Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... b) the greater society I am a part of (the USA) does not require me to follow divine law, I can not "sin".

But you are part of a yet greater society, even if you deny it - the society of people created by God! *tease tease* so yes, you CAN (and DO) sin!

(I'm just joshin' ya, brownie)

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Today, May 17th, is the International Day Against Homophobia. You can read about IDAHO here: www.idahomophobia.org

OMG! It's not just a potato or a state anymore!!!!!!!

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The way I see it, "sin" is a construct of the society of humans that believe in divine law. And since, a) I do not believe in divine law and b) the greater society I am a part of (the USA) does not require me to follow divine law, I can not "sin".

I wasn't too far off, actually, then !

But, then again, evidence of societal harm whether religious or not, doesn't work either.

What exactly in the World According to BJ would constitute the homologue of sin?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

OMG! It's not just a potato or a state anymore!!!!!!!

(Nel - Idaho is one of the states in the USA, and it's famous for potatoes )

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

But, then again, evidence of societal harm whether religious or not, doesn't work either.

Sure it does. I respect societal laws, just not religious ones.

What exactly in the World According to BJ would constitute the homologue of sin?

The concept of "sin" assumes the existance of absolutes in terms of morality, so there is no homologue.

[Elfhelm]

Evidence of societal harm by religions doesn't work either. I mean, it doesn't stop people from having their "harmful" religions. And I think any religion that says to kill those who disagree with them is harmful. And any religion that supposes its murderous laws should be followed instead of the laws determined by due process, is harmful in a democracy. But as anyone can see here, evidence of that harm "doesn't work", meaning it won't convince people to give up their (loving) condemnations of their fellow citizens, who do, by the way, follow the laws determined by due process.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

That IS a big part of the argument for me, so no, I can't drop it (until people on the homosexual side admit it).

OK, I admit it.

Now, does anyone from the religious side care to address the issue that Nerdanel and I have raised?

[The last sane person]

Religion and God's society aside, it sure does hurt when you are booted out of the house by your parents without a penny or hope.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Sure it does. I respect societal laws, just not religious ones.



The concept of "sin" assumes the existance of absolutes in terms of morality, so there is no homologue.

Then, BJ, as I have tirelessly pointed out and will ever so do, you have no ground for opposition to anyone's views. The social morality is determined by the majority.

Any appeal to justice or fairness or equality is in fact an appeal to absolute morality.

There I said again.TM

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

1) And I think any religion that says to kill those who disagree with them is harmful. 2) And any religion that supposes its murderous laws should be followed instead of the laws determined by due process, is harmful in a democracy. 3) But as anyone can see here, evidence of that harm "doesn't work", meaning it won't convince people to give up their (loving) condemnations of their fellow citizens, who do, by the way, follow the laws determined by due process.

(Enumeration of points added)

3 leads me to believe that 1 and 2 are directed at Christianity, so allow me to briefly reply.

1) The Church doesn't say to kill those who disagree with her (I was gonna write "Christianity", but I wasn't sure what gender to make the pronoun ). Therefore, this doesn't apply.

2) Christianity has no murderous laws. Therefore, this doesn't apply.

Thank you for tuning in.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Evidence of societal harm by religions doesn't work either. I mean, it doesn't stop people from having their "harmful" religions. And I think any religion that says to kill those who disagree with them is harmful. And any religion that supposes its murderous laws should be followed instead of the laws determined by due process, is harmful in a democracy. But as anyone can see here, evidence of that harm "doesn't work", meaning it won't convince people to give up their (loving) condemnations of their fellow citizens, who do, by the way, follow the laws determined by due process.

Then, Elfhelm, as I have tirelessly pointed out and will ever so do, you have no ground for opposition to anyone's views. The social morality is determined by the majority.

Any appeal to justice or fairness or equality is in fact an appeal to absolute morality. If there is an absolute morality, then your contending for any aspect of justice, fairness, or equality is equally under the evaluation of the absolute morality. Your sontentious points may be judged as not in the best accord with the absolute morality.

There I said again.TM

IT boils down to a whine for self-indulgence at the expense of society. And society can and does draw limits in those regards all the time.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Religion and God's society aside, it sure does hurt when you are booted out of the house by your parents without a penny or hope.

I'm so sorry to hear that, Sane

I can't even comprehend how awful that would be

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

OK, I admit it.

Now, does anyone from the religious side care to address the issue that Nerdanel and I have raised?

could you please point out a post for us forgetful types?

[Elfhelm]

What the heck are you on about now, inked? You now seem to be under the assumption that I'm an atheist.

I guess that's what I get for not saying what I believe, but neither you nor I have anything to gain from it, so I'm staying mum. Presume what you wish.

However, there are laws. The ones that you claim take precedent over the ones that we have arrived at by due process are merely laws made by other people following their own processes. Your claim of divine inspiration for those old laws remains an attempt to trump the due process of our land.

I don't accept your definition of fairness, either. Since the Magna Carta fairness has meant an equal application of the laws. It doesn't require any divine approval. It only requires adherence. What Confucious calls "li".

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by The last sane person

Religion and God's society aside, it sure does hurt when you are booted out of the house by your parents without a penny or hope.

Did you parents find out about Maggie? I'm sorry at any rate.

[The Gaffer]

This one.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Oh no?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...773952,00.html

Care to comment on how the mathematics of homophobia stack up with societal discrimination such as the denial of equal "benefits"?

and this one:

Originally Posted by Nerdanel

Today, May 17th, is the International Day Against Homophobia. You can read about IDAHO here: http://www.idahomophobia.org

[Butterbeer]

Best of luck Shah and Maggie!
BB

x x x

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(Nel - Idaho is one of the states in the USA, and it's famous for potatoes )

I know. Thanks for making sure, though.

It's interesting to be in a place where no one knows about your sexual preference.. I'm in a group of new people now, and I've gotten to know a few of them a bit better. It's strange how people assume that you are straight, even though you look like.. me. ^^ One guy keeps pointing out that I look like a lesbian, and I haven't said anything about it yet.. It's rather funny what kind of expectations people have.

And aside from that random story, I have a question that I was discussing with a male friend, but that we disagreed on. What is homosexuality? What does the word involve? If you have sex with someone of the opposite sex, does that mean you're not a homosexual person?
IMO, the word homosexual is misleading, as I've pointed out before, since it sounds like it's all about sex. But if you can enjoy sex with someone of the opposite sex, but never feel any romantic feelings toward people of that gender, only for people the same sex as you, what does that make you? And vice versa, of course: can you enjoy sex with someone of the same sex as you, without being homo-/bisexual?
Or are these questions perhaps not important? Maybe we're just trying to put people into boxes.. Maybe people just change over time, and putting oneself or others under a certain term is unfair?

I'm sorry if this has been discussed earlier, I haven't really been on here for a while..

[The last sane person]

Yeah, parents found out. Not happy. It sucks.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Any appeal to justice or fairness or equality is in fact an appeal to absolute morality.

Not at all, it's just an attempt to open the eyes of the majority to the fact that what I suggest will lead to a more peaceful and happy society for all. Absolute morality doesn't base it's morals on the realities of a given place and time. I do.