US Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Dre89]

The argument wasn't supposed to show why homosexuality is wrong, just that if it is deemed wrong, it is a reasonable request to ask for it's surpression. I never said the fact it can be surpressed is what makes it wrong.

I made that point because people say"you're terrible, you're asking gays to surpress their sexuality" as if the strain it puts on gays to surpress somehow makes homosexuality morally permissible, or wrong to request its surpression.

I'm saying that's a bad argument because we demand surpression of other sexualities we deem wrong. Seeing as many of these people successfully surpress theirs, if we were to deem homosexuality wrong, it would not be unreasonable to request surpression. But again, I never said the fact it could be surpressed is what makes it wrong.

 

[Luigitoilet]

 

[Crimson King]

Kind of random, but to everyone in this thread/site who has defended LGBT rights online or in person, just wanted to say I'm touched (in a non-perverse way), and your efforts are appreciated. Fight the good fight, homies.

I have no idea how out you are in life, but I've spoken to people who were out only online or people in life who were afraid to come out until a relative died because they'd be upset. One friend finally said "Screw it," and brought his boyfriend (who is pretty awesome, and as my wife and the friend said, a lot like me) to Thanksgiving. When they arrived, his grandmother stopped in mid-conversation, got up, and left. That's enough for me to say no one would ever choose to live like that.

Yeah but CK hates everyone.

Actually, the inverse. I lose interest quickly, so I typically stop being annoyed/mad/upset/whatever after a day. Beyond that, it's a waste of my time. For example, I don't hate Dre until he says something to piss me off for that day. Hating people all the time is time-consuming, and I have other things to do.

 

[bertbusdriver]

my congratulations to all of our fellow smashers who are LGBT. You guys have my support to do whatever the heck you want to do.

Of course we wouldn't want gay people to be sexually harassing people in our armed forces. But we don't want straight people to be sexually harassing people in our armed forces either, and that still happens; I don't have any reason to believe that gays are more likely to be guilty of sexual harassment than straights.

 

[deepseadiva]

So.

In the end.

There is no argument against homosexuality outside of Dre's construct.

Well then.

Predictions on when marriage is gonna happen?

 

[Evil Eye]

So I guess Merkuri's definition of "utter stupidity" is "logic that kicks my *** right into an implosion because I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll slink away now that Dre has said stuff and can be my escape ticket."

Cool beans.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Well Merkuri did get singled out by LT.

Dam is LT scary when he is in a bad mood .

 

[Merkuri]

I think similar to what dre is feeling I left this debate because people kept attacking points that I wasn't trying to make, I wasn't making some all encompassing argument against homosexuality but that's how everyone inferred it, and responded accordingly. It's like a whole bunch of straw-men arguments directed and me and it's annoying, w/e though I didn't come back here to complain.

Anyways some gays got singled out at my church meeting this week, and I thought that was a great rational argument against homosexuality. Open gays should attend traditional churches because the bible and the Christian doctrine preach against homosexuality. I think that is kind of a difficult argument to misconstrue.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Anyways some gays got singled out at my church meeting this week, and I thought that was a great rational argument against homosexuality. Open gays should attend traditional churches because the bible and the Christian doctrine preach against homosexuality. I think that is kind of a difficult argument to misconstrue.

What exactly are you saying here? Not being snide, I really don't understand what you mean by

"some gays got singled out at my church meeting this week, and I thought that was a great rational argument against homosexuality."?

 

[Shadic]

Anyways some gays got singled out at my church meeting this week, and I thought that was a great rational argument against homosexuality. Open gays should attend traditional churches because the bible and the Christian doctrine preach against homosexuality. I think that is kind of a difficult argument to misconstrue.

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material.

They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination.

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

Mmmm selective reading. Like this video. (Jump to 1:40.)

 

[DTP]

Oh look! 10 new pages since I last checked!
But do I really want to read them??

Hmm...........

 

[Merkuri]

What exactly are you saying here? Not being snide, I really don't understand what you mean by

"some gays got singled out at my church meeting this week, and I thought that was a great rational argument against homosexuality."?

Um...continue to read the rest of the post.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Um...continue to read the rest of the post.

sorry but this:

" Open gays should attend traditional churches because the bible and the Christian doctrine preach against homosexuality. I think that is kind of a difficult argument to misconstrue."

doesn't make any sense either you condescending doucehbag.

 

[DoH]

Dre, the problem we have with you is that you never articulate a warrant as to why homosexuality is wrong, even outside of a social contract theory framework. You attempted to with your naturalistic framework but I engaged you on that same framework, showed why a utilitarian framework competed and offered a better framework, and you ignored it. Your naturalistic framework is heteronormative and naiive to the reality of sexual expression and experience. It's the kind of argument only a virgin could make. Your arguments essentialize sex into an activity for procreation only, which is ignorant at best. You keep saying that "if homosexuality were proven to be wrong then it would be ok to suppress it" but you don't articulate any rational reason as to why it's wrong. More here: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11312195&postcount=86

Also, keep Jesus and religious texts out of this thread. Arbitrary ancient text is not a way to warrant legislation.

And when there's no competing framework you assume status quo. That's why the burden of proof lies on you to challenge it. Even if it wasn't, the sc/util framework is better at problem solving/increasing freedom/making people happy than some Thomism by way of Dre.

 

[Merkuri]

sorry but this:

" Open gays should attend traditional churches because the bible and the Christian doctrine preach against homosexuality. I think that is kind of a difficult argument to misconstrue."

doesn't make any sense either you condescending doucehbag.

o_0, the Christian doctrine is against homosexuality, therefore people who deliberately an repentantly live a life style contrary to Christian(or really any abrahimic region) beliefs, that being said why should they be allowed to participate in Church gatherings?

That makes perfect sense, it's also simple to understand; the problem more likely with your intelligence rather than the content of what I posted.

 

[Luigitoilet]

o_0, the Christian doctrine is against homosexuality, therefore people who deliberately an repentantly live a life style contrary to Christian(or really any abrahimic region) beliefs, that being said why should they be allowed to participate in Church gatherings?

That makes perfect sense, it's also simple to understand; the problem more likely with your intelligence rather than the content of what I posted.

"Open gays should attend traditional churches because the bible and the Christian doctrine preach against homosexuality."

 

[Shadic]

o_0, the Christian doctrine is against homosexuality, therefore people who deliberately an repentantly live a life style contrary to Christian(or really any abrahimic region) beliefs, that being said why should they be allowed to participate in Church gatherings?

Nice of you to completely ignore my post. I bet you live quite contrary to the bible too, unless you wear nothing woven of two different types of materials, never have shaved, or worked on a Sunday.

DoH - I quoted it just to show how anybody using the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry is clearly ignoring texts that they don't care for.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Nice of you to completely ignore my post. I bet you live quite contrary to the bible too, unless you wear nothing woven of two different types of materials, never have shaved, or worked on a Sunday.

DoH - I quoted it just to show how anybody using the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry is clearly ignoring texts that they don't care for.

Merk has ignored many posts in lieu of calling people idiots instead. That's kind of his thing.

 

[Mediocre]

I don't think there's anything wrong with getting heated up on the issue, but any flaming is against SWF rules. If there's anyone here who can't argue on this subject without resorting to insults or name calling, they should stop posting now.

I shouldn't have to close this thread, because it is a valid discussion, and one worth having. However, if it devolves to the point of both sides trading insults, I don't know what else I will be able to do.

 

[Forlorn.]

The internet.

Serious business.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, the problem we have with you is that you never articulate a warrant as to why homosexuality is wrong, even outside of a social contract theory framework. You attempted to with your naturalistic framework but I engaged you on that same framework, showed why a utilitarian framework competed and offered a better framework, and you ignored it. Your naturalistic framework is heteronormative and naiive to the reality of sexual expression and experience. It's the kind of argument only a virgin could make. Your arguments essentialize sex into an activity for procreation only, which is ignorant at best. You keep saying that "if homosexuality were proven to be wrong then it would be ok to suppress it" but you don't articulate any rational reason as to why it's wrong. More here: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11312195&postcount=86

Also, keep Jesus and religious texts out of this thread. Arbitrary ancient text is not a way to warrant legislation.

And when there's no competing framework you assume status quo. That's why the burden of proof lies on you to challenge it. Even if it wasn't, the sc/util framework is better at problem solving/increasing freedom/making people happy than some Thomism by way of Dre.

I don't provide an argument as to why it's wrong to avoid a debate that will generate into insults, like what happened in the DH.

I like how my virginity was never an issue those 18 years where I never had an issue with homosexuality, but as soon as I disagree with you my virginity comprimises my rationality.

I don't need to know exactly how intense the pleasure of the act is to deem it right or wrong, because if you're basing it's permissibily based on the intensity of the pleasure, you have some serious re-thinking to do.

And again, the surpression of sexuality argument comes out.

Also, if you think religious texts should be left out of warranting legislation, then shouldn't Social Contract Theory be left out too, seeing as it came about because someone thought we are all evil and only the Bible can give us salvation?

The Burden of Proof lies on both parties in any debate. If you're not going to accept that then don't debate.

 

[1048576]

1.) Why isn't it good to increase the sum pleasure of society?

2.) How the hell are you a virgin? Imma be honest; I hate your guts, but you're a stud. I'm sure women would be lining up for you if you opened yourself up to it.

 

[DoH]

When you attempt to tell people what constitutes the good and evil about sex when you've never experienced it, that's where I have a problem. You have no authority, no experience to dictate what is good and evil about sex. This isn't about your virginity being an issue because of your stance on homosexuality, this is about your virginity being an issue on all of your stances on sex.

I'm not talking about suppression, I'm talking about your essentialism and heteronormativity.

Religious texts are not good policy, also in America to do so would be unconstitutional. Your argument about Social Contract theory doesn't make sense, it's like saying since Jesus was a Jew all Christians should be Jews. Just because its creators were of a particular faith doesn't mean that their products are faith based. Besides my framework is a permutation of social contract and utilitarianism. Religious texts are arbitrary, that's why they're not good laws. Social contract theory is logical and can be justified. Religion cannot because its based on faith.

The burden of proof only applies when things are being contested. At the point in which you don't offer a framework that competes, you apply my framework based on presumption. When I said burden of proof, I was referring to your burden of challenging the status quo framework; all you've ever done is say that SC is ingrained in society so that's why we view things the way we do, but you've never articulated a) why that is a bad thing, or b) what would be a better alternative. Your naturalistic alternative fails to compete on several levels, but mostly because it is misinformed about the reality of human sexuality, it essentializes human sexuality into solely the heterosexual mating experience, and it is so rigid it doesn't allow for problem solving as well as my framework. That's why your framework doesn't compete, and that is why you have to default to my framework.

If you're too afraid to attempt to justify your position for fear that you might actually be wrong, then don't debate.

 

[Palpi]

Get *****

 

[Shadic]

Get *****

With the intention of conception, or not? Apparently that's what matters.

 

[Grandeza]

Religion cannot because its based on faith.

based on faith

faith

****'s bout to go down.

no but really i bet this is going to get derailed now into an argument about whether religion is faith based or not.

 

[Luigitoilet]

****'s bout to go down.

no but really i bet this is going to get derailed now into an argument about whether religion is faith based or not.

Do people really argue that it isn't? I mean, people who aren't Dre?

 

[DTP]

Am I the only person that doesn't hate/isn't annoyed by Dre? lol

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Nice of you to completely ignore my post. I bet you live quite contrary to the bible too, unless you wear nothing woven of two different types of materials, never have shaved, or worked on a Sunday.

To be fair, almost all of the old testament was, IIRC, overturned in the new testament, and Homosexuality remains taboo through the teachings of the new testament (IIRC something like John 1:25, not sure)... Try naming examples from the new testament instead though, and you'll reach some pretty stark ones. The fact that Merkuri still owns a computer (such obscene luxury) means he's definitely going to hell.

2.) How the hell are you a virgin? Imma be honest; I hate your guts, but you're a stud. I'm sure women would be lining up for you if you opened yourself up to it.

This. I'd tap that. Maybe it's the religious fanaticism/some kind of pledge to celibacy? Either way, it's a serious loss to the world.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Am I the only person that doesn't hate/isn't annoyed by Dre? lol

I think Dre feels similarly!

 

[Dre89]

People who have actually studied religious philosophy or theology will tell you it's not about faith.

Doh- I haven't provided a complete argument because I'm trying to avoid unneccessary debate. All I'm doing is defending myself against people at the moment.

Grandeza did the right thing and started a thread in the Proving Grounds.

 

[Pluvia]

Aren't we deviating from the orginal point a bit here people? I thought this was about a rational argument against homosexuality? Or have we finally reached the conclusion that there is none?

 

[1048576]

Well, germane to the op is that recently Judge Walker (California Supreme court) concluded that there's no rational basis for discriminating against homosexuals: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010

 

[Shadic]

Aren't we deviating from the orginal point a bit here people? I thought this was about a rational argument against homosexuality? Or have we finally reached the conclusion that there is none?

Besides religious dogma and selective reading, alongside bizarre ideas of what sex is supposed to solely entail - not really.

 

[Dre89]

Besides religious dogma and selective reading, alongside bizarre ideas of what sex is supposed to solely entail - not really.

I could just say that from aside from one unsophisticated political theory that stems from religious dogma there's no theory that supports homosexuality. Negative connotation and bias achieves nothing.

Pluvia- It's abit foolish to jump to the conclusion that there are no rational anti-homosexuality arguments when you haven't actually read any of them. I hope you don't think that I've actually been putting mine across in this thread. As I said before, I'm just defending myself against all the attacks I'm getting from people who can't tolerate people with a different opinion to theirs. I don't see why you're saying "well we can conclude there are no rational anti-homsoexual arguments", when did this become a debate about homosexuality? When did it become anyone's objective to provide an argument either way? This is not a debate thread. Just because some of the pro-homosexuals started attacking people who have a different opinion to them, that didn't turn it into a debate where I am required to provide my argument.

 

[DoH]

Pluvia- It's abit foolish to jump to the conclusion that there are no rational anti-homosexuality arguments when you haven't actually read any of them.

Because they don't exist.

 

[Dre89]

What do you mean they don't exist?

Arguments for anti-homosexuality exist, just because you haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I love how no argument can be rational unless it assumes prominent modern theories. It's one thing to think you're right and disagree with the opposition, but some people here are just being totally narrow minded and disrespectful to the opposition. The ironic thing is some of you are behaving exactly the way you accuse your anti-homosexuality opposition of.

People who stereotype and pidgeon-hole all anti homosexuals (most people in this thread, seeing as they haven't read any anti-homosexual arguments and think the only anti gays are the exaggerated ones they see on TV) generally accuse anti homosexuals of being narrow-minded and offensive, but you guys are the ones behaving like that at the moment, and that you cannot deny.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

What do you mean they don't exist?

Arguments for anti-homosexuality exist, just because you haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I love how no argument can be rational unless it assumes prominent modern theories. It's one thing to think you're right and disagree with the opposition, but some people here are just being totally narrow minded and disrespectful to the opposition. The ironic thing is some of you are behaving exactly the way you accuse your anti-homosexuality opposition of.

People who stereotype and pidgeon-hole all anti homosexuals (most people in this thread, seeing as they haven't read any anti-homosexual arguments and think the only anti gays are the exaggerated ones they see on TV) generally accuse anti homosexuals of being narrow-minded and offensive, but you guys are the ones behaving like that at the moment, and that you cannot deny.

All right. Give us an argument then, instead of constantly saying "they exist". Or link me to one.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

All right. Give us an argument then, instead of constantly saying "they exist". Or link me to one.

I can not find that link, but I do remember one rational anti-gay marriage argument in summary gay marriage is bad for the economy because more marriages equal more spending of federal money, but in my opinion this is a really funny argument because that can be as an argument against strait marriage as well.

 

[Fried Ice Cream]

I believe Acrostic posted that in the Debate Hall somewhere, about the economical reasons.