I'm against such laws on principle, that doesn't mean I wouldn't hold both LGBT and non-LGBT people to a higher standard of sexual morality than there is today.
Advertisement
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:56 am
by RiderSyl » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:58 am
United Muscovite Nations wrote:RiderSyl wrote:I mean, they're not entirely wrong. One man's idea of good is another man's idea of evil. I think philosophically dissecting morality is better suited for the thread currently talking about it, though.
It may be, but whether oppressing gays is wrong is a moral opinion, so if it's really just an opinion, we shouldn't be talking about forcing other societies to adopt our opinions, or talking about how oppression is bad.
by The New California Republic » Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:58 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:01 am
The New California Republic wrote:United Muscovite Nations wrote:I'm against such laws on principle, that doesn't mean I wouldn't hold both LGBT and non-LGBT people to a higher standard of sexual morality than there is today.
So, using me as an example, you wouldn't have a problem with an LGBT person that is in a monogamous relationship?
by Purgatio » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:05 am
Anantpura wrote:Andsed wrote:And where did I say that? An invasion is to much but sanctions and calling them out is a very good response. Also a nation that makes it legal to kill gays over some outdated religious bullshit is not one I would call innocent.
Religion is bullshit? Really?
Anyways, as I don't subscribe to an Abrahamic religion, I have a question. Why were these laws created they must have a reason right? I mean the writers of holy books obviously weren't foolish. That's why they are controversial.
by Purgatio » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:06 am
Anantpura wrote:Andsed wrote:Yes religious laws that state homosexuality is wrong is utter bullshit. And these laws were created by a society that was much more oppressive and had much more regressive ideas about homosexuality.
What's the reason? They wouldn't just write such laws for the evulz, right? It must have been the points I stated earlier.
by Vassenor » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:07 am
RiderSyl wrote:The Trump administration has clearly wanted to get into a war with Iran. This is just their ticket into one with European support.
Being used as an excuse to invade a country isn't a victory for the LGBT community. Let me know when this administration starts treating its own gay citizens with respect.
by Anantpura » Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:10 am
Purgatio wrote:You understand that idiotic laws exist all over the world, right? There are countries where marital rape is legal. Apartheid and racial segregation by law used to be a thing. Just because 'laws exist' doesn't automatically mean they make sense.
by Purgatio » Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:55 am
Anantpura wrote:Purgatio wrote:You understand that idiotic laws exist all over the world, right? There are countries where marital rape is legal. Apartheid and racial segregation by law used to be a thing. Just because 'laws exist' doesn't automatically mean they make sense.
I mean internally consistent reasons. Like, apartheid and racial segregation because it was "scientific" that different races are drastically different from each other.
by Anantpura » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:06 pm
Purgatio wrote:Anantpura wrote:I mean internally consistent reasons. Like, apartheid and racial segregation because it was "scientific" that different races are drastically different from each other.
Fine, so then can you finally admit there are no externally factually-accurate reasons for supporting sodomy laws
by Woodfiredpizzas » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:23 pm
Anantpura wrote:Purgatio wrote:
Fine, so then can you finally admit there are no externally factually-accurate reasons for supporting sodomy laws
Given that all my concerns have been debunked (except for the slippery slope argument), I have to admit that there are no factually correct reasons. I still do have my doubts, afterall, the writers of the Bible weren't foolish or evil.
by Anantpura » Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:28 pm
Woodfiredpizzas wrote:Anantpura wrote:Given that all my concerns have been debunked (except for the slippery slope argument), I have to admit that there are no factually correct reasons. I still do have my doubts, afterall, the writers of the Bible weren't foolish or evil.
Only when considered in their own time. It’s got some pretty shit content in there.
by The New California Republic » Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:22 am
by Western Vale Confederacy » Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:14 am
by Purgatio » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:13 am
by Purgatio » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:15 am
by Anantpura » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:51 am
Purgatio wrote:Anantpura wrote:So what made them think, at that time, that sodomy is bad?
You...get that we're talking about a time when people thought women shouldn't have the same rights as men, right? The Bible says all sorts of stuff, like how women shouldn't have leadership positions over men, shouldn't speak in Church (and if they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home), and the Old Testament actually says if a woman doesn't scream it's not really rape, and said woman should be stoned to death.
So...yeah, I really wouldn't run "but people in Biblical times believed it! there must be a sensible reason for it!" as a logical argument, if I were you.
by West Leas Oros 2 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:50 am
Yusseria wrote:Trump Derangement Syndrome is a funny thing.
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by The New California Republic » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:52 am
by United Muscovite Nations » Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:24 am
by Loben » Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:19 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Purgatio wrote:
Oh, and need I add that slavery existed in the Roman Empire at the time? Something people then generally didn't think was a big deal? (Paul even returned a slave to his owner in the Book of Philemon)
That story actually is meant to be understood that Paul convinced the slave owner to free his slave with rhetoric, for the record.
by Purgatio » Wed Mar 06, 2019 5:01 pm
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Purgatio wrote:
Oh, and need I add that slavery existed in the Roman Empire at the time? Something people then generally didn't think was a big deal? (Paul even returned a slave to his owner in the Book of Philemon)
That story actually is meant to be understood that Paul convinced the slave owner to free his slave with rhetoric, for the record.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bronzite, Of Memers, Transitional Global Authority
Advertisement