Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Celebrates Pride Festival With Rainbow Apple Watch Bands for Staff
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Wow this thread got deep and contentious over a bunch of rainbow watch bands. I'd hate to see the riot that would have ensued over rainbow tube socks.
What about the middle eastern lifestyle of having sex with underage boys?
I think the notion that those kinds of lifestyles being incorrect completely makes sense. That kind of kills your argument about what makes sense. Now you have to ask, what moral standard do we apply to determine that this lifestyle is wrong, and what moral standard do some in the discussion apply to determine that homosexuality is wrong?
If you think on that, you'll see why both sides can make sense and it comes down to an opinion (which you said it isnt) between two sides that hold different values of what is acceptable or moral sexual behavior.
[doublepost=1467063077][/doublepost]
Sure, next time you are alone, sincerely ask him to show you who he is and if he is really there. Don't do it for anyone else other than yourself in order to learn the truth.
If you get the knock and you don't want to answer, that's your choice, but the truth is really easy to find.
Even the Bible itself says that people will twist its words to hear what they want to hear. What people do with the Bible does not make what it's saying invalid.
If I decided to use natural selection to oppress other races, does that discount the concept? Because that is exactly what Adolf Hitler and his followers chose to believe.
If you think the Bible is vague you really haven't read it, or perhaps you've read it while dismissing it as fairy tale and such from the beginning, which will not allow you to accept ANYTHING it says.
For me, again, for me, the issue in question is obvious:
Sexual intercourse, while more fun than just about anything else, is primarily focused on procreation. That is the primary intended purpose by design: make it fun so people will procreate and further the species.
The equipment is designed for such purpose (sperm-male + egg-female).
It's operation furthers this: the male organ (and orgasm) is a delivery mechanism. The female organs (and orgasm) are a recipient mechanism. The female orgasm dips the cervix into the male ejaculate, improving the chances of conception.
The drive to find the opposite sex to continue the intended process is a part of and an integral component of the design. I thus believe that this component is damaged in homosexual individuals (by birth or otherwise), much the same as more universally accepted ones like bi-polar disorder, dwarfism, or down-syndrome.
I also believe that the simple observation of all four (reproductive) systems (physical-male, physical-female, mental-male, mental-female) gives EVIDENCE of the moral concept spoken of in the Bible.
However, the Bible calls to treating individuals with compassion, much like we should with those suffering from the above physical/mental issues.
All that said, whether or not you should use the system in a different way than intended, just because you can, is where this debate lies: Much like tying extension cords together to be used as rope. You can do it, but we should not be saying that it's ok do do so.
Perhaps "girly" men should marry "manly" women, and limit the role-reversal to the bedroom (with marital devices)? Or every homosexual be allowed to become fully transgendered and seek heterosexual coupling (in their new role)?
Again, I don't know the answers to all questions, but I certainly can come up with some...
123
[doublepost=1467063394][/doublepost]
Please point me to the research that proves all people claiming to be gay (or a fairy) are born that way?!? Race is very different to sexuality!
[doublepost=1467063510][/doublepost]
Or a rainbow that's been in the sky since the Big Bang.
[doublepost=1467063394][/doublepost]
Please point me to the research that proves all people claiming to be gay (or a fairy) are born that way?!? Race is very different to sexuality!
[doublepost=1467063510][/doublepost]
Or a rainbow that's been in the sky since the Big Bang.
No I didn't. I used it as an example of a particular behaviour being justified because an individual is "born with it".
Let's not derail the conversation because you did not understand the point I was making or you sit on the opposite side.
That's not the only opinion possible, is it? Another person's lifestyle can be one you find distasteful, immoral, unhealthy, unnatural, etc. Those are valid opinions because they don't require anything but emotions to back them up.
And now that I think about it a little more, feeling that someone's lifestyle is wrong or "incorrect" is a valid opinion.
I did not call him a terrorist, so don't even try that one.
I'm not being hateful. You just don't want to acknowledge the fact that the homophobia you spew (and it is homophobia, you do not get to say what is or isn't homophobia because you are not LGBT+) contributes to the hate and marginalisation and oppression on LGBT+ people.
From your position of privilege, you have limited perspective clouded by your mythological beliefs.
For the record, I'm not a sinner. Such artificial concepts do not apply to me. I'm perfect, in case you didn't know.
Your immoderate, intolerant language is directly responsible for more anti-LGBT opinions.
Why don't you live and let live? Try getting people to change by being loving and compassionate as the Obama administration preaches.
Girl, this isn't a discussion. This isn't something we are going to compromise over.
You do not get to decide on our equality and freedom by a vote. Frankly, even the suggestion of a vote is disgusting. We decide for ourselves. We affect nobody else so wind your neck in. We don't want to be left alone, we don't want tolerance, we demand acceptance and we will not stop until we get it. We will not shut up, we will not stop. We are not changing, so if you have a problem with that you can change yourself. Got it?
As I stated before, I cannot speak for other situations or doctrine.
My arguments are very specific: Biblical (as in the Judeo-Christian Bible) principles as they relate specifically to homosexual behaviour in (mostly) the form of Biblical quotes.
There is nothing "straw-man" about it. I'm focused on what the Bible says regarding the issue.
The external examples are given as a way to counter specific (although mostly implied) argument that being born a certain way ( in this case, gay) makes it acceptable to be this way, and that consent is also a gateway to acceptability.
Tim seems preoccupied with taking every opportunity to tell the world how tolerant 'the new Apple' is. While that's debatably commendable, from Tim & Co, I'd rather hear about the latest processors, the most secure encryption technologies and the fastest storage modules employed in the newest crop of devices. Duh.....
Which color is for straights?
What happened to unity instead of glorifying segregation? Or do people only do either out of selfish convenience rather than actual compromise and tolerance?
What happened to unity instead of glorifying segregation? Or do people only do either out of selfish convenience rather than actual compromise and tolerance?
Orientation is fluid. Most who hide behind active discrimination usually feel ashamed of their own attractions. Plus, one cannot see an orientation the way one sees skin color. Makes things a little more complicated. Doesn't matter if one is T,B,G,L,Q,A,Q,S,P,H,H, or any other letter in the acronym that changes itself every decade for no reason...
Look to Tolkien for the answer:
“For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!'
I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.
I liked white better,' I said.
White!' he sneered. 'It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.'
In which case it is no longer white,' said I. 'And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.' - Gandalf”
I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not so, but were woven of all colours, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye was bewildered.
I liked white better,' I said.
White!' he sneered. 'It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken.'
In which case it is no longer white,' said I. 'And he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.' - Gandalf”
And the only way to really understand the books is to live in the time in which they were written, since miscommunication had to be in the original texts if all the translations can't be bothered to show the same verbiage in each. Which was nothing like the 20th or 21st centuries. Some tenets remain true, obviously. Others don't, obviously. Some tenets I agree with, others I don't. Heck, even evangelists openly disagree on a few and perceive different meanings, far more out there than any translation up to now could ever begin to try to say with a straight face, pardon the pun.
The Bible isn't the only religion, not every religion is perfect, every religion contradicts itself, and if everyone lived the Bible the way the Bible says to, the human race would be extinct. Replace "Bible" with "Quran", or any other Book. Same difference.
Really? The end of African American slavery was decided by vote. The right for women to vote was decided by vote. So your 'cause' is somehow held above those?
You already have tolerance, and certainly have acceptance (where it actually impacts your life).
But your post sounds like you'd rather have war than to talk it out. Be careful what you wish for. What's next, you'll make me agree with you? It's attitude like that which can cause murderous individuals to take matters into violent hands.
I admit this country is at a crossroads, and perhaps war is what it'll take. I most certainly hope not.
Perhaps it's time to hop into another Mayflower where I and mine can live in accordance with God's principles without resorting to violence to establish such a place.
Sounds like a great idea.
Consent is not what makes it acceptable. It's just something that differentiates it from the non-consensual examples you gave, and is part of makes them invalid as analogies.
What makes them (pedophilia, bestiality, murderous psychosis) a straw man is that they don't represent a likely next step in the arc of history.
So you say...
[doublepost=1467065993][/doublepost]
You're focused on the examples and not the point: The argument was made to imply that consent led to justification in the context of homosexuality. I countered that with extreme, yet plausible examples that consent itself is not a justifier in itself.
But if you need a factual one, how about that of Dr Kevorkian? Does consent make what he did acceptable?
I don't think you understand what morality is. Look it up.
There's the "hate" again. You and the Orlando shooter are no different. Resorting to hatred and anger because someone disagrees with you. Take it easy.
I'm not telling anyone to justify anything. I'm merely offering a counter when they do, and its reasons.
But hey, its easy to be tough on the internet. People don't expect some one to track them down.
- Status