Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Christianity and homophobia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162
  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Christianity and homophobia
    Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 12:17
Originally posted by Sidney


Azita- The homosexual act requires no artificial modifications to the body, so how is it unnatural? .


Is the "bum" designed for sex? yes or no?
I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'.
Back to Top
okamido View Drop Down
Consul
Consul

suspended, tit for tat

Joined: 15-Apr-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 302
  Quote okamido Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 15:59
Originally posted by Nick1986


Modern-day bigots like the Westboro Baptist Church advocate the persecution of gay people and blame them for the deaths of US soldiers. Christian homophobia seems to have ancient roots: the bible recommends punishing homosexuals with death, and Jesus (or St Paul) said gays couldn't enter heaven. Why were the ancient Jews and early Christians so hostile to gay people and fornicators? Was it out of desire to increase the population, or because premarital sex was thought to spread disease?
It's all a misunderstanding, Nick.
 
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 18:03
Originally posted by Azita


Originally posted by Sidney

Azita- The homosexual act requires no artificial modifications to the body, so how is it unnatural? .
Is the "bum" designed for sex? yes or no?


The bum is 'designed' for expelling waste matter from the body. But so is the penis. Serving a dual purpose is not unusual.   
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 19:27
Originally posted by okamido

Originally posted by Nick1986


Modern-day bigots like the Westboro Baptist Church advocate the persecution of gay people and blame them for the deaths of US soldiers. Christian homophobia seems to have ancient roots: the bible recommends punishing homosexuals with death, and Jesus (or St Paul) said gays couldn't enter heaven. Why were the ancient Jews and early Christians so hostile to gay people and fornicators? Was it out of desire to increase the population, or because premarital sex was thought to spread disease?
It's all a misunderstanding, Nick.
 

So that's why he cursed the fig tree in Mark 11: 12-25LOL
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873
  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 00:53
Originally posted by Baal Melqart



It is not a technical issue Nick. It is a moral issue. That's the same as the concept of decency which means that people don't walk around naked in the street... You could do it and you wouldn't technically harm anyone but it's deemed immoral.


Unless, of course, someone driving by saw you and started laughing so hard that they crashed and killed themselves.

Would that be considered "involuntary assault with a dead weapon"?  Tongue
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
  Quote Fula Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2013 at 13:58
Originally posted by Sidney

Originally posted by Baal Melqart


Originally posted by Azita

Simply from an anatomical biological perspective.Is not the homo sexual "act" unnatural?And as such against "gods" design.
It goes against the theory of evolution and natural selection... which are based on the capacity of species to survive through reproduction. Some species are naturally 'homosexual' such as seahorses and manatees but they are able to reproduce in this manner and survive.


Baal Melqart - Seahorses and manatees do not reproduce through same sex copulation. But regardless of that, how does homosexuality go against evolution? If humans have evolved to include it in their diversity, then it must be part of evolution, otherwise where does it come from? Not everything in life is expressly concentrated on the production of offspring (hypermobility, the appendix, hair colour, etc).

Azita- The homosexual act requires no artificial modifications to the body, so how is it unnatural? It is not done for the intention of producing children, so its failure to do so seems a pointless comment. If you mean that semen is wasted, then that means men who have sex with women but use a condom, or have sex with post-menopausal women, are performing a even more unnatural act, because the woman should 'naturally' get pregnant. Men having sex with men produces a 'natural' result - no children.

If I follow the above two posts' logic {sex is only natural/god's design if it leads to pregnancy), then rape is natural and okay as long as the victim gets pregnant.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults is no ones business to judge but their own.
 
You say homosexual acts between consenting adults is no ones business to judge but do you feel the same toward sexual sibling relations?
 
The reason we have advanced as a civilization is becuase we were able to provide checks and balances upon each other. In other words, we judged each other based on our idea of the ideal human future. This human future is founded on the idea that we were created for a purpose. 
 
This is why we were able to pass our "caveman" philosophy of "do what tho wilt" and advance toward "be mindful of your brother". By this decree we were bathed in civilization.
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2013 at 17:46
Sibling sexual relationship? Christianity is a development out of Judaism, the people of which believe God made a covenant with their ancestor Abraham, who had divinely sanctioned sex with his own sister Sarai. Sibling sexual relationships were sanctioned by God, long before you judged it. Intentional and unpunished incest existed among the early Hebraic mythological characters (Abram & Sarai, Nahor & Milcah, Amram & Jochebed, even Seth/Cain & their wives). But these are pre-Mosaic law, so I guess you'll ignore them.

As I said, its no ones business provided the individuals are consenting adults. You are the one who believes that judging (based upon a religious idea of why man exists) is necessary. Forcing other people to fit your own narrow concept of what the 'ideal human future' should be, is a frightening philosophy, and reminds me of recent genocides against perceived 'non-ideal humans'.

Consenting is not the same as 'do what tho wilt' - the latter would permit rape, theft and murder on the whim of individuals. Consenting does exactly mean 'be mindful of your brother' - ie your brother's permission is required and his willing participation and consent needed. Consensual sex is not 'caveman philosophy', but reflects a 'civilized' consideration of other people. Caveman philosophy would rather fit the 'you are different therefore you are wrong' mentality of homophobic arguments.

Sibling sexual relationships should they produce children runs the high risk of increased genetic problems. Homosexual acts are not engaged in with the desire to produce children (and anal sex between men and women has been a form of contraception for many generations). It is therefore on a slightly different footing. But personally, if it were consensual and the consequences understood and considered, then my philosophy would accept it.

Edited by Sidney - 12-Mar-2013 at 18:04
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
  Quote Fula Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Mar-2013 at 21:43
Originally posted by Sidney

Sibling sexual relationship? Christianity is a development out of Judaism, the people of which believe God made a covenant with their ancestor Abraham, who had divinely sanctioned sex with his own sister Sarai. Sibling sexual relationships were sanctioned by God, long before you judged it. Intentional and unpunished incest existed among the early Hebraic mythological characters (Abram & Sarai, Nahor & Milcah, Amram & Jochebed, even Seth/Cain & their wives). But these are pre-Mosaic law, so I guess you'll ignore them.

As I said, its no ones business provided the individuals are consenting adults. You are the one who believes that judging (based upon a religious idea of why man exists) is necessary. Forcing other people to fit your own narrow concept of what the 'ideal human future' should be, is a frightening philosophy, and reminds me of recent genocides against perceived 'non-ideal humans'.

Consenting is not the same as 'do what tho wilt' - the latter would permit rape, theft and murder on the whim of individuals. Consenting does exactly mean 'be mindful of your brother' - ie your brother's permission is required and his willing participation and consent needed. Consensual sex is not 'caveman philosophy', but reflects a 'civilized' consideration of other people. Caveman philosophy would rather fit the 'you are different therefore you are wrong' mentality of homophobic arguments.

Sibling sexual relationships should they produce children runs the high risk of increased genetic problems. Homosexual acts are not engaged in with the desire to produce children (and anal sex between men and women has been a form of contraception for many generations). It is therefore on a slightly different footing. But personally, if it were consensual and the consequences understood and considered, then my philosophy would accept it.


My religious affiliation is of little importance so mentioning Christian history to me means little to nothing. The question was do you approve of sibling relationships as they to can be consenting adults.

Yes, it becomes everyone's business when you try to incorporate your lifestyle into an established institution like marriage. In that sense, "be mindful of your brother".

The results of sibling relations have nothing to do with sex. Are you saying that sex is about reproduction? If not, then you cannot conjure up such reasoning. If yes, then you have just debunked your approval of Homosexual relations.

The problem is that your philosophy is centered around "self". I hope you realize that the Ideal Human Future, no matter its diversity, is heavily reliant upon heterosexual relationships
Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2013 at 18:01


Just as a side note, marrying your sister used to be acceptable in some ancient civilizations such as Egypt. Yet now we see it as something totally abhorring and repulsive and no one would even twitch his finger to prohibit this sort of marriage and I think that's for the best.

Same goes with homosexual marriage. Just because some people think it should be legalized doesn't necessarily mean we should... Or else think of all the pedophiles like NAMBLA pushing for pedophile marriage or brother-sister marriages. Why can we judge the latter with a free conscience but when it comes to homosexuals we have to do a double standard? Remember that pedophiles do have a genuine attraction to little boy/girls and it would kill them to not have a partner!



Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2013 at 18:31
Originally posted by Fula

My religious affiliation is of little importance so mentioning Christian history to me means little to nothing. The question was do you approve of sibling relationships as they to can be consenting adults.

Yes, it becomes everyone's business when you try to incorporate your lifestyle into an established institution like marriage. In that sense, "be mindful of your brother".

The results of sibling relations have nothing to do with sex. Are you saying that sex is about reproduction? If not, then you cannot conjure up such reasoning. If yes, then you have just debunked your approval of Homosexual relations.

The problem is that your philosophy is centered around "self". I hope you realize that the Ideal Human Future, no matter its diversity, is heavily reliant upon heterosexual relationships


The OP was referring to Christianity, I therefore incorporated it into my answer. If we both give little importance to our religious affiliations in this matter, then indeed it is irrelevant.

I don't understand your shift to marriage. The correlation is tenuous. Sex occurs frequently outside of matrimony, and many marriages can be without sex. I'm talking about sexual relations, not marriage.

I do not think that sex is just about reproduction, hence my feeling that sex between siblings need not be a taboo. Sex is desire, love, addiction, lust - but as I say, the consenting element is most important, coupled with a mature awareness of self determination (hence 'consenting' does not include coercion or a strong desire to please). My belief that sex is not just about reproduction is why I see sexual relations that don't produce offspring as not unnatural. I'm confused as to your position on this.

I agree that the absolute future of humanity is reliant on heterosexual relationships in order to produce succeeding generations. Those succeeding generations will be as diverse as we are now. But an 'Ideal Human Future' would be a subjective vision. I don't know what this notion involves for you, but for me it implies 'Ideal Humans' and raises the issue of eugenics, racial purity, and forced elimination of anyone not deemed 'ideal'. If you could elaborate your understanding of 'Ideal Human Future' I might be able to appreciate what your argument is supporting.
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2013 at 18:38
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

Or else think of all the pedophiles like NAMBLA pushing for pedophile marriage or brother-sister marriages. Why can we judge the latter with a free conscience but when it comes to homosexuals we have to do a double standard? Remember that pedophiles do have a genuine attraction to little boy/girls and it would kill them to not have a partner!


Because I'm talking about consensual adults. Pedophiles, by definition, are not interested in adults. Children are usually deemed too young to have self determination or awareness to make the judgement about whether they want to have sex or not. Homosexuals are two adults - there is no double standards involved.
Back to Top
Nick1986 View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Mighty Slayer of Trolls

Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
  Quote Nick1986 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2013 at 19:37
Originally posted by Baal Melqart



Just as a side note, marrying your sister used to be acceptable in some ancient civilizations such as Egypt. Yet now we see it as something totally abhorring and repulsive and no one would even twitch his finger to prohibit this sort of marriage and I think that's for the best.

Same goes with homosexual marriage. Just because some people think it should be legalized doesn't necessarily mean we should... Or else think of all the pedophiles like NAMBLA pushing for pedophile marriage or brother-sister marriages. Why can we judge the latter with a free conscience but when it comes to homosexuals we have to do a double standard? Remember that pedophiles do have a genuine attraction to little boy/girls and it would kill them to not have a partner!




Incest is still widely practised today. In arranged marriages it is common to marry one's cousin to safeguard the inheritance
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
Back to Top
Baal Melqart View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2011
Location: UK
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 869
  Quote Baal Melqart Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2013 at 22:27
Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Baal Melqart



Just as a side note, marrying your sister used to be acceptable in some ancient civilizations such as Egypt. Yet now we see it as something totally abhorring and repulsive and no one would even twitch his finger to prohibit this sort of marriage and I think that's for the best.

Same goes with homosexual marriage. Just because some people think it should be legalized doesn't necessarily mean we should... Or else think of all the pedophiles like NAMBLA pushing for pedophile marriage or brother-sister marriages. Why can we judge the latter with a free conscience but when it comes to homosexuals we have to do a double standard? Remember that pedophiles do have a genuine attraction to little boy/girls and it would kill them to not have a partner!




Incest is still widely practised today. In arranged marriages it is common to marry one's cousin to safeguard the inheritance



How is marrying one's cousin incest?


Timidi mater non flet
Back to Top
TITAN_ View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
  Quote TITAN_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2013 at 03:24
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

Originally posted by Nick1986

Originally posted by Baal Melqart



Just as a side note, marrying your sister used to be acceptable in some ancient civilizations such as Egypt. Yet now we see it as something totally abhorring and repulsive and no one would even twitch his finger to prohibit this sort of marriage and I think that's for the best.

Same goes with homosexual marriage. Just because some people think it should be legalized doesn't necessarily mean we should... Or else think of all the pedophiles like NAMBLA pushing for pedophile marriage or brother-sister marriages. Why can we judge the latter with a free conscience but when it comes to homosexuals we have to do a double standard? Remember that pedophiles do have a genuine attraction to little boy/girls and it would kill them to not have a partner!




Incest is still widely practised today. In arranged marriages it is common to marry one's cousin to safeguard the inheritance



How is marrying one's cousin incest?




It depends on what type of cousin we are talking about.... If it's about first cousins, then it sounds like incest to me. If it is a third cousin, the blood connection is really distant. 
αἰὲν ἀριστεύειν
Een aristevin
“Ever to Excel“
From Homer's Iliad (8th century BC).
Motto of the University of St Andrews (founded 1410), the Edinburgh Academy (founded 1824) and others.
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
  Quote Fula Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2013 at 11:51
[/QUOTE] The OP was referring to Christianity, I therefore incorporated it into my answer. If we both give little importance to our religious affiliations in this matter, then indeed it is irrelevant.

I don't understand your shift to marriage. The correlation is tenuous. Sex occurs frequently outside of matrimony, and many marriages can be without sex. I'm talking about sexual relations, not marriage.

I do not think that sex is just about reproduction, hence my feeling that sex between siblings need not be a taboo. Sex is desire, love, addiction, lust - but as I say, the consenting element is most important, coupled with a mature awareness of self determination (hence 'consenting' does not include coercion or a strong desire to please). My belief that sex is not just about reproduction is why I see sexual relations that don't produce offspring as not unnatural. I'm confused as to your position on this.

I agree that the absolute future of humanity is reliant on heterosexual relationships in order to produce succeeding generations. Those succeeding generations will be as diverse as we are now. But an 'Ideal Human Future' would be a subjective vision. I don't know what this notion involves for you, but for me it implies 'Ideal Humans' and raises the issue of eugenics, racial purity, and forced elimination of anyone not deemed 'ideal'. If you could elaborate your understanding of 'Ideal Human Future' I might be able to appreciate what your argument is supporting.
[/QUOTE]
 
Ok I will attempt to explain my "ideal Human future" theory. It has nothing to do with race, its more of an ideology. People of one mind and understanding. The belief that we are unique beings, set apart from all other species, with a responsibility to advance loving relationships. This does not exclude diversity of thought but this diversity most be in the context of the aforementioned foundation. This is romanticism at its finest, but I feel we should work toward this goal.
 
I made this shift into marriage becuase this is were it inevitably leads too. Why do we have this modern-day issue? Its becuase homosexuals have a growing desire to get married. Sex clearly wasnt enough for them. In this sense, "be mindful of your brother". Marriage is an established instituion. Whether it be one man multiple woman, one woman multiple men, Male and Female relatives etc. Its all in the context of Male and Female relationships.
 
Perhaps I took this to the next level too soon.


Edited by Fula - 14-Mar-2013 at 11:58
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Mar-2013 at 12:33
Originally posted by Fula

 

Ok I will attempt to explain my "ideal Human future" theory. It has nothing to do with race, its more of an ideology. People of one mind and understanding. The belief that we are unique beings, set apart from all other species, with a responsibility to advance loving relationships. This does not exclude diversity of thought but this diversity most be in the context of the aforementioned foundation. This is romanticism at its finest, but I feel we should work toward this goal.

 

I made this shift into marriage becuase this is were it inevitably leads too. Why do we have this modern-day issue? Its becuase homosexuals have a growing desire to get married. Sex clearly wasnt enough for them. In this sense, "be mindful of your brother". Marriage is an established instituion. Whether it be one man multiple woman, one woman multiple men, Male and Female relatives etc. Its all in the context of Male and Female relationships.

 

Perhaps I took this to the next level too soon.


Thank you. I understand a bit better what your "ideal human future" is about. Personally I don't agree that 'one mind and one understanding' is a particularly good ideal, but that's a discussion for a separate thread.

Sex does not inevitably lead to marriage (be it hetero or homosexual), and homosexuality has been a controversial issue for Christians long before the modern debate over homosexuals marrying. Basing what is acceptable upon what is traditional is stultifying for any human future, and there are/have been traditional institutions (eg. slavery, penal system, education, class system, etc) that might have been beneficial to certain sections of society, but were/are based on power and prejudice. Institutions change - the meaning of marriage today is not universal, nor has it been static across times or cultures. Marriage is about law, inheritance and possession. It does serve as a public declaration of a (hopefully) loving relationship (platonic or otherwise), but as a means to accessing or containing the occurrences of sex, it is not and has never been a very adequate method.

Edited by Sidney - 15-Mar-2013 at 12:43
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
  Quote Fula Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2013 at 10:32
Originally posted by Sidney

Originally posted by Fula

 

Ok I will attempt to explain my "ideal Human future" theory. It has nothing to do with race, its more of an ideology. People of one mind and understanding. The belief that we are unique beings, set apart from all other species, with a responsibility to advance loving relationships. This does not exclude diversity of thought but this diversity most be in the context of the aforementioned foundation. This is romanticism at its finest, but I feel we should work toward this goal.

 

I made this shift into marriage becuase this is were it inevitably leads too. Why do we have this modern-day issue? Its becuase homosexuals have a growing desire to get married. Sex clearly wasnt enough for them. In this sense, "be mindful of your brother". Marriage is an established instituion. Whether it be one man multiple woman, one woman multiple men, Male and Female relatives etc. Its all in the context of Male and Female relationships.

 

Perhaps I took this to the next level too soon.


Thank you. I understand a bit better what your "ideal human future" is about. Personally I don't agree that 'one mind and one understanding' is a particularly good ideal, but that's a discussion for a separate thread.

Sex does not inevitably lead to marriage (be it hetero or homosexual), and homosexuality has been a controversial issue for Christians long before the modern debate over homosexuals marrying. Basing what is acceptable upon what is traditional is stultifying for any human future, and there are/have been traditional institutions (eg. slavery, penal system, education, class system, etc) that might have been beneficial to certain sections of society, but were/are based on power and prejudice. Institutions change - the meaning of marriage today is not universal, nor has it been static across times or cultures. Marriage is about law, inheritance and possession. It does serve as a public declaration of a (hopefully) loving relationship (platonic or otherwise), but as a means to accessing or containing the occurrences of sex, it is not and has never been a very adequate method.
 
I was of the mind that homosexual relationships were not controversial at all in abrahamic religions. There was no debate as to its "sinfulness". It would help if you provided a source for this controversy that seems to me to be very modern in my book.
 
The issue is not about acceptance. Can I go and join an all Female choir....No, becuase I am a male. This doesnt mean my gender is unacceptable. I cannot join an all Female college becuase I am a Male. Is that discrimination? No, becuase it is a unique, established institution.
 
Yes Institutions do change but the main reason that they do is because they begin to incorporate dehumanizing practices. ex...slavery was not always dehumanizing.
 
Im not concerned about sexual homo relations. Thats between them. Im just saying that you cant try and legitimize your relationship by creating some pseudo-philosophy in order to participate in an already defined institution. Your right the meaning of marriage is not universal. However, in the United States, it is culturally, historically, and traditionally defined between man and woman.
 
My point:
You cant hunt rabbits on a pool table just because its green.
 
Explanation:
Just because there is an institution of marriage does not mean everybody has the right to get married
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2013 at 13:37
But you, as a man, could join an all female choir. It would cease to be all female, but it would still be a choir. In the same way, a homosexual marriage would still be a marriage, despite the change in genders.

And you certainly can argue for your legitimacy within an institution that excludes you. Have you not noticed female doctors and black baseball players? Not to mention black/female politicians and judges? I don't call their inclusion in an institution that excluded them in the past a dehumanizing practice. I feel the same about marriage.

Edited by Sidney - 19-Mar-2013 at 13:44
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
  Quote Fula Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2013 at 14:24
Originally posted by Sidney

But you, as a man, could join an all female choir. It would cease to be all female, but it would still be a choir. In the same way, a homosexual marriage would still be a marriage, despite the change in genders.

And you certainly can argue for your legitimacy within an institution that excludes you. Have you not noticed female doctors and black baseball players? Not to mention black/female politicians and judges? I don't call their inclusion in an institution that excluded them in the past a dehumanizing practice. I feel the same about marriage.
 
But Sidney can you see that If I were to join this Female choir it automatically loses its unique nature. It is no longer a special insitution set aside for a specific purpose.
 
The exclusion of female doctors and black players had a dehumanizing element. It alluded that they were inferiority. If i am not allowed to join an all female choir that does not mean im inferior. Homosexuals are not inferior because they cant get married. Their exclusion from marriage has nothing to do with their humanity or equality. Just like my exclusion from female clubs and or institutions have nothing to do with my humanity or equality.
Back to Top
Sidney View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 31-Jan-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 690
  Quote Sidney Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2013 at 14:44
I agree that your exclusion from an all female choir would not diminish your humanity or equality. But your exclusion from being in any choir whatsoever, just because of your gender, would. Homosexuals don't want to be in a heterosexual marriage - they want to be in a homosexual marriage. The genders involved would not alter the legal/symbolic/public status of a 'marriage'. If homosexuals are not allowed to marry, then what alternative to a marriage do you believe homosexuals can have that would give their relationships an equal meaning? Is marriage just about the genders involved, or is it about the relationship that exists?

Pleading for marriage as an institution that would become less 'special' if homosexuals were allowed in, is implying that homosexuals would demean or corrupt it. You might believe that homosexuals have equal humanity, but it reads as if you believe their relationships do not.

Edited by Sidney - 21-Mar-2013 at 14:52
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.