Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Scholar
#351 Old 28th Jan 2012 at 9:00 PM
Quote: Originally posted by bassoon_crazy
A "sin"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't directly forbid same-sex marriage as a sin, it just says "Marriage shall be between a man and a woman" or something like that.


Actually, there are several types of marriage in the Bible. The regulations defining it being one man and one woman is a fairly recent development, even if the observation of that condition has been in effect longer.

Technically, according to the Bible, a woman who's husband passes away without male heirs is required to marry her brother-in-law. If, somehow he doesn't have a brother (and why not??! You should be being fruitful and multiplying!) then the next closest male relative takes his place. Even better, virgins who are raped (and why aren't you a virgin if you aren't married?!) are required to marry their rapists. Try enforcing that one in modern society.

The entire concept of marrying for love is "new" in historical terms. Your parents used to tell you who you were going to marry, and that was that. If you were a female, you were the property of your father, and became the property of your husband. If you were a male, you were sub-ordinate to the elder males of the family, and would only rise up as the preceding generations passed away.

Marriages possible according to the Bible:

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Advertisement
Undead Molten Llama
#352 Old 28th Jan 2012 at 11:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by OHHxbby
While there is not a "real, legal reason" that Christians will argue that is against same-sex marriage, it's a sin. As stated in the Bible.


Well, actually, same-sex MARRIAGE isn't a sin, according to the Bible. Same-sex SEX is, according to some people's interpretation of Scripture, a sin. It is theoretically possible to be married to someone and never have sex with them. Ask anyone who has a so-called "marriage of convenience."

Really, Christian uptightness about the issue is all, IMO, a result of the fact that the Old Testament was written by Bronze-Age people (not God) for Bronze-Age people. Not for people living in the 21st century where, for instance, sex isn't commonly used in fertility-god worship rituals anymore. *laughs* Nor is pederasty widely practiced anymore, as it was in, say, Paul's time in Greece. (And MOST of the stuff he wrote that made its way into the Bible, he wrote while in Greece, where, at the time, love/sex between an adult man and an adolescent boy was considered the most spiritual kind of love there was. Paul, of course, was not a native of the area AND he was a converted Jew; it's no wonder he was a bit appalled by the behavior, eh?)

But hey, your "average" stereotypical Christian isn't up on cultural practices in the Near East during the Bronze Age or in 1st-century CE Greece, so I guess I can't entirely blame them. I just wish they'd get their faces out of their Bibles (and their heads out of their asses) and educate themselves, for heaven's sake.

(And I say all of that as a fairly conservative, in the main, Christian. )

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Alchemist
#353 Old 30th Jan 2012 at 11:46 PM
today i read someone comment on a youtube video saying...
Quote:
Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.


...which would be true. IF only gay people had anal sex. "UNLIKE HETEROSEXUAL INTERCOURSE" makes it sound like straights only do it one way, or something.

i think this is just one of the biggest glaring assumptions i see being widely embraced as an excuse to "hate on" homosexuals.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Scholar
#354 Old 31st Jan 2012 at 4:01 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
...which would be true. IF only gay people had anal sex.


Or, the contra-positive: "If gay people only had anal sex." There are many gays out there who have just as much an ick factor to "teh buttseks" as anyone else, and don't have it as part of their usual sex repertoire.

I always find it interesting how people talk about the "bizarre and deviant" sexual practices of gays, when most every...fetish I guess... that I can think of, I know just as many heterosexuals as homosexuals who engage in it. Even some of which, only the heterosexuals are practicing. Think "a-la-cup". *shudder* Yes, Virginia, those people really DO exist.

(Not that there aren't gays who do the "cup" thing, I just don't know of any.)

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Instructor
#355 Old 31st Jan 2012 at 4:02 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
...which would be true. IF only gay people had anal sex. "UNLIKE HETEROSEXUAL INTERCOURSE" makes it sound like straights only do it one way, or something.

i think this is just one of the biggest glaring assumptions i see being widely embraced as an excuse to "hate on" homosexuals.


Or that all gay men do anal. Not every gay male likes it, just like not every straight likes it.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#356 Old 31st Jan 2012 at 9:52 AM
In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Mad Poster
#357 Old 31st Jan 2012 at 6:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??


Must be strapped on armor.

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Undead Molten Llama
#358 Old 31st Jan 2012 at 9:12 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??


*laughs* This person obviously has no idea what happens during sex, heterosexual or otherwise. Not to mention the steps leading up to conception. If sperm can't "penetrate the vagina," then where on Earth do all these babies come from? Storks?

Besides...Yeah, I know plenty of entirely straight and very committed couples who enjoy anal sex. In fact, I know more of them than I know committed gay couples who enjoy anal sex, now that I think about it.... (Yeah, my friends and I, we let it all hang out, especially once certain substances come into the picture. No such thing as TMI. )

I'm mostly found on (and mostly upload to) Tumblr these days because, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
Muh Simblr! | An index of my downloads on Tumblr.
Field Researcher
#359 Old 1st Feb 2012 at 1:15 AM
Quote:
Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.


What the hell? No, really. WTF?! Where do this kind of people learn biology or... real life? Seriously, if sperm can't penetrate a vagina, how the hell do humans reproduce, for god's sake. If someone is giving this kind of arguments to "prove" that homosexual sex is wrong... well, the are disqualifying themselves.
Alchemist
#360 Old 1st Feb 2012 at 3:54 AM
i actually didnt even catch that part because my brain auto-corrected it to make sense.

now that i see it, though, i cant un-tilt my head.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Mad Poster
#361 Old 1st Feb 2012 at 7:34 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
i actually didnt even catch that part because my brain auto-corrected it to make sense.

now that i see it, though, i cant un-tilt my head.


Yeah I know at first I thought it was normal, and nobody noticed it, and then I realized, wtf is this!

I'm a graduate of the Harvard business school. I travel quite extensively. I lived through the Black Plague and had a pretty good time during that. I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT.
Lab Assistant
#362 Old 2nd Feb 2012 at 7:09 PM
Some people find the oddest things to "hate" or call "unnatural".

And when homosexuals are criticized by Bible worshipers, I just have to laugh. Man+Man and woman+woman is wrong but doesn't your book say "thou shall not judge", and to accept all your brothers and sisters for they are children of the Lord?
What happened to that?

Been downloading like crazy...so many great creators here! Neglecting forums...will be back soon...ish.
Top Secret Researcher
#363 Old 3rd Feb 2012 at 6:16 AM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
In which sperm cannot penetrate the multi-layered vagina?! Wtf is this shit??


Actually that is not true. I am so going to go into much detail here. During sex, even if a man is having sex with a woman anally, his sperm could still enter the woman's vagina, and she can still get pregnant. A lot of guys think "Its a safe way to go." When actually its not. And that there my friend, is the truth.

NOW, moving along. Marriage should NOT, let me repeat that, should NOT, be based on gender. It should be about love. If straight people want to get married, then they should. If they love someone enough they should be allowed to marry. If homosexuals want to get married, then they should, as long as they know they love the person they are with.

Love is a beautiful thing, but it can also be a very ugly thing. Marriage should have never been based on the ideals of man or woman. Marriage should have been based on the ideals of...Love, and a bond that could melt anyone's heart.

Their is potential in ANYONE's marriage that there can be a divorce. Because either, they do not spend too much time together, or they spend to much time together, or one is overly jealous, or one is cheating, or even both are cheating. It happens in some relationships. But NOT all. Marriage isn't always a sound structure. Its base, that people need to work on, to keep it strong, and to keep it going. It happens in heterosexual marriages, as well as, homosexuals.

Besides, we are only human. Marriage should be about love, not gender.

Enough said

"Queen of the Damned seeks knight in shining piercings for pleasure, pain and purring"--Scary Mary from the Urbz: Sims In The City

"A Famous Explorer once said: 'The extraordinary is in what we do, not who we are.'"--Lara Croft from Tomb Raider 2013
Mad Poster
#364 Old 4th Feb 2012 at 8:12 AM
I've put a lot of thought into what I'm about to say - for about three months now.

Here goes.

Gay rights is the new war on slavery.

Why?

Because slaves were denied their rights, and there were places where they were accepted as equals and could go live in (relative) peace, but there were also the hostile lands all over the world where they were tortured and protested against, hunted down and jailed, even killed sometimes for what they were. Advocates for abolition of slavery were slammed by religious groups and people who were just plain judgemental and uneducated, and sometimes jailed, killed, and tortured for their beliefs in a brighter future. Eventually, slowly, slavery was abolished in the modern world. That's what needs to happen here.

Replace slaves with LGBT people, were with are, and you have my opinion.


Angie/DS | Baby Sterling - 24/2/2014
This account is mostly used by my sons to download CC now, if you see me active, it's probably just them!
Field Researcher
#365 Old 13th Feb 2012 at 3:05 AM
People who are anti-gay marriage need to be ask these questions: Would you sell your children into slavery if it was allowed? If you daughter (if you have/had one) was raped would you force the daughter to marry the said rapist? Do you eat seafood? If it was allowed would you allow your husband to have other wives?

the musical (the stage version) of South Pacfic sums it up perfectly "You got to be perfectly taught"
Alchemist
#366 Old 24th Feb 2012 at 12:10 AM Last edited by SuicidiaParasidia : 28th Feb 2012 at 4:35 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by Lawli-Lawli
Some people find the oddest things to "hate" or call "unnatural".

And when homosexuals are criticized by Bible worshipers, I just have to laugh. Man+Man and woman+woman is wrong but doesn't your book say "thou shall not judge", and to accept all your brothers and sisters for they are children of the Lord?
What happened to that?


add to that: i havent seen any of these anti-homosexual people who are supposedly "pro-nature" go amish. there are plenty of things in our world that arent "natural"--not being natural doesnt make it wrong.
(or theres the flip side, that nothing is unnatural, because everything here has to come from someplace...namely, nature. nature gives us the materials, we make up new ways to rearrange it. a rearranged lamp doesnt stop being a lamp.)

if someone earnestly believed that "its not natural" was a good enough reason to shun something, in the way that it didnt grow on a tree, reproduce, or come from an animal.... why are cars still so popular? or air conditioners? those things arent natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Scholar
#367 Old 24th Feb 2012 at 2:03 AM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
Those things aren't natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.


Nor do you hear them complain about their "no iron" cotton - polyester shirts, which are against the Bible, one of the same sections condemning gays, and therefore definitely hypocritical.

Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupid.
Mad Poster
#368 Old 24th Feb 2012 at 9:43 AM
I'm amused and wondering who disagreed with my statement and what argument they have for it. I see nothing wrong with it. Hmm.

Honestly, I've been around so many people in so many different relationship structures (hell, my family is one to talk, my parents are ex-foster-kids who adopted us from three separate countries) that really to me, the only issue is that the people in the relationship are happy, healthy and working towards what they want in life.

End of.


Angie/DS | Baby Sterling - 24/2/2014
This account is mostly used by my sons to download CC now, if you see me active, it's probably just them!
Mad Poster
#369 Old 24th Feb 2012 at 10:32 AM
Quote: Originally posted by DigitalSympathies
I'm amused and wondering who disagreed with my statement and what argument they have for it. I see nothing wrong with it. Hmm.
I think there's a random disagreer about on the boards. I wrote in the vent thread that your inbox is full (it is and I can't send you a message ) and someone disagreed with that. Go figure. I've also seen the "funny" and "love" button pushed when people share horrible things that no one with any decency would find funny or enjoyable. It's hard to believe that anyone would push buttons like that and mean it.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Lab Assistant
#370 Old 24th Feb 2012 at 4:57 PM
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
if someone earnestly believed that "its not natural" was a good enough reason to shun something, in the way that it didnt not grow on a tree, reproduce, or come from an animal.... why are cars still so popular? or air conditioners? those things arent natural but you wont hear anyone complain about them, which strikes me as a wee bit hypocritical.


That just leads me to the whole, "Who decides what it natural or "unnatural?"
I mean,really?

Quote: Originally posted by DigitalSympathies
the only issue is that the people in the relationship are happy, healthy and working towards what they want in life.

Exactly this.
I never understood the point of making it my life's goal to point out who is accepted and who's not. You're happy, I'm chipper. You're tiny, I'm toony...we're all a little looney.
Add a brew to your day and go on with life.

Been downloading like crazy...so many great creators here! Neglecting forums...will be back soon...ish.
Inventor
#371 Old 25th Feb 2012 at 7:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Lawli-Lawli
That just leads me to the whole, "Who decides what it natural or "unnatural?"
I mean,really?


Exactly this.
I never understood the point of making it my life's goal to point out who is accepted and who's not. You're happy, I'm chipper. You're tiny, I'm toony...we're all a little looney.
Add a brew to your day and go on with life.



Exactly, what a lot of people NEED to realize is that what is right/natural may not be right/natural for all. Just because I think something is wrong or unnatural for me does NOT mean I think it's wrong or unnatural for everyone. I have no right to tell others how to live their lives, and neither does anyone else.

Example: I don't like to wear jewelry, and when I do it's very small. It would be completely unnatural for me to wear much. But I do not think it's unnatural for others, nor do I think that just because I don't wear jewelry, that no one else should either. It would be wrong of me to think otherwise.

Loved the tiny toons reference.
Mad Poster
#372 Old 25th Feb 2012 at 10:52 AM
I like using nature and what is natural as a reference point when deciding if something is right or not, even if it doesn't lead to perfect arguments.

Homosexuality seems to be natural, so what's the problem? Check out the other species; there are many, if not all, that have a portion of their population that is homosexual. There could well be a reason for this that ties into survival of the species as a whole and population rates. I don't know. Look at some traditional Native American tribes that would allow their members who seemed so inclined to cross dress and live their lives in opposite roles. Now we have examples from the natural world of animals and a minimum of one from our own species when they lived a more natural lifestyle (I'll bet there are more, too).

More important of an argument in this case is not the "natural" argument, but what makes them happy? Are they harming anyone? Yes (happy when allowed to express themselves as they feel they are), no (not harming a single soul)...so why go on with the arguing?

It still always comes back to the same thing: Live and let live.

Addicted to The Sims since 2000.
Theorist
#373 Old 27th Feb 2012 at 8:14 AM
Computer games and hot water heaters aren't natural, but I don't hear many people clamoring to discard them and rush to crap in the woods and die from cholera. "Not natural" is a bullshit argument right from the start. Humans make decisions and that's natural. Anything we decide to do is therefore natural and human, whether everyone likes it or not.
Alchemist
#374 Old 27th Feb 2012 at 4:23 PM
Quote: Originally posted by VerDeTerre
I like using nature and what is natural as a reference point when deciding if something is right or not, even if it doesn't lead to perfect arguments.

More important of an argument in this case is not the "natural" argument, but what makes them happy? Are they harming anyone? Yes (happy when allowed to express themselves as they feel they are), no (not harming a single soul)...so why go on with the arguing?


if you asked them, you would get a different answer than "no". some people do believe that it is harmful to be gay, and many use "its not natural" to support that claim. people seem to forget that nature is vast and ever-adapting, it isnt stagnant and it is not biased.

listed as the #2 reason why "homosexuality is harmful"

and here, under "homosexuality", it says "unnatural" within the SECOND SENTENCE of the paragraph.

i agree with Mistermook here. "not natural" is a bullshit argument right from the start.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Banned
#375 Old 27th Feb 2012 at 7:39 PM
Default Dude... this is not a debate.
@Original Poster:

First of all, this is not a debate. The controversy of same-sex marriage is really a battle between the old, traditional way of life (predominately Christian or Abrahamic) and the newer, more liberal way of life (predominately secular or atheistic). It's a battle between values, rather than a battle between facts. So, arguing based on facts and reason is basically useless against religious fundamentalists and socially conservative activists. They don't listen to facts and reason, because all they need is blind faith, unquestioned religious doctrine, and traditional culture.* The only thing we can do about religious fundamentalists and fanatics is not let them have their say in politics on social/cultural issues by not voting for them for office.

Second of all, religious fundamentalism (chiefly in Islam and Christianity, since those are the dominating religions in the world) is not the only reason why people are homophobic or anti-gay. Homophobia is quite broad, actually, and it spans to the irreligious and gay people themselves. Because the effects of homophobia are broad and diverse, the treatment to alleviate the problem may have to be diverse as well. Although at best the hatred of homosexuals would be removed altogether, this may not be possible; therefore, treatment is the key. To religious fundamentalists, they must know that they should separate church and state. They can hate all they want, silently, but they cannot voice out their hateful opinions openly, where the opinions can do harm or even make other individuals, especially non-theistic OR gullible individuals vote against gay marriage. To non-theists, they must be provided with facts and the gay rights activists' reasoning on why gay people should have equal rights, including gay marriage and attack the logical fallacies of the anti-gay movement. To gay people who are anti-gay, they may need psychological advice from a professional psychologist, or they may speak with openly gay people who are already comfortable with being themselves. I think one must understand that treating homophobia is no easy task, as homophobia can be exhibited by different groups.

*Tradition does not necessarily mean good. Traditions in a general sense are societal phenomena (cultural, personal or familial) that are passed on from generation to generation. When societal values change, or when people start valuing individual liberty over collective liberty, traditions change as well, and old traditions are ditched, because they are contrary to current values of democracy, personal liberty, and equality.
 
Page 15 of 17
Back to top