About what I expected.
Happy Pride Month Religion board
11,987 Views |
121 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by Leonard H. Stringfield
Oh come on, you know this...Sapper Redux said:
About what I expected.
And that is history, the current fad of "grooming" kids is seeking justification.
kurt vonnegut said:Rongagin71 said:
I might agree with you if I knew what you define as "homosexuality".
There are some who include things like pedophilia in homosexuality.
I do NOT consider pedophilia as a part of homosexuality.
edit: I do not consider pedophilia as any more a part of homosexuality than I consider it a part of heterosexuality. That is to say, both can be pedophiles. Maybe you could say pedophilia is a small subset of both heterosexuals or homosexuals, but I see no reason to assign it only to one. And I reject any argument for moral equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
I know what? Pederasty in Ancient Greece has nothing to do with homosexuality as it is being discussed today. Their relationships were explicitly about power dynamics and an impressive level of misogyny, even for the ancient world. Hell, Plato himself stated the most true form of Eros would be between two men of equal age, and if men could bear children, women could be done away with. But since they couldn't, women were married away as pre-teens to men in their 30s and became property of their husbands. So this was not just about sex with boys. This was about power, and men were seen as the seat of all power and reason.
Serviam said:kurt vonnegut said:Rongagin71 said:
I might agree with you if I knew what you define as "homosexuality".
There are some who include things like pedophilia in homosexuality.
I do NOT consider pedophilia as a part of homosexuality.
edit: I do not consider pedophilia as any more a part of homosexuality than I consider it a part of heterosexuality. That is to say, both can be pedophiles. Maybe you could say pedophilia is a small subset of both heterosexuals or homosexuals, but I see no reason to assign it only to one. And I reject any argument for moral equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality.
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
"The smell test" is little more than you not liking something and assuming the worst about it.
Serviam said:
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
This doesn't make sense. . . . Someone who rejects one social norm must inevitably reject ALL of them?
kurt vonnegut said:Serviam said:
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
This doesn't make sense. . . . Someone who rejects one social norm must inevitably reject ALL of them?
Change "must inevitably" and "all" to "more likely to" and "some"
Humans do love to rationalize forming power groups (tribes)
and often use their own definitions of words as part of that process.
and often use their own definitions of words as part of that process.
Serviam said:kurt vonnegut said:Serviam said:
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
This doesn't make sense. . . . Someone who rejects one social norm must inevitably reject ALL of them?
Change "must inevitably" and "all" to "more likely to" and "some"
In that case, I think I agree.
But, I don't think this has to be a bad thing. Societal norms are questioned and do change all the time - and it doesn't always lead to societal collapse. Imagine if no one ever questioned the norm of slavery or women's rights. Even within Christianity, norms change. Masses are not held in only Latin, texts and understanding is widely accessible, women are permitted to attend and participate, indulgences fell out of favor. Many Christians see these as positive, no?
kurt vonnegut said:Serviam said:kurt vonnegut said:Serviam said:
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
This doesn't make sense. . . . Someone who rejects one social norm must inevitably reject ALL of them?
Change "must inevitably" and "all" to "more likely to" and "some"
In that case, I think I agree.
But, I don't think this has to be a bad thing. Societal norms are questioned and do change all the time - and it doesn't always lead to societal collapse. Imagine if no one ever questioned the norm of slavery or women's rights. Even within Christianity, norms change. Masses are not held in only Latin, texts and understanding is widely accessible, women are permitted to attend and participate, indulgences fell out of favor. Many Christians see these as positive, no?
Sure, but in this context it means they're more likely to transgress social mores regarding age appropriate sex.
I predict that if the Socialist Movement ever does take over the world and become the one, all powerful ruling party, that slavery will be brought back - mainly to serve women.kurt vonnegut said:Serviam said:kurt vonnegut said:Serviam said:
I'm not going to tell you what to believe but it doesn't stand the smell test. A transgressive outlook on sexuality that says that sexual mores and norms are oppressive and antiquated artifacts of Puritanism will act out against any and all norms of behavior and not just one.
This doesn't make sense. . . . Someone who rejects one social norm must inevitably reject ALL of them?
Change "must inevitably" and "all" to "more likely to" and "some"
In that case, I think I agree.
But, I don't think this has to be a bad thing. Societal norms are questioned and do change all the time - and it doesn't always lead to societal collapse. Imagine if no one ever questioned the norm of slavery or women's rights. Even within Christianity, norms change. Masses are not held in only Latin, texts and understanding is widely accessible, women are permitted to attend and participate, indulgences fell out of favor. Many Christians see these as positive, no?
This sounds more like a kink than a prediction.
Who knows what the future might bring?
Especially if the population is 90% female
or maybe I should say 90% partly females...?
Especially if the population is 90% female
or maybe I should say 90% partly females...?
Serviam said:kurt vonnegut said:
In that case, I think I agree.
But, I don't think this has to be a bad thing. Societal norms are questioned and do change all the time - and it doesn't always lead to societal collapse. Imagine if no one ever questioned the norm of slavery or women's rights. Even within Christianity, norms change. Masses are not held in only Latin, texts and understanding is widely accessible, women are permitted to attend and participate, indulgences fell out of favor. Many Christians see these as positive, no?
Sure, but in this context it means they're more likely to transgress social mores regarding age appropriate sex.
First, I would argue that the societal 'rules' that are in question with whether or not to allow normalization of homosexuality has nothing directly to do with the 'rules' protecting children from sexual abuse. The slippery slope fallacy is so named because there often isn't a direct line between one action and the feared 'next action'. Permission for consulting adults to decide who to engage with has nothing to do with protections for children against sexual abuse. The barriers and safeguards in place are different. And I think it worth pointing out that the slippery slope always can be described both ways. . . .for example:
If we are to prohibit same sex relationships based on religious opinion, then what is next? Outlawing sex for pleasure, premarital sex, oral sex, choosing our own partners? And before you know it, we've handed over all of our personal sexual freedom and government / society dictates who we are allowed to mate with, when, and in what positions.
Of course I don't believe that will happen. But, I wonder why Conservatives don't have any fear about handing over certain freedoms. Aren't Conservatives supposed to oppose big government and be in favor of personal freedoms? And what could be more personal than what what goes on in the privacy of our own homes between consulting adults?
Slippery slope arguments are not new. And any social change is always met with fear and 'what ifs'. Some of that fear is founded and some of it is not, in my opinion. The alternative to not being willing to question norms is blind acceptance of existing norms.
Posted this earlier but that thread got deleted so posting it
here without any comment...
https://pridepalace.lgbt/collections/flags?tw_source=google&tw_adid=702105877168&tw_campaign=21378627100&gclid=CjwKCAjwy8i0BhAkEiwAdFaeGGw2Cq59MWkjrwS0xFdYhKMQxvVxfqHqYAyilSuhFv1MKceYl6vfRhoC8fgQAvD_BwE
here without any comment...
https://pridepalace.lgbt/collections/flags?tw_source=google&tw_adid=702105877168&tw_campaign=21378627100&gclid=CjwKCAjwy8i0BhAkEiwAdFaeGGw2Cq59MWkjrwS0xFdYhKMQxvVxfqHqYAyilSuhFv1MKceYl6vfRhoC8fgQAvD_BwE
Sapper Redux said:Catag94 said:
You think the destruction of S&G was about breaking the laws of hospitality?
Ezekiel is pretty clear about that. That was the dominant interpretation for centuries, including in the Talmud, which was not pro-queer in the least. And to imagine that an entire city is gay and their gayness is what leads to the destruction is a pretty dumb reading of the text.
There was that whole part where they tried to have sex with the angels, and given God had just flooded the earth to rid it of that evil blood line I assume he does not tolerate it.
It wasn't a loving god that took the lives in the 2 cities, including the innocent children.
"Roswell, 1947, there was a uap (ufo) that crashed, in fact there were 2 uaps, 1 crashed and one flew away and the other one did not and was recovered by the US GOVERNMENT."
- Lue Elizondo-former director of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program-August 20, 2024
Are A&M's core values..optional? Who has the POWER to determine that? Are certain departments exempt? Why?
Farsight Institute, Atlanta, GA
- Lue Elizondo-former director of the Pentagon's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program-August 20, 2024
Are A&M's core values..optional? Who has the POWER to determine that? Are certain departments exempt? Why?
Farsight Institute, Atlanta, GA
Featured Stories
See All
34:50
5h ago
1.5k
The TexAgs Tailgate: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Richard Zane
A&M at risk of undercut when undertaking trip to underrated Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
48:02
1d ago
4.4k
5:59
1d ago
2.4k