Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > MUD Players and General Discussion > Tavern of the Blue Hand
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-24-2005, 12:28 AM   #101
Spoke
Member
 
Spoke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 101
Spoke is on a distinguished road
Cool

Throughout the posts I have noticed that you basically do not wish a discussion going outside of what you already chose to believe is the truth. Aside of the extremist comments of whomever wanted to shoot all gay people, many have argumented their position based on what they do believe.

Asking people to set their beliefs aside, their morals aside, their religion aside and then trying to build a debate around an issue, and right away disqualifying all the arguments people have used with a wave of your "pen" and no argument behind tells that probably this whole thread about gay rights was never really intended to be used for any debate, since you are just killing it and forcing people to agree with you.

It might sound odd, but most legal systems throughout the world are somehow founded on some moral values usually dictated by whatever religion dominated that part of the world when the guidelines were set. It is clear that laws prohibiting things like incest for example, a common practice in the natural world but something we frown uppon as westerners (those of us who are), will not find a really solid scientific explanation for, at least not when they were declared illegal. It is just an example, and might have flaws, the point is, that the morals are usually founded in a religious teaching, and the reason for the morals of the world to be so similar is that most religions share many of their structural commandments.

This said, I think with your post Kopri (Posted on May 23 2005,17:15) you basically disregarded many of the arguments given by some of the people who actually attempted to contribute intelligently to your original thread. If what you want is people to just say: Homosexuals should have every single right heterosexuals do, maybe you should have added a comment at the end that read something like: if you do not agree, please don't reply.

Anyway, if you trully are using this for a debate, go an learn how to moderate one, go and study the facts before summarizing (actually, read people's feedback) and try not to insultingly disregard other people's opinions or ideas without even stopping to support your claims with a real argument.

For your vague original question though, my own answer was Anti-. Though as pointed by someone above, it is poorly asked, and obviously intended to make Pro- the only "correct" answer.

Have a nice day,
Spoke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2005, 03:12 PM   #102
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
Excuse me, Spoke, but it seems that my statements have been misread. I didn't mean that any of the arguments (aside from the extremist one, which wasn't exactly an argument but more of a vicious statement of opinion) were invalid or untrue. My point in asking someone to come up with an anti-gay rights argument without incorporating religion was to challenge the people who -are- using the Bible and the word of their God as their sole foundation of argument to help me understand how it's even legal to legislate in such a way. I apologize if I offended or disrespected anyone by making such a challenge... it wasn't my intent. It's simply that all of the religious arguments are not only not supporting the legality of the issue... they're becoming redundant.

Now, the problem with talking about all government using morality as a foundation is, though it's true, where do you draw the line? How can we have both separation of church and state -and- religion dictating who gets what rights? So either separate church from state in legislation, or don't and stop saying we do.

Also, I believe I already apologized for the vagueness of my original question, I was in a hurry in making the poll and didn't take time or care in forming my question properly.

Thank you for your corrections, however, and I will keep them in mind when next faced with a similar situation.
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2005, 04:20 PM   #103
dragon master
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 106
dragon master is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 23 2005,23:16)
There wouldn't be an expanse in anything... it'd be just like a heterosexual couple marrying. Two lesbians + two gay males could= two hetero couples if not for pre-stated sexual persuasion. It equals out.

And... sad social commentary that 'inevitable' comes before 'divorce'.

Plus, we're talking about civil unions remember. We don't want the zealots getting uppidy.
I think he's saying that it would be more expensive because you'd have more people being married if you allowed gays to get married. Simply because gays aren't being married(or civil unioned) in some places right now and if they were allowed to, it would cost more money, not equal out.

Not that it is an especially good argument though, as you can save more money by stopping heteros from getting married(since there are more of them).
dragon master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2005, 05:46 PM   #104
Kopribear
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA, Michigan
Posts: 72
Kopribear is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Kopribear Send a message via MSN to Kopribear Send a message via Yahoo to Kopribear
*blink* sad will be the day that we deprive people of their rights to save -money-... good lord...

But if it happens, we should just ban any kind of union all together, because I could argue discrimination...
Kopribear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2005, 07:39 PM   #105
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Yeah. Incest is definitely another example. The odds of a negative ourcome are only 2% higher for incest than 'normal' relationships. Note, that is 2% **overall**. If you carry a trait for a genetic disorder and your partner does too, then it doesn't matter if you are siblings or first cousins, because instead of a 2% increased risk, it will be at 'best' a 25% risk of disease if only one has the trait, a 50% percent risk if 'both' share one faulty gene pair, or one has none, but the other has two faulty genes in their pair (though usually that is fatal for most diseases). If one has both bad genes in a pair and the other has one bad gene, its now 75%. And if 'both' share the same flaw on both gene pairs, guess what? Its now 100% certain to be passed on. But the law was passed for religious reasons and later defended based on the 'huge' 2% increase in risk. lol Of course, by huge they probably meant, "I am not a biologist or anyone else qualified to make a statement, by I and sure it like 50-50 or something..."

The single worst danger to science, medicine and human survival is imho the endless stream of, "I have no clue, but I believe X", statements made to support laws, procedures and policies that prevent progress or undermine our ability to *be* human, while instead promoting conformity, stagnation and inhumanity to those that won't conform.
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 12:05 PM   #106
dragon master
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 106
dragon master is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by (shadowfyr @ May 24 2005,20:39)
If you carry a trait for a genetic disorder and your partner does too, then it doesn't matter if you are siblings or first cousins, because instead of a 2% increased risk, it will be at 'best' a 25% risk of disease if only one has the trait
The problem is that if you carry a rare trait for a genetic disorder(that is reccessive and so you need two genes for it to be noticiable), and most people carry some such trait or another with all their massive amounts of DNA, the odds of having a partner that has the exact same rare trait are incredibly low, thus giving you a very low chance of even having that 25% come up. Yet if they are your sibling and thus have very similar DNA as you, it is much much much more likely that they will happen to be a carrier for the same rare trait as you, and then there is 25% that the child will have the carrier gene from both parents and thus actually get the disease. Now, a normal person is usually the carrier for more than one rare genetic disorder, but they don't evolve this out of them, because it is so rare that the odds of meeting somebody else that has it too, is low. But if you mate your sister or brother, or somebody else related to you, there are very high odds that they are the carriers for the same genetic-disorders as you.
dragon master is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2005, 01:24 PM   #107
Lanthum
Member
 
Lanthum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 138
Lanthum is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Lanthum
Quote:
Originally Posted by (Kopribear @ May 24 2005,15:12)
Now, the problem with talking about all government using morality as a foundation is, though it's true, where do you draw the line? How can we have both separation of church and state -and- religion dictating who gets what rights? So either separate church from state in legislation, or don't and stop saying we do.
The problem isn't talking about government using morality as a basis - as Spoke said - every large form of government is based in someway off of SOME religion and/or religious belief system.

No, that's not the problem. The problem lies in the disinformation that has been sowed through America's school system in the last 50-75 years of this idea of "seperation of church and state". A statement AND idea that doesn't even occur in any of our founding political/governmental doctrine.

There are many underlying problems that perpetuate this - the Supreme Court making a "perception" based decision without regards to the Constitution itself or other documents Jefferson had wrote. Or the fact that people believe this false ideal without understanding where it's coming from (not our founding forefathers), etc. But, that's the main problem with discussing Americans' rights, ideals, and laws. Trying to use the Constitution and our laws without using a moralistic mindframe won't get you very far.

You see, when you falsely believe a set of documents (our governmental doctrine) was written under a certain mindset (church should not interfere with the state), and then you try to interpret those documents using that mindset - nothing you come up with will make much sense.

And I believe that's exactly how our founding fathers wanted it to be. That freedom was the highest cause in this country with regards to the morals set forth by a strong faith. Back 230 years ago, they knew that this Republic they had created would be wisely lead by the collective common of people who strongly believed in God tempered by those that didn't. Checks and balances.
Lanthum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 12:09 AM   #108
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Interesting Lanthum, just one problem. Most of the founding fathers where deists, not Christians. Some where agnostic and at least on may have been pagan. As an example:

John Adams

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

http://www.deism.org/foundingfathers.htm

So, why would it be assumed that they wouldn't want a seperation? How precisely do you avoid establishing a state religion and still impose its morals and thus all its baggage and justifications for them on society? Well, I can think of one simple way actually. Be a deist that believes in 'a' god, but completely rejects organized religion, and thus the Biblical claims to be grounds for morals in the first place. But that is hardly what the modern, "atheists and secularists are out to destroy the country", nuts would accept. Too bad, since all those horrible people out to destroy them just want them to keep their delusions in their own back yard, not force it into every crevice of society, then claim, "But if you don't believe you can just leave the room until we are done. We promise not to discuss anything, make decisions or act against you while you are out".

I am also offended by your implication that moral ideals 'require' religion to give rise to them. I have a high standard of morals, which I learned without 'anyone' indoctrinating me into all the BS excuses and irrational gibberish religious people 'claim' those standards come from. Especially given how that same stuff can be used to justify actions that are anything but moral (and are). If strong faith has been shown to give rise to anything, its false morals and excuses for why certain people at certain times in certain circumstances do not deserve the same rights as others. Those of strong faith in this time believe that no one lacking it, or those lcking the 'right' faith are not deserving of the right to avoid having fiction taught to them in schools, religious dogma posted at their government facilities or Christian prayers given as various ceremonies. Of course they will all give excuses, 'teaching the contraversy', 'its part of the beliefs of our foundng fathers, so its OK to post it' or 'we would have had other types of prayers, but we just didn't have time to collect a bunch of people from other religions to give them'. But in the end, its a belief that 'their' belief is greater than everyone else's and that theirfor they don't 'deserve' respect.
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 02:19 PM   #109
Lanthum
Member
 
Lanthum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Suburbs of Chicago
Posts: 138
Lanthum is on a distinguished road
Send a message via MSN to Lanthum
Quote:
Originally Posted by (shadowfyr @ May 26 2005,00:09)
Interesting Lanthum, just one problem. Most of the founding fathers where deists, not Christians. Some where agnostic and at least on may have been pagan. As an example:
I'm too tired to respond to the rest of your post ... but I will say this quickly. I have read many items from several of the founding fathers. It is a deep interest of mine. And I can tell you that for every google entry I find saying that the founding fathers weren't religious - I find one saying they were. That's one reason I started reading their own writings - I was sick of conflicting webpages.

I can tell you that from what I've read, only 2 ever stated what religious belief they followed. Some of the founding fathers weren't professed Christians. And I never said they were. What they were, were people who believed - or at least spoke, wrote, and acted like - they believed in God. It's just too apparent in the wording they chose - "Creator", "Inalienable rights", "truths", "God", "Supreme judge of the world", etc.

Again - you never CAN tell what is in someone heart - you can only go by their actions. And as I wasn't alive then (and I don't think anyone else was), I think all we can go on is what they wrote, and what others wrote about them.
Lanthum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2005, 06:46 PM   #110
AC1
New Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 17
AC1 is on a distinguished road
Arrow

I'm not an American, so I didn't spend much time on American history. However, it is reasonable to assume that recent history of the time affected their opinions, and not only have I taken general history I've also spent many hours playing Sid Meier's Colonization. One of the things that some colonists were trying to escape was governments that support an official state religion and persecute other faiths. This got pretty nasty in England, where the "official" state religion kept changing between Catholic and various flavors of Protistantism. One week you're one of the faithful, the next week you're a heretic. Sure, they were all Christian religions, but those niggling differences between Christian sects was enough to get people harrassed and even killed. The Puritins were fleeing religious persecution, which is kind of funny in retrospect. Whatever happened to those guys? I've never seen a Puritin church, and there aren't many people with names like Constance, Silence, or Patience anymore either.

Anyway, I believe the concept of seperation of church and state was intended to keep the government from supporting an official state religion. A particular Senator may believe that Baptists are heritics who are all going to ####, but he can't make a law sending them all to jail. (Note: feel free to subsititute adhirants of any other denomination, religion or cult for "baptists," the sentance will still work.) Christianity isn't a religion, it is dozens of religions, religions that sometimes hate eachother with a vengence. Some years ago the Anglican church in Canada began allowing women to be ordained as priests, a move that made some people happy but caused some others to shift over to similar denominations that don't have female priests. Last I heard they were still struggling with the issue of homosexuality. The texts chosen to form the old Testament have an anti-gay bias, but in the New testiment we're encouraged to love everyone, and that presumably includes homosexuals. If Jesus loves gays, then who am I to argue with Him? My point is that even if you polled only the Christians, you wouldn't get 100% of them condeming gay marriage. Gay wedding-type ceremonies (the religious part) are already performed in some Christian churches. They're here, they're queer, and they're not going away . . . so it's probably better to have them settle down in monogomous relationships and buying minvans rather then engaging in risky promiscuity and wearing chaps.

On a related note, I'm also a pro-masturbation Christian. Telling teenagers to abstain from sex _and_ masturbation is a recipie for disaster. You know that something has got to give. Ok, the girls may go along with it (or they may engage in masturbation without even realizing that it is masturbation -- ie. excessive pursuit of personal hygene using the shower massage) but keeping the boys from playing with themselves is pretty much a lost cause, because their equipment is right there in the open, easy to find, and just bursting with enthusiasm. Masturbation is the safest form of sex; it has a nearly 0% chance of pregnancy or disease (some "props" could concievably cause trouble). It's good clean fun for all ages! Well clean-ish anyway, some washing up afterwards may be needed. The anti-masturbation bias of many churches boggles my mind. The sin of Onan wasn't masturbation, it was either coitus interuptus or disobedience to a direct order from God to impregnate is dead brother's wife (tip: if a god comes right out and tells you personally to do something, you should probably do it).

Sex makes up a tiny part of the Bible, it takes up a tiny amount of day to day life, but for some unfathonable reason it is a major part of many Christian church doctrines. There is a weird fixation on sex, it is almost embarassing, like a dog that won't stop licking itself. I can't remember the last time I heard a sermon condeming coveting (envy with intent) and that was a big enough deal to make it into the Ten Commandments. What's up with that? Why not spend more time on "Thou Shalt Not Murder", or "Remember The Sabbath And Keep It Holy", and leave the gays and masturbators alone to exercise thier free will? Campaigning to prevent homosexuals from getting married, or civil unioned, just seems pointless to me. Nobody is going to force you to marry a gay dude, or attend a gay wedding, so why let it get you all wrathful?


Angela Christine
AC1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 01:46 AM   #111
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
And the reason why letting relgion in at all is a bad idea is shown here:

http://www.indystar.com/apps....5260481

Once people start to think its OK to make judgements effecting others based purely on belief, they start pulling stuff like this. The first step in that it things like The Knights of Colunbus getting the government to add "under god" to a pledge that the original Baptist creator of seemed to consider highly inappropriate. This is followed by courts dumping copies of the ten commandments in from of court houses and finally with idiots like the judge in this article thinking that its OK to prevent someone from practicing or teaching their child a religion 'he' thinks is not 'main stream'. If you pay any attention to most religously loaded speeches by politicians, it becomes quite obvious 'which' ones are considered 'main stream'. They sometimes 'might' mention Budhists, but usually its Christianity in it various forms, Islam and Judeism. Which might as well all be lumped into one as 'Biblical', to avoid confusion about the true meaning of 'only' mentioning them and no other religions. Of course, with this administration its also a) gay bashing, b) anti-science (in the form of ID or the idea of unborn children being people from conception, which most religions say only happens after a certain number of weeks or 'at birth&#39, c) reinstatement of failed abstenance programs and numerous other theological views, must not agreed about by 90% of the world, never mind probably 90% of Americans. Nope, religion, if believed by leaders at all, should inform, not dictate policy.
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2005, 10:10 AM   #112
Jeena
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 49
Jeena is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
I can tell you that from what I've read, only 2 ever stated what religious belief they followed. Some of the founding fathers weren't professed Christians. And I never said they were. What they were, were people who believed - or at least spoke, wrote, and acted like - they believed in God. It's just too apparent in the wording they chose - "Creator", "Inalienable rights", "truths", "God", "Supreme judge of the world", etc.
Thomas Jefferson was Deist. That is essentially the belief that God is like a great "clock maker". He created and started the clock winding with all it's natural laws and rules, then stands back and watches the clock operate without interfering. It was a rather common philosophy among the well educated during the time the Founding Fathers were in their prime.
Jeena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2005, 10:08 AM   #113
Alleria
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15
Alleria is on a distinguished road
If the founding fathers were deist's, then why is this country's religion not deism? But also, if god was just a clock maker, would that mean that he is the one who chose us to be gay in the first place and is just contradicting himself in the bible?
Alleria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2005, 10:09 AM   #114
Alleria
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15
Alleria is on a distinguished road
If god was just a clock maker, would that mean that he is the one who chose us to be gay in the first place and is just contradicting himself in the bible?
Alleria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2005, 10:49 AM   #115
Jeena
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 49
Jeena is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
If the founding fathers were deist's, then why is this country's religion not deism?  But also, if god was just a clock maker, would that mean that he is the one who chose us to be gay in the first place and is just contradicting himself in the bible?
Of course not, the founding fathers had their own beliefs, not all were Deist, though Jefferson definitely was.  But they believed strongly in the seperation of Church and State because the country was settled by people whose own religious freedoms were restricted in England and in other European countries where they came from.  That there is a view that our nation has any "national religion" at all is a sad tribute to the hope of those who drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The idea that all people have the right to worship as they choose, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, is fundemental.

Secondly, the idea of God as a the clockmaker works like this:
God sets in motion the laws of nature just as a clockmaker sets in motion the mechanisms that make his clock keep time.
The laws of physics, genetics and biology, and other things are the mechanisms of that great universal clock. Does this go against the Bible? I don't know. But then we aren't still keeping slaves, the Bible advocates that. We don't stone adulterers, the Bible advocates that, etc., etc. In fact, if one were to follow the Bible's laws explicitly, even the New Testatment says "Ye who are without sin cast the first stone."
I have yet to see one bigot or homophobe without sin. I'm also pretty certain there's a lot in the New Testatment about tolerance. After all, Jesus was treated pretty badly in his time by those who did not understand or even like him. Imagine how he would feel to know that people were being persecuted, harrassed, threatened, and ostracized in his name.

Many scientists today are coming to believe that, at least in some males, homosexuality has a biological impetus. In nature, it can be found. I've even seen it argued that it is a part of nature's way of maintaining population. Of course, those have yet to be proven, and it is so much easier to be hateful, nasty, and bigoted to our neighbors who are different than we are, than to utilize tolerance, a civilized trait.

Whether you believe that Homosexuality is a choice or a biological imperative, if you believe that in the U.S. (anyway) that all people have the right to live freely as they choose, without persecution, harrassment, or discrimination (as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others) and if you believe that Jesus really meant what he said when he said "love they neighbor" "turn the other cheek" and "tolerance" then this entire topic is mute.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion on the subject. Most people do have one. But no one is entitled to hinder the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of another person because their lifestyle doesn't suit.
Jeena is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2005, 06:42 PM   #116
shadowfyr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 310
shadowfyr will become famous soon enough
Almost forgot this discussion was going on, but this should be a fun addition:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/sc...03cell.html?hp

Seems that for flies, a 'single' gene can cause a female fly court other females, i.e. turn them gay. This will no doubt bring cries of protest about a) humans not being flies, b) humans being more complex and c) no evidence of a similar gene being found in people. Well...

a) True, but lots of genes from more primitive species are used to track down ones in people. Simple = easier to find, since you don't have to sort through millions to find a gene, just thousands or even hundreds.

b) Yes, but since when does more complex mean 'less likely to break'? Ask you car mechanic which he would prefer to fix, from a purely mechanical complexity standpoint, a modern electronic fuel injection engine or a single sprocket bicycle. All that more complete means is that more than one gene may be involved and the range of differences more complex, not that their are not genes that can have the same dramatic impact.

c) So what? You have to know what you are looking for to find it. Before now the attempts to do so involved taking a lot of people, spending months processing gene sequences, and pretty much looking randomly it a few select sections of literally millions of gene pairs, hoping to find some single odd difference between 'normal', 'bi' and 'straight' people. This is like having a third party randomly search fifty nearly identical beaches, looking for a single lost ear ring, while having no clue where on the 500 yards of beach it was even lost. Digging up the entire beach to sift it is no more practical than it was to find such a gene by sifting the entire code of the human genome, only maybe 10% of which we know the function of. We have mapped all of it, but **not** actually identified what most of it does. This in fact is one of the misnomers of science. Just as its a myth that we only use 10% of hour brains 'at all', what biologists call 'junk DNA' is actually only junk in the sense that they have no idea what it does yet, so it junk with reguard to doing their own speciifc research.
shadowfyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Gay rights? - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iron Realms acquires Feist rights the_logos MUD Announcements 2 08-28-2003 05:59 AM
Area Rights Agreement? Neranz Laverani MUD Administration 38 09-07-2002 08:46 PM
Intellectual Property Rights Ntanel Legal Issues 2 05-19-2002 05:09 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014