness, logic would follow that 2 adults can also be sick or have a mental illness in the case of homosexuality.

3.) The "Right to Marry". I hear this all the time. Personally, I don't think marriage is a right in the same way freedom of speech or freedom of press is. I think marriage should transcend basic freedoms, since it goes against human nature. The way marriage is structured in our (United States) country now, its nothing more than a club to get tax breaks and benefits from the government. Marriage should be a covenant between two people that doesn't get annulled because one person is too lazy to take out the trash. It should be 2 people devoting themselves to each other. The majority of this blame goes on heterosexual couples (getting married and divorced 3 times in their lives just because they can't keep it in their pants), which is why I don't excuse them from the issue. However, this is going to digress into bringing order back in to the Family Structure, and how so many of our problems result from just terrible Family Models.

- Please don't flame this post with OMG YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC! I'm not. A phobia implies being scared of something. I'm not scared of homosexuals, nor do I think they have some disgusting disease whereas they can't be made contact with.

- Please don't flame saying I am close minding. Unlike the majority of people who try to have a discussion on the right/wrong of homosexuality, I have actually read up on the issue, from the fetal stages through adulthood. I couldn't be farther from close-minded.

- Please understand that I don't think homosexuals are any less of a human than a heterosexual. I think every human should be shown respect and dignity.

_CLEVELANDTHATILOVEIndians.jpg


SAINT IGNATIUS WILDCATS | CLEVELAND BROWNS | CLEVELAND CAVALIERS | CLEVELAND INDIANS | THE OHIO STATE BUCKEYES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying it's impossible for you to be 100% open-minded because religion forces you to have certain beliefs and being open minded is accepting everything.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Being open minded has nothing to do with accepting anything. Being open minded means being open to hearing other peoples' beliefs, their ideas. Being open minded means learning about topics on your own time, not just what you see on MSNBC or FoxNews. Being open minded means separating fact from fabrication. Being open minded means taking circumstances, looking at the facts, reflecting on personal experience and making an assessment.

People have this notion that if someone disagrees with them, they are close minded. OMG YOU DON'T LOOK MINT CHOCOLATE CHIP ICE CREAM? YOU ARE SO CLOSE MINDED! Being close minded is someone who says "DAMN IT! HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG! ITS EVIL!" but that person has not once opened up a book about hormonal growth at fetal stages, hormonal growth during puberty, never known or even talked to a homosexual, never looked at the natural causes or circumstances, never looked at case studies, never did any real examination on their own. That's what being close-minded is.

_CLEVELANDTHATILOVEIndians.jpg


SAINT IGNATIUS WILDCATS | CLEVELAND BROWNS | CLEVELAND CAVALIERS | CLEVELAND INDIANS | THE OHIO STATE BUCKEYES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that I'm arguing with someone who has claimed himself as being retarded...

That being said, I'll make a quick point and run. Mr. Tyree was begging for attention, I think we've [mostly] come to that conclusion.

As for whether I personally believe in gay marriage... I view it this way. I will never agree that it's correct (there's that closed-mindedness, huh, Spleen). However, I can't stop anyone from acting in a way I don't like, so I won't bother with it.

Why any red-blooded male would deprive himself of this:

FSU_Cowgirls2.gif

Is still beyond me. (I'm attempting to make a joke, so don't get too uptight). ;)

Spurs2017_HomeSignature.png.d781df3b4d5c0e482d74d6a47c072475.pngDortmund2017_HomeSignature.png.277fd43b7b71e5d54e4c655f30c9a1e6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrestle with this point on numerous levels, but I'll restrict it to only 3:

1.) Nature or the "science" aspect is reason enough to disallow civil unions or at least not promote homosexuality. Its a simple scenario, even elementary, but it proves the point. If all of society turned homosexual, than in roughly 100 years, the human race would cease to exist, since nature requires male and female to procreate, right? Now, I understand the aspects of a-sexual reproduction and nature's ability to adapt, but those adaptations were over thousands, possibly even millions of years... not 80-100 years. As I said, its rather elementary. Its so simple that it almost seems trivial.

Social contract theory, my man. Locke, Hobbes, that good stuff. Humans have voluntarily given up an existence in a state of nature to form an ordered society so as to safeguard freedoms and general safety. Yes, homosexuality isn't beneficial to humanity in a state of nature. We don't live in a state of nature, however. We live in a society, and a goal of society should be the equality of all of its citizens.

Plus the entire human race isn't turning gay. Homosexuals are a distinct minority who don't turn gay, they're born homosexuals. The majority of humans are born heterosexual. So this argument is based on a nonsensical possibility.

2.) People are so quick to condemn incest and pedophilia (as they should be), but what makes homosexuality different? People claim that incest and pedophilia is a disordered approach to sexual nature. What makes homosexuality different? Most people would argue that pedophilia is wrong because its an adult and a child trying to make adult decision. They are correct. So they counter with, well, homosexuality is 2 adults making adult decisions. They are also correct. But incest is 2 adults making adult decisions, but its so taboo, so disgusting that people won't even hold discussions on it except to make redneck/hillbilly jokes. Each time, people claim the adults to have some sort of mental illness causing them to feel that way about a child or family member. Incest, pedophilia, and homosexuality all claim true love with those involved... so why are 2 of the 3 disgusting, terrible acts, while the other is being portrayed as beautiful, gorgeous displays of true love? If an adult (pedophilia) or 2 adults (incest) can be labeled as sick or mental illness, logic would follow that 2 adults can also be sick or have a mental illness in the case of homosexuality.

You answered your own question regarding paedophilia. It's a case of a sexually experienced and developed individual taking advantage of someone who's not sexually experienced and developed. To even compare paedophilia to homosexual is offensive.

As for incest it's a case of biology. Two people of the same family engaging in sex has negative biological implications. With homosexuality there's no possibility that the whole world's going to turn gay so two men having sex with each other isn't really a determent.

3.) The "Right to Marry". I hear this all the time. Personally, I don't think marriage is a right in the same way freedom of speech or freedom of press is. I think marriage should transcend basic freedoms, since it goes against human nature. The way marriage is structured in our (United States) country now, its nothing more than a club to get tax breaks and benefits from the government. Marriage should be a covenant between two people that doesn't get annulled because one person is too lazy to take out the trash. It should be 2 people devoting themselves to each other. The majority of this blame goes on heterosexual couples (getting married and divorced 3 times in their lives just because they can't keep it in their pants), which is why I don't excuse them from the issue. However, this is going to digress into bringing order back in to the Family Structure, and how so many of our problems result from just terrible Family Models.

Marriage is an action where two individuals enter into a contract for a variety of benefits, personal, emotional, and financial. The act of marriage also grants a person certain rights as it relates to their spouse's well being in the case of medical emergencies. These all give married couples rights beyond what single individuals posses. As long as the institution of marriage is open to all individuals then this isn't an issue. When you start excluding a segment of the population from this institution which grants these rights, however, the system becomes discriminatory. And that's what has to be avoided.

As for the family, there's no proof that a child raised by two homosexual parents will be any worse off then a child raised by two heterosexual parents.

- Please understand that I don't think homosexuals are any less of a human than a heterosexual. I think every human should be shown respect and dignity.

You just tried to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. You don't get to backtrack from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that I'm arguing with someone who has claimed himself as being retarded...

That being said, I'll make a quick point and run. Mr. Tyree was begging for attention, I think we've [mostly] come to that conclusion.

As for whether I personally believe in gay marriage... I view it this way. I will never agree that it's correct (there's that closed-mindedness, huh, Spleen). However, I can't stop anyone from acting in a way I don't like, so I won't bother with it.

Why any red-blooded male would deprive himself of this:

FSU_Cowgirls2.gif

Is still beyond me. (I'm attempting to make a joke, so don't get too uptight). ;)

...because some people are born with an attraction to the same sex. It's not up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying it's impossible for you to be 100% open-minded because religion forces you to have certain beliefs and being open minded is accepting everything.

No, being open-minded is to be willing to accept everything, based on the evidence. It doesn't mean stupid or gullible.

Atheists can be open-minded. So can theists. Just because one has an already-formed opinion doesn't mean that they aren't continually challenging that opinion or are automatically opposed to changing it, based on new evidence.

Let me clarify this statement. To be open minded, you have to accept everything that is fact, but be willing to accept everything as a possibility or as an explanation for things that we do not yet know for sure.

b0b5d4f702adf623d75285ca50ee7632.jpg
Why you make fun of me? I make concept for Auburn champions and you make fun of me. I cry tears.
Chopping off the dicks of Filipino boys and embracing causes that promote bigotry =/= strong moral character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrestle with this point on numerous levels, but I'll restrict it to only 3:

1.) Nature or the "science" aspect is reason enough to disallow civil unions or at least not promote homosexuality. Its a simple scenario, even elementary, but it proves the point. If all of society turned homosexual, than in roughly 100 years, the human race would cease to exist, since nature requires male and female to procreate, right? Now, I understand the aspects of a-sexual reproduction and nature's ability to adapt, but those adaptations were over thousands, possibly even millions of years... not 80-100 years. As I said, its rather elementary. Its so simple that it almost seems trivial.

2.) People are so quick to condemn incest and pedophilia (as they should be), but what makes homosexuality different? People claim that incest and pedophilia is a disordered approach to sexual nature. What makes homosexuality different? Most people would argue that pedophilia is wrong because its an adult and a child trying to make adult decision. They are correct. So they counter with, well, homosexuality is 2 adults making adult decisions. They are also correct. But incest is 2 adults making adult decisions, but its so taboo, so disgusting that people won't even hold discussions on it except to make redneck/hillbilly jokes. Each time, people claim the adults to have some sort of mental illness causing them to feel that way about a child or family member. Incest, pedophilia, and homosexuality all claim true love with those involved... so why are 2 of the 3 disgusting, terrible acts, while the other is being portrayed as beautiful, gorgeous displays of true love? If an adult (pedophilia) or 2 adults (incest) can be labeled as sick or mental illness, logic would follow that 2 adults can also be sick or have a mental illness in the case of homosexuality.

3.) The "Right to Marry". I hear this all the time. Personally, I don't think marriage is a right in the same way freedom of speech or freedom of press is. I think marriage should transcend basic freedoms, since it goes against human nature. The way marriage is structured in our (United States) country now, its nothing more than a club to get tax breaks and benefits from the government. Marriage should be a covenant between two people that doesn't get annulled because one person is too lazy to take out the trash. It should be 2 people devoting themselves to each other. The majority of this blame goes on heterosexual couples (getting married and divorced 3 times in their lives just because they can't keep it in their pants), which is why I don't excuse them from the issue. However, this is going to digress into bringing order back in to the Family Structure, and how so many of our problems result from just terrible Family Models.

- Please don't flame this post with OMG YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC! I'm not. A phobia implies being scared of something. I'm not scared of homosexuals, nor do I think they have some disgusting disease whereas they can't be made contact with.

- Please don't flame saying I am close minding. Unlike the majority of people who try to have a discussion on the right/wrong of homosexuality, I have actually read up on the issue, from the fetal stages through adulthood. I couldn't be farther from close-minded.

- Please understand that I don't think homosexuals are any less of a human than a heterosexual. I think every human should be shown respect and dignity.

1. Evolution is dead. Yup, that's right. You heard it here first: humans have conquered evolution. I read an article in USA Today a while ago about a woman with Down syndrome in her 50s. When she was born, the life expectancy for people with Down syndrome was 10; now it's 55. People with Down syndrome are still mostly infertile, but it's an example of how we are doing away with old standards of evolutionary fitness. Before C-sections, if your head was too big to fit through the birth canal, you died and you probably took your mom with you so that she could not have any more big-head kids. Now, it is a simple procedure used in a variety of situations and is pretty safe for mother and baby. I'm not sure how allowing homosexuals to marry would "turn" a single person, let alone the entire population, but I'll indulge you. Currently, there are many babies up for adoption that gay couples could give a loving home to. If everyone became gay, there are sperm donors, egg donors and surrogate mothers. You don't need to have sex to have a baby, and you haven't needed to for a while now. Homosexuals make gametes, too!

2. Our society has decided that there is a certain age where people can make adult decisions, and also that having sex is an adult decision. A child cannot properly assess whether they are ready to have sex in general, if they want to have sex with this particular person, cannot properly understand the potential consequences, etc. So, our society views an adult having sex with a child as one person taking advantage of another.

Incest has negative genetic effects on the baby. I view the taboo as a way to protect the hypothetical child and the health of the population in general. Big cities and the "worldwide community" are recent developments. For most of our history, people have lived in small or very small groups, with relatively little contact between. Incest in these situations made it more likely that a child would be born who would be a burden on the group. Having someone who could not pull their own weight threatened the viability of the group as a whole.

3. Yes, there is a right to marry. I agree that a legal, as opposed to religious, marriage is essentially a membership in the tax break and benefit club... but the fact remains that this club exists, is sponsored by our government, and is closed to certain (people who will at least say they are in) loving, committed relationships while it is open to others. If the concept of a legal marriage did not exist in our country, then there would be no expectation of being able to marry. Nobody's really petitioning the Roman Catholic Church to marry homosexuals, that's a completely different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ESTONES6, you may not like the fact that marriage is a Constitutional right, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized it as such. You can't turn that particular clock back.

You also seem to think that because something is legal, it therefore must be done. Setting aside the rather inconvenient fact that gay people reproduce all the time.

The human race is in no danger of dying out just because we allow gay couples to exercise their Constitutional right to marry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that I'm arguing with someone who has claimed himself as being retarded...

That being said, I'll make a quick point and run. Mr. Tyree was begging for attention, I think we've [mostly] come to that conclusion.

As for whether I personally believe in gay marriage... I view it this way. I will never agree that it's correct (there's that closed-mindedness, huh, Spleen). However, I can't stop anyone from acting in a way I don't like, so I won't bother with it.

Why any red-blooded male would deprive himself of this:

FSU_Cowgirls2.gif

Is still beyond me. (I'm attempting to make a joke, so don't get too uptight). ;)

...because some people are born with an attraction to the same sex. It's not up to them.

I would raise this point to that statement. Sex and reproduction is, inherently, a human instinct. With that being said (and I'm willing to be wrong), could it really be possible to be born without a basic instinct that furthers your species?

Spurs2017_HomeSignature.png.d781df3b4d5c0e482d74d6a47c072475.pngDortmund2017_HomeSignature.png.277fd43b7b71e5d54e4c655f30c9a1e6.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an odd question. Gay people still have sexual drives, and gay people still have a desire to reproduce (and do, every day of the year).

What exactly are you thinking? That gay people are lying about not wanting to have sex with the opposite gender?

And what would you say to a straight couple who had no desire to be parents? That happens as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.