Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

iCenozoic

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    907
  • Joined

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Maine
  • Religion
    Shia Islam
  • Mood
    I am here. Reflecting on memories, appreciating the past.
  • Favorite Subjects
    Geology, Paleontology, Genetics

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,682 profile views

iCenozoic's Achievements

  1. I do think that someone, say, from the KKK, could argue that they cannot have a successful cake baking business, and simultaneously remain faithful to God, if the law required them to bake cakes for blacks. And in this case, these laws could erode the KKKs ability to be successful in the public sector or erode their religious beliefs associated with treating blacks differently. But I would say that this is just the way it has to be for peace. If we don't want to oppress blacks, then we must serve them cakes just like everyone else. And the same goes for marriages for gays or Asians, or women or transgenders etc. And it goes for any public service, whether it's baking cakes, or letting them use restrooms, or letting them give public speeches etc. And dragon x attempted to argue that perhaps, much like bank robbers, gays might harm society. And therefore perhaps, much like bank robbers, maybe they shouldn't have equal rights. At least this is how I perceived his argument. But his argument, in my opinion was full of a lot of inconsistencies (such as monogamous gays not having HIV would not contribute to medical burdens on a community, or the idea that gays don't create viruses). And maybe this isn't what he outright said, but this is just how I received his ideas. And some might say, well, being gay is not equivalent to being black because people have a choice to be gay. But I disagree with this as well given that there are genetic influences at play. We can choose what to eat for dinner each day, but we can't really choose who we love. I don't choose each day to love or not love my wife. Love is simply an experience that we have. It's not really a choice. And gay experiences, in some cases may be environmentally influenced, but being gay is more of an innate quality of people than it is a choices, at least in some cases. And therefore gays, just as blacks, ought to be treated equally. Unless we want to oppress this particular demographic of people. And the philosophical position that promotes equality of different demographics, or having this philosophical position, results in far more benefits to a society than detriments. While the opposite of having a philosophical viewpoint that religious beliefs should supersede equality of demographics results in far more detriments to a society than benefits. And I mentioned this before but for people who disagree, I don't think anyone needs to just take my word for it, but rather all we have to do is observe the world and look at countries where prejudices based on religious perspectives are prominent. And compare these countries with countries where there is a greater struggle for equal rights for these minorities. And just watch and see how these philosophical positions play out. We can look at countries that ban gay marriage or even go further as to have laws for the execution of gays, And we can see how these countries economically and socially size up to countries that don't have such laws or that have laws preventing this kind of discrimination.
  2. Maybe we can take a close look at the first part of my comment. That allowing gay marriage doesn't take away from the rights of others. Allowing gays to marry doesn't remove other peoples ability to get married. It doesn't even prevent people from marrying others. Gays being allowed to marry is largely irrelevant to my personal freedom and rights. Why do you think this isn't true?
  3. Allowing gay marriage does not limit anyone else's rights or freedoms. No more does allowing marriage of any other people. The KKK may have religious concerns about interracial marriages, but interracial marriage doesn't limit the KKKs freedoms in any way. When a gay couple gets married, they are not mocking God either. Their marriage could very well have nothing to do with their faith. Drawing pictures or cartoons of prophets is mocking. Letting people get married is not.
  4. Maybe we can just agree that as noted above, "Homosexuality doesn't result in the birth of children with genetic defects, nor is it a violent act, nor is it even one that harms our society. It is improper to equate these actions." Birth defects? No. Violence? No. Harm to society? No. By and large, nations with gay rights for equality today are quite visibly more successful than nations without and certainly moreso than nations with bans and imprisonment laws. As I noted before as well, you don't have to take it from me. Just observe. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
  5. I see nothing but a lack of response here. You've made this massive case for why gay relationships are bad based on STDs, but many gay couple are monogamous and don't have STDs. Youve suggested that gays are more susceptible to transmitting some viruses such as HIV, and yet, there are studies which suggest that heterosexual sex transmits other viruses at greater probabilities. And of course heterosexuals transmit HIV as well. Your references to CDC data doesn't even include data on homosexual women, which is to say that it doesn't apply to gay women at all. None of this is anywhere close to sufficient in justifying the idea of limiting or preventing legal equality of gays, such as gay marriage or public displays of affection.
  6. Here's an study which states: "This study compared prevalence rates of most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in heterosexual and homosexual men who made respectively 12,201 and 5324 visits to an STD clinic over 18 months. Overall, homosexual men were...less likely to have nongonococcal urethritis (NGU) (14.63% vs. 36.40%, p < 0.001), herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001). " https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6893897/ More likely to have some STDs? Sure. But less likely to have others as well. but the point remains, gays never created HIV, God did. Gays weren't even the first to contract HIV, but rather people eating exotic animals brought the virus into our species. if we followed your logic, we might argue that all sex is bad, homosexual and heterosexual, because sex results in the transmission if STDs. This is just poor logic. should we ban heterosexual sex because it's more likely to transmit genital warts? No. Of course not. and not only the above, but much if what you're referring to is more associated with gay men than it is gay women (for reasons that I'm sure you're aware of). By your logic we might further still be accepting of gay women relationships. Further, what you're attempting to make a case against isn't even necessarily things like gays holding hands in public or kissing or getting married or even having sex. But rather you seem hung up on a very specific form of sex which is often also conducted by heterosexuals and is not conducted by all gays. it's all just inconsistent, and yet you seem to believe that this inconsistent argument ought to be sufficient to remove people's rights, such as rights to marry, rights to display affection in public, rights to have intimate relationships with people they care about etc. and really, as noted before, all this std talk is all just related to polygamy and having multiple sex partners. But we aren't debating monogamy vs pologamy. There are many couples and people who conduct homosexual acts that are monogamous and that don't have STDs. So really this entire std argument can be simply thrown in the trash.
  7. Even further, the majority of nations that have less than 2 children per woman as a fertility rate are developed (and successful) nations (or are generally well off). So it's not even really about people having too many children. I don't know why anyone would even associate such things to homosexuality. People are just grabbing at straws. But yes, I generally agree. If anything, people having too many children might be an indicator of issues, given the nations known to have higher fertility rates.
  8. Yea sure. I think in an ideal world we would have some kind of plant or artificially manufactured substitutes. There is something still kind of primitive about slaying animals and consuming them that we haven't quite left behind just yet. Maybe one day. grabs delicious burger while thinking about it*. Out-dated practices sure do taste good.
  9. So you think that homosexual behaviors cause immunodeficiency? And you noted that heterosexuals could remain faithful to drive down std cases. Well of course homosexuals could do that too. You just aren't making a clear case. And remember, those medical costs extend to heterosexuals too. Your argument just isn't explicit to homosexuality. You could be making a case for monogamy. But this is a separate topic. "If a behaviour results in something bad, you avoid the behaviour, simple. " Ok, so a heterosexual couple has sex and they transmit an std. So we should ban heterosexual sex? No. What you're saying just isn't explicit to homosexuality and doesn't identify an issue with homosexual relationships. If we really want to prevent things like viral outbreaks, we should more reasonably put regulations on consumption of exotic animals, such as on apes in Africa (in which HIV is believed to have originated) as well as on exotic animals in china (the currently believed origin of covid-19). But none of this has anything to do with homosexuality either. I find it surprising that you hadn't mentioned this in your posts above.
  10. But of course gays never created HIV. And of course straight people transmit HIV just the same. And many gays don't even have HIV. Don't confuse our discovery of HIV in the US with how it originated. Blaming people for the existence of a virus that God created just doesn't seem reasonable to me. And blaming gays for a virus that is also spread by straight people, also doesn't seem reasonable to me. Maybe we should ban heterosexual sex because it is well known to transmit HIV too? No, of course not. Maybe we should imprison Chinese people because covid-19 passed through China to the rest of the world? No, of course not. This is just poor justification for the idea that gays should be treated unequally. It's born out of that same feeling or belief that straights are superior to gays, but when we look a little closer, we see that heterosexual sex spreads viruses just the same. Damages a child's "spirit". If this is really the best you have, then you're left with essentially nothing practical. Ok, so you have religious, personal beliefs that gays are inferior to you. That's all you really mean when you say this. And regarding economic costs, those nations with bans on bans of gay marriage or where public display of gay activities is legal, are largely successful. What economic issues are you suggesting are a product of the public acceptance of homosexuality? For practical purposes, there are none.
  11. "where the line is when it comes to action" The simple answer here is that, the line is wherever the action causes a clear harm to others or limits an individual's freedoms. And some people might say, well pedophilia may not hurt people. But if a child is too young to give consent, then of course it would. And to be fair, some people consider one of the prophets wives to be relatively young. But it comes down to maturity and consent. And some might say, well people having sex with animals might not hurt anyone. I think it's sad that someone would equate a relationship between two human beings with a relationship between a human and a donkey or an orangutan etc. As if having sex with an animal is morally equal to having sex with another person. But regardless of this, people of course can die and do die, trying to have sex with animals. It just isn't a practical or feasible practice (does this part fit there?). And animals cannot consent. It's not like they can logically talk about the complicated dynamics that come with sex etc. I think it's just unreasonable to equate the two. As if a gay man is equal to a donkey. And that having sex with a human being is similar to with an animal etc. Maybe if the animals were intelligent enough to consent. Otherwise it would just be abuse. Rape of course harms people, so that would be out of the question etc.
  12. I wish I could say that gays are more safe, but in some places in the world, they could be killed for being gay. What you're saying, this idea that gays don't face discrimination? Isn't true. And it's not about promoting lgbtq anything. It's about promoting liberty. And I'm sorry if you can't see this. I'm sorry that your people are oppressed too. Perhaps if the oppressors viewed all people as equal, then perhaps we wouldn't have these issues.
  13. What I'm pointing out is that there is a broader philosophy at play here. Who were the victims of the attack in the article? They were women. Prejudices of gays are an extension of prejudices of women and of people of color and of people of other religions or cultures etc. Ever hear of one Shia who can't get approval from a parent to marry another Shia due to these kinds of prejudices? Maybe because their skin color is slightly different or maybe one is of a more pious or well-known family than another. It's the same thing. It's an extension of a philosophical view that one person is of more value than another. Women are of less value to men so let's attack the women in their schools. Blacks are of less value than whites so let's prevent blacks from marrying whites. Gays are of less value than straight people so let's ban their marriage and prevent them from displaying any public affection with their partner by imprisoning them. These are all fruits of the same tree. And these are exactly what prevents societal success. And the banning of bans on gay marriage, is an extension of the opposing philosophical view that all man shall be treated equally. A gay man can own a piece of property just like a straight man, A black man can run a business just like a white man. A woman can get an education just like a man. Etc. Gay people should have the right to marry. And if straight can hug or kiss in public, gays should be able to as well. And this isn't some sinful position that will lead to the destruction of planet Earth. Quite the opposite it is the elimination of prejudices that people before us have held for generations. Let that shia marry the other Shia. Let that woman drive a car, let that black man make equal pay as that white man, and let that gay man hold hands with his boyfriend in public. It isn't sin. It's freedom.
  14. Ok, we can refer to these countries as "socially productive" if you don't like the term "successful". Anyway, America isn't the only nation that allows gay marriage. Regardless, let "social productivity" speak for itself. You don't have to take my word for it. Just sit back and observe. Speaking of inequality: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/08/995053653/bombing-near-kabul-school-kills-at-least-30-many-of-them-girls Believing that gays ought to have fewer rights than everyone else really is just an extension of the same prejudices that have plagued women and people of color throughout history. And contrary to what people claim in defense of their actions, these prejudices are born out of fear and a view of superiority over those oppressed. And to be fair, some of these prejudices are born out of overly conservative religious dogma, as observed in the above article. Some of us have gotten passed these barriers and are moving forward with socially productive equality. Others are just stuck in their ways.
×
×
  • Create New...