Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Oct 6, 2015 21:41:09 GMT 5
I fail to see why some of you think that homosexuality=beasteality and incest. They are dramatically different, the latter two have truly never been fully accepted and while homosexuality isnt and wasn't accepted completely there is a major difference, one is intercourse or love of the same sex while the other two are live and intercourse with the same family or different species all together. Most people don't and may never accept incest and beasteality. One does not, lead to another.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 6, 2015 23:26:13 GMT 5
The proposal to return to the "moral values" people had 50 years ago seems far more worrying to me than what moral values 50 years from now might be like based on current developments.
No matter how I look at it, things seem to have improved significantly since the times when people let their moral values get dictated by religions. At least we aren’t burning witches any more in those "liberal" "western" countries. Certainly a positive development that was linked to liberal world views gaining ground, while religion was the very thing holding back scientific and societal progress. I am not saying religion is necessarily a bad thing, but that doesn’t mean it automatically leads to a better world either. Both great and terrible things have been done out of religious motivation.
Some decades ago, there were countries in central Europe that hadn’t yet introduced women’s suffrage. Something like an inter-racial marriage (a fitting example creature used earlier) would also have been considered a taboo in the middle of the last century. We have seen a significant improvement in freedom, equality and tolerance since then (as well as since the era of enlightenment generally) as a result of the very liberal tendencies some people frown upon. The results have been overwhelmingly positive. And I’d like to see it continued.
And certainly "some decades ago" wasn’t that golden age when everything was better that some people seem to think it was.
What the heck is immoral about homosexuality? Unlike bestiality or incest, it doesn’t cause any harm to anyone. And yes, that is an important difference. That was a remarkably stupid comparison to begin with.
I also recall the case of a certain well known German politician whose argument for not legalizing it was something along the lines of "I personally don’t like it"…
Are people planning on continuing to bring such ridiculous arguments against homosexual marriage?
No matter what you think about the importance of marriage; if you don’t care much about it, you shouldn’t care much anyway about who is allowed to marry, and if you do care you should understand that for some people it is important and nobody should be excluded from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 6, 2015 23:45:28 GMT 5
LifeAlright, I see that there are some misconceptions to which I may need to respond. 1. You say that borders are getting pushed if "progress" is being allowed. "Progress" can undo whatever it does when it turns out to be bad. When setting up moral taboos, it is of course easier to keep what is "good", but one risks to have something "bad" which cannot possibly be improved. The abolishment of theocracy or absolutist monarchies were undoubtably liberal accomplishments and most people nowadays are fine with them, including conservatives. 2. Religious values is far too broad (are you referring to the Abrahamic ones in particular?). Incest is not as taboo across all religions as you may think, for example the Greek creation myth has gods having intercourse with their parents or siblings. One could add that there is also some non-villified incest in Genesis, but I think this is rather irrelevant here, as Genesis is nowadays not the moral base number one for Christians and Jews (except for Ken Ham and his friends lol ). 3. There is a false dichotomy between religious progress and Stone Age. Using the definition agreed upon in my thread ( theworldofanimals.proboards.com/thread/810/definition-religion?page=1 ), the caveman practices of singing around a campfire for the afterlife of their dead (a bit oversimplified, I have no ideas of Stone Age traditions lol) can already be easily defined as a religion. 4. Liberalism vs religion is another false dichotomy. I can show you Christians who advocate gay marriage if necessary. 5. Fearing that the future generations will be degenerate has been a common practice since Ancient Greece, yet we are still here. Besides, how do you think would the theocrats and monarchists some centuries ago have imagined the future and do you think it would have been realistic? 6. Religion does not prevent shifts in morals. If you compare a Christian today (even a fundamentalist!) with a Christian like 500-1,000 years ago and you will see significant differences. EDIT: Too slow, I am not a fan of these "Everyone vs X" discussions. 
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Oct 7, 2015 6:49:29 GMT 5
Saying the legalization of homosexuality will lead to incest and beasteality is like saying the legalization of marijuana(which is already happening.) will lead to the legalization of cocaine every Wednesday in public just cause they want to. See what is wrong with your notion? You can not jump to drastic conclusions based on one move.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Oct 7, 2015 11:39:25 GMT 5
It's the slippery slope argument, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Oct 8, 2015 8:05:22 GMT 5
^Agreed. This notion that gay marriage and sex outside of marriage becoming normal leads this destruction of morality, and will eventually lead to humans returning to their primal animalistic selves, clearly is. Society is constantly changing to accept or reject certain behaviors. As generations push the boundaries of societal norms, morals will be redefined accordingly. Values do indeed change with the era. As already mentioned, interracial marriage has once been considered taboo. Don't you think people would have argued about how it's a destruction of moral values? If an idea that is backed by convincing arguments is accepted, I would consider that progress. No argument here has presented the reason why the legalization of this particular behavior (homosexual marriage) represents a destruction of morality. Except for religious ones, I suppose (it contradicts the morality of certain religious dogma).
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 16, 2015 14:50:32 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Oct 16, 2015 15:38:28 GMT 5
Is it the fact that it's gay sex or is it the fact that it's unprotected sex? Why don't we ask Africa a continent where homosexuality is often demonized and repressed? What's that Africa? You have somewhere in the ball park of the top 20 most HIV prevelent nations on the planet? Ask yourself life are those ridiculously high HIV rates caused by rampant homosexuality or rampant neglect of safe sex? I'll give you a hint, no one in Africa is punished with death for not using a condom. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Oct 16, 2015 17:14:56 GMT 5
Well, I do not want to fall into your back, as I am on the pro gay marriage side, but couldnt we say the same for incest?
Excluding any mental health issues now.
And for the record, I am deeply against incest legalisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 16, 2015 18:38:01 GMT 5
Just saying, incest legalisation has been quietly but surely been promoted in my country recently, right after the gay marriage legalisation two years ago, and by who ? Liberal (both economically and societally) left-wing authorities. It's not being against homosexual people to ask what is the next step of that kind of societal progress ? It's a pretty legit question, what will be the norm of our Western nations in 50 years, in the name of the liberty and tolerance ? The fact is that liberals, even if they don't admit it for most, believe liberal ideas have to be limitless. And a society without limits can become anything.
Regarding the gay marriage itself, I'm not particularly religious but I consider the term itself of gay marriage is nonsense since marriage is the definition of the union of the gender difference. I was rather for an improved Civil solidarity pact for gay people rather than the marriage.
I think the fact that most sciency geeks are rather pro-gay marriage is more due to the problems they have with creationists and religious geeks in the USA and less commonly in Europe than because of a true political opinion about that. Personnally, at the best, I don't see this as any kind of progress, it's totally irrelevant to the real issues we can have in our countries. Gay people are a small fraction of our populations and the majority of them absolutely didn't care about this question. So why is it so important to pose this subject now ? That's a more interesting question than the debate itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Oct 17, 2015 0:38:34 GMT 5
Just saying, incest legalisation has been quietly but surely been promoted in my country recently, right after the gay marriage legalisation two years ago, and by who ? Liberal (both economically and societally) left-wing authorities. It's not being against homosexual people to ask what is the next step of that kind of societal progress ? It's a pretty legit question, what will be the norm of our Western nations in 50 years, in the name of the liberty and tolerance ? The fact is that liberals, even if they don't admit it for most, believe liberal ideas have to be limitless. And a society without limits can become anything. Regarding the gay marriage itself, I'm not particularly religious but I consider the term itself of gay marriage is nonsense since marriage is the definition of the union of the gender difference. I was rather for an improved Civil solidarity pact for gay people rather than the marriage. I think the fact that most sciency geeks are rather pro-gay marriage is more due to the problems they have with creationists and religious geeks in the USA and less commonly in Europe than because of a true political opinion about that. Personnally, at the best, I don't see this as any kind of progress, it's totally irrelevant to the real issues we can have in our countries. Gay people are a small fraction of our populations and the majority of them absolutely didn't care about this question. So why is it so important to pose this subject now ? That's a more interesting question than the debate itself. Gay marriage has been legal in my country for a decade and no one promotes legalizing incest, perhaps the moral degradation has less to do with legal movements and more to do with your country. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 17, 2015 1:45:20 GMT 5
VodmeisterIn case you have no problem with it, I changed the title because it doesn't have a lot to do with statistics anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by mechafire on Oct 17, 2015 12:14:36 GMT 5
Since the first part has basically been addressed, I feel like responding to your last statement. I'm sure anyone who supports the concept of a society would agree with you that something which hurts society is bad. You have claimed that homosexuality, incest,sex out of wedlock, etc. is an erosion of society's precious moral fabric which is detrimental towards a society's well-being. You say such behaviors "push the boundaries". The only boundaries you have established are purely socially-ingrained. The only moral fabric you have created consists of values drilled into you by society and lacks any argument towards the validity of those values. Of course any breaking of such values would be an erosion (or redefining) of this moral fabric, but until you explain why your moral fabric is so valid to begin with there is no reason to think that defying it is wrong. You say legalizing homosexuality is wrong, literally because it redefines what is accepted by people of what is right or wrong (socially-ingrained moral fabric). That's not reasoning, that's just being pissed off at someone's habits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 1:05:08 GMT 5
I support gay marriage, but do not encourage any form of marriage at all. Why marry? Why not just stay together? Marriage is basically just an easy way for you to get rich without ever doing anything, divorces feel like endless suffering. I don't see any reason for marriage really.
|
|
Cross
Junior Member
The biggest geek this side of the galaxy. Avatar is Dakotaraptor steini from Saurian.
Posts: 266
|
Post by Cross on Feb 13, 2016 19:59:30 GMT 5
I support gay marriage, but do not encourage any form of marriage at all. Why marry? Why not just stay together? Marriage is basically just an easy way for you to get rich without ever doing anything, divorces feel like endless suffering. I don't see any reason for marriage really. Because stable families wouldn't exist without marriage. I.E If you are not legally bound to your partner even after you have children together, then this could end up with either of the parents simply abandoning the children. The children being forced to live without a mother and/or father. Then the single parent will be forced to financially and legally support the entire brood on their own which usually never goes well, particularly in families that are financially insufficient. Plus, humans are th only organisms that depend heavily on social behavior and intelligence to survive. Being able to survive in human society usually requires a stable family. |
|
