Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:10:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2101 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Coronado wrote:
| |
i actually grew up in a loving environment that taught me that right and
wrong are absolutes and nothing is relative. believing that has kept me out
of trouble many times.
|
Then you’ve been lucky not to have been exposed to reality, since you have
been given such an inadequate set of tools for dealing with it.
|
reality, my good friend, does not always determine what is right and what is
wrong. needless to say my children will know about the “reality” of
homosexuality sooner than i ever did. but to say that, “homosexuality, kids, is
a part of society so that means it is right” is a complete farce. infidelity,
abuse, and neglect are all real things that happen to children, but they are
clearly wrong (or is it only in the eye of the beholder, as relativism
suggests)?
| |
If you are in a position to save either one innocent person or a pair of
innocent people from certain death, but you can’t save both the individual
and the pair, what do you do? It seems to me that you must make a choice
based on the relative value of the one versus the two. How do you make
this decision?
|
understood--to say that “nothing” is relative is an exaggeration on my part. but
how does “relative value” apply when someone takes the life of a loved one? is
there an absolute right/wrong there? apparently the murderer thinks it’s right
where you would obviously think it’s wrong. homosexuality used to be looked at
by the masses as wrong based on what the bible says (sodom and gamorrah).
nowadays, it seems to be “right” according to society. where is the line drawn?
when does sexual perversion become wrong? is bestiality wrong? i know of people
who want to start an organization which promotes sexual relationships between
grown men and boys. is that wrong? if it is, then there’s your absolute. if
it isn’t, then we’ve just allowed our sons to be looked at as potential sexual
subjects to be prayed upon by child molesters.
| |
In reality, little that is absolute is accessible to us, which is to say that
even if something is truly absolute, we as humans aren’t generally qualified
to assess it (I am excluding mathematical or Boolean absolutes, which are
different from what we’re discussing). We may choose to enshrine certain
values or customs as “absolute,” but these aren’t “absolute” in any real
sense.
|
if little is absolute, then there goes our whole legal system. what about laws?
true, some do change, but some will never change, and if they do (murder, child
molestation) it will be to the detriment of society. and if values are not
absolute, then how do you explain to the child who has been molested by his/her
parent that the parent was just “satisfying a sexual urge so it’s o.k”?
| |
| |
on the contrary--i’m not talking about intolerance toward people, i’m
talking about intolerance toward homosexuality. i do not hate homosexuals.
i merely hate the idea of it. i believe that homosexuality is wrong. if
that labels me as a bigot, then i’ll have to live with that.
|
First off, if you uniformly hate a group because of an inherent
characteristic of that group, then it is reasonable for an observer to
conclude that you also hate the members of that group who also have that
characteristic. To say that you don’t hate the members of a group that you
do hate, when “membership” in that group is determined solely by having the
hated-by-you characteristic of that group, then you are not simply
bigoted--you’re nonsensical.
|
not true. i work with a homosexual. we are friendly toward each other and we
talk frequently about common interests. i’ve even met his boyfriend. i show no
contempt toward my co-worker, even though i disagree with his lifestyle. if he
were to confront me with the issue of his lifestyle i would gladly say how i
feel about it. if he were to constantly tell me that he is gay and he’s proud
to be gay--even though i never bring up the subject--then i would get very irate
and tell him the same things i have been saying in this post.
| |
| |
what bothers me is that
not only are homosexuals trying to get the world to accept them, they are
practically shoving their lifestyle down our throats.
|
Again with the mixed metaphors? What is it with homophobes and the need to
use “down my throat” and “thrusting in my face” as such common images when
discussing homosexuality? Your hot, steamy invective really gets my
rhetorical pulse throbbing!
|
uh...can we please stay on topic?
| |
| |
i go back to my
original point of this whole thing: WHAT DOES LEGO HAVE TO DO WITH
HOMOSEXUALITY? why must they (you--or whatever) bring homosexuality into
every part of our lives? i see it in magazines, t.v., movies, books,
newspapers. IT DOESN”T BELONG IN A LEGO NEWSGROUP! i don’t talk about
heterosexual things here, so why do you have to talk about homosexual
things?
|
No one is preventing you from discussing heterosexual things, whatever those
may be. When I announced the birth of my son, no militant homosexuals
denounced me for proclaiming my heterosexuality. Therefore, there is no
compelling reason to prevent people from discussing homosexual things,
whatever those may be.
|
so what things would homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, transgenders,
bi-sexuals discuss with regards to lego? the very title “LGBT” automatically
let’s readers know that the men have sex with the men, the women have sex with
the women, the bi-sexuals have sex with both, the transvestites love to dress as
the opposite sex, and transgenders (i assume they are included as well)
surgically altered their genitals so they can have sex with...? i don’t belong
to a heterosexual club, i belong to a lego club. why do you fail to see the
irrelevance between sex and lego?
| |
| |
kids read this stuff, so why do we have to bring up sex at all (and don’t
tell me homosexuality is not about sex, because it is).
|
Sure it is! And heterosexuality is about sex. Kids are, by definition,
about sex, and in many (but certainly not all) ways sex is about kids.
What’s your point?
|
my point, freud, is that we need to not let children into the realm of sexuality
because then they feel they need to get involved (teen pregnancies). do you
want your son (i assume he is still a child) to participate in sexual acts?
educating children is one thing, but openly discussing the various perversions
of sex just confuses children and allows them to seek experimentation. whatever
happened to childhood innocence?
| |
| |
you have got to be kidding me: “without interference, hassle, and
judgement?” the homosexual agenda uses the media to force its views on
society. it permeates throughout my home because of the media--i call that
interference and hassle and i don’t want my children to think that
homosexuality is o.k.
|
What if one of your children turns out to be gay? Will you condemn that
child to spend his or her life thinking that he or she is not okay, simply
because of your value system? What kind of parent would inflict this cruelty
on a child?
|
i would always love my children no matter what they do, but i would never accept
the deliberate decision to disobey GOD by choosing a lifestyle contrary to what
the bible says. cruelty, my friend, is letting children do whatever they want
so long as it feels right to them no matter the consequences.
| |
| |
i also believe that homosexuality is not perfectly
natural, but a perversion of a natural and beautiful thing that GOD created
to exist between a man and a woman through marriage. and being labeled a
“bigot” because i don’t agree with you or this whole “lavender brick” issue
is being judgemental as well. the pendulum swings both ways. yes, i’ll
admit it--i’m also being judgemental. it is a problem i need to work on in
my life. but i try to look at homosexuals like i look at smokers. i hate
smoking, but i do not hate people who smoke. that is my only reasoning. if
you don’t or can’t understand it, then so be it. i’ve said my peace.
|
I understand it, and I’d wager that Chris understands it. But you’ve made a
serious logical mistake to compare homosexuality with smoking, and you
seem not to understand it. Smoking is a voluntary action undertaken by a
person who has made the effort to acquire, light, and inhale the smoke of
cigarettes (or pipe, or whatever). Homosexuality is part of a person’s
identity, just as heterosexuality is part of your identity.
|
if you and chris understand that i believe sex is a holy union between a man and
a woman consecrated by GOD through marriage, then you must also understand my
belief that any sexual act apart from that is a choice. GOD did not create
humans with the desire for the same sex. if he did, then he wouldn’t say how
much he detests it in the bible. homosexality is not a physiological
manifestation, but a psychological one. if god made man and woman, then he
meant for a man to lie with a woman. mankind has perverted that and taught
society that any and every sexual urge is o.k. because it is physical and we
can’t help it. society has lost self-control, and in doing so has taught
children, with relativism as an reason, that homosexuality (or other
perversions) is o.k. no matter what the Creator says.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Perfect example of how laws have changed as regards to murder. At one time, it was acceptable to offer a duel to a party who insulted you. If one or the other of you died (was murdered), there was no criminal penalty. Both of you went into it (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Tell me this: Is an action "right" because God says so, or is it "right" regardless of what God says? If the former, then it's an arbitrary moral system. If the latter, then God is subordinate to morality and therefore he's not supreme. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Things that are clearly wrong are those things that clearly harm others. Like abuse and neglect of children. Not like consensual sexual activities. Homosexuality isn't right because it's part of society, it's right because no one is harmed. (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Then you've been lucky not to have been exposed to reality, since you have been given such an inadequate set of tools for dealing with it. If you are in a position to save either one innocent person or a pair of innocent people from certain (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
