LGBT Relationships "Fake", According to Belarus

[Conserative Morality]

Not unless their denom is extremely liberal

Tell me more about how liberal Tolstoy was. =^)

[The Parkus Empire]

Not unless their denom is extremely liberal

Tell me more about how liberal Tolstoy was. =^)

I mean this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

And the answer is, EXTREMELY.

[Conserative Morality]

Tell me more about how liberal Tolstoy was. =^)

I mean this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

And the answer is, EXTREMELY.

You seem to change your definition of liberal often.

[Zanera]

I mean this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

And the answer is, EXTREMELY.

You seem to change your definition of liberal often.

He has a liberal definition of the word.

[The Parkus Empire]

I mean this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

And the answer is, EXTREMELY.

You seem to change your definition of liberal often.

Definition changes by context. Rejecting Paul is liberal theology. So is rejecting the Virgin Birth, etc. When someone says a denom is liberal, it means this, or at least being okay with that perspective. The adherents could be politically conservative, even, although that doesn't tend to correlate.

[Oil exporting People]

What are the alleged facts in this case?

That Belarus is talking out of it's posterior.

That's not alleged. It's the truth. Whether our more homophobic elements of society would prefer to admit it or not. I for one don't care to tiptoe around their inaccuracy.

That doesn't answer my question and the obvious response to your statement is just saying something as fact does not make it true, indeed it is far from it.

[Oil exporting People]

So how are those pictures/statues of Jesus you keep in your house doing? Have you done the proper Christian thing and gotten rid of them yet?

I thought the Byzantines killed all the Iconoclasts about 1,300 years ago?

It's not your place to judge others, period. You don't get that right.

Lmao, from what perspective secular or religious? Because you're wrong on both accounts.

Also, if you remember Jesus died so that the sins of his followers could be forgiven, for pretty much anything,

If they accept Christ and abstain from sin; he didn't die so you could go out and commit all manner of sin and still get into Heaven as literally any reading of the New Testament. Jesus himself even repeatedly laid out things that will send you to hell.

so yeah... your point are pretty moot either way you look at it.

About the only point you've made is that you're talking out of your ass.

[El Hamidah]

The main argument against homosexuality is "the book says". There don't seem to be any actual moral arguments against it beyond that.

[Oil exporting People]

The main argument against homosexuality is "the book says". There don't seem to be any actual moral arguments against it beyond that.

Given that morality can be derived from religion and that every society resides in a culture shape by religion, that's kinda of an odd claim to make. There's also plenty of other moral reasons to be made, of course.

[The Parkus Empire]

The main argument against homosexuality is "the book says". There don't seem to be any actual moral arguments against it beyond that.

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

[New haven america]

The main argument against homosexuality is "the book says". There don't seem to be any actual moral arguments against it beyond that.

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

Gee, a book made in the 80's made by a hardcore conservative traditionalist, yep, that's totally gonna change my mind.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

Gee, a book made in the 80's made by a hardcore conservative, yep, that's totally gonna change my mind.

It probably won't if you never read it.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.

Gee, a book made in the 80's made by a hardcore conservative, yep, that's totally gonna change my mind.

I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

[The Parkus Empire]

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.

Gee, a book made in the 80's made by a hardcore conservative, yep, that's totally gonna change my mind.

I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

[El Hamidah]

The main argument against homosexuality is "the book says". There don't seem to be any actual moral arguments against it beyond that.

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

His explanation has no basis in reality though.

The main argument against homosexuality is "the book says". There don't seem to be any actual moral arguments against it beyond that.

Given that morality can be derived from religion and that every society resides in a culture shape by religion, that's kinda of an odd claim to make. There's also plenty of other moral reasons to be made, of course.

Yes, it can. But I'm asking whats the actual moral argument against it?

[El Hamidah]

Gee, a book made in the 80's made by a hardcore conservative, yep, that's totally gonna change my mind.

It probably won't if you never read it.

I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

Why are libertarians defending it?

Are you guys actually so contrarian that you support this stuff now?

[New haven america]

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.



I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

Well he's obviously never actually talked to gay people about this subject.

[The Parkus Empire]

Sexual Desire, by Roger Scruton, explains why homosexuality is unethical

well, his explanation is that he thinks it's unethical because homosexuals don't recognize the personal existence of their partners and view it as a form of masturbation. so I think it's safe to say he doesn't know what he's talking about

That's not what he says. He says sexuality is about an intimate encounter with the Other, to become them, almost. And that since sexuality is sexuality, the Other is primarily defined in sexual terms. Without man and woman, there is no sexual Other.

[Dogmeat]

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.



I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

That's his rational? In that case 1000 cats must have been super transcendent. Lots of "sexual difference" there.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.



I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

That's the kind of wonky argumentation that'd get you laughed out of even NSG.

It's also seems to be a better argument for pursuing the weirdest, kinkiest and ethnically/religiously/gender diverse orgy that you can think of to maximise the net level of difference and thus self-transcendence.

[El Hamidah]

well, his explanation is that he thinks it's unethical because homosexuals don't recognize the personal existence of their partners and view it as a form of masturbation. so I think it's safe to say he doesn't know what he's talking about

That's not what he says. He says sexuality is about an intimate encounter with the Other, to become them, almost. And that since sexuality is sexuality, the Other is primarily defined in sexual terms. Without man and woman, there is no sexual Other.

Yeah but another male is someone other than yourself, so I still don't get it. Sounds pretty stupid.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

That's his rational? In that case 1000 cats must have been super transcendent. Lots of "sexual difference" there.

Sex is not about transcending one's humanity, though

[New haven america]

well, his explanation is that he thinks it's unethical because homosexuals don't recognize the personal existence of their partners and view it as a form of masturbation. so I think it's safe to say he doesn't know what he's talking about

That's not what he says. He says sexuality is about an intimate encounter with the Other, to become them, almost. And that since sexuality is sexuality, the Other is primarily defined in sexual terms. Without man and woman, there is no sexual Other.

Yes there is.

Where would you like to start? The fact that gay sex releases the same chemicals in the body as straight sex, or the fact that you don't need a vagina or penis to have sex. (I would post examples but I'm afriad the mods would get mad)

[The Parkus Empire]

That's not what he says. He says sexuality is about an intimate encounter with the Other, to become them, almost. And that since sexuality is sexuality, the Other is primarily defined in sexual terms. Without man and woman, there is no sexual Other.

Yeah but another male is someone other than yourself, so I still don't get it. Sounds pretty stupid.

Someone other than yourself, but not some *sex* other than yourself. Which Scruton sees as the defining Other when it comes to sex

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Why are libertarians defending it?[…]

I’m not a libertarian.

[…]Are you guys actually so contrarian that you support this stuff now?

I have yet to give my two cents, I’m only defending Roger Scruton’s work insofar that I’m questioning NHA’s dismissal of it.