Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

It's when I see things like this that I'm tempted to agree with BNW


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Turner wrote:
Teen pregnancy is another one of those way-overblown topics of late. The percentages were much-much higher in the 'idyllic' 1950s.

While I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, what is the evidence supporting this claim?


Thought police? Well, knowing that teens do act irresponsibly, making sure they have no way to mitigate the consequences and no information BEFORE they act (yeah, courses for married couples is around a decade too late), through legislation, you don't need thought police. Calling that tripe wrong is not being a thought police, nor is it complaining about a thought police.

The only suggestion for thought police I have really seen is the suggestions to make denying the climate change theory a crime against humanity. Still, different topic.


HangarFlying wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
Teen pregnancy is another one of those way-overblown topics of late. The percentages were much-much higher in the 'idyllic' 1950s.
While I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, what is the evidence supporting this claim?

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/TBR_1940-2006.pdf

Look, if the evidence you seek for something can be found with a .1 second google search, you shouldn't bother asking for it.


So this is the convo so far:
DD-Look at this guy. Preaching such hate. It disgusts me. I feel so bad for any kid in that church being taught to hate himself. I know what that's like.
Us-Yeah, that's horrible! But look, all these other denominations also preach intolerance on some level towards homosexuality. Telling anyone that they're less of a person because of who they are is WRONG and is damaging to a child's fragile psyche. All these people need to stop...
DD-WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA...WHOA........WHOA! Frickin thought police over here. Let the nice man continue with his hatemongering. He's not hurting anyone.

W

T

F


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Paul was, by blood, of the tribe of Benjamin. That means that he was of the nation of Judah. That means he wasn't an Israelite. He was a Gentile. He was, also, a Jew (since 'Jew' in the King James Bible is synonymous with Judahite). I acknowledge this is very confusing (largely because the meaning of the word 'Gentile' has changed over time and, also, because the word 'Gentile' didn't exist as such in the original scripture. The word, itself, means "member of a clan or tribe". It is similar to the word Goyim in the Jewish language. But, was not used to distinguish anything specific until the King James Bible (which emphasizes, once more, how meaning of scripture changes in translation).

As for the age of scripture, the oral and written basis from which the Pentateuch/Torah is derived does go back that far.

Are you really saying that all the Jews (synonymous with Judahite) were Gentiles?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber
Andrew Turner wrote:
Teen pregnancy is another one of those way-overblown topics of late. The percentages were much-much higher in the 'idyllic' 1950s.
HangarFlying wrote:
While I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, what is the evidence supporting this claim?

Statistics less detailed, but from 1940 through 2006.

Tracking rates in all women, including teens, from 1972 through 2008.

2012 statistics from the CDC.


Darkwing Duck wrote:

Two, the early church was very aggressively doing away with the Levitical code (as is evident by a.) Bringing Gentiles into the church (of which Paul was one) b.) Removing the dietary code (ie. The vision of the unclean beasts) c.) Removing the need for male circumcision, etc.etc.) to claim that the early church was so busy doing away with the Levitical code except for with regards to homosexuality is so arbitrary and lacking in evidence as to be prime facia ludicrous.

I admit that I know very little about the deJudaizing of Christianity and it's a subject that I wish I knew more about. However, it looks to me as if the early Church fathers didn't make an exception just for homosexuality so much as they made an exception for ALL sexuality.


Sissyl wrote:

Thought police? Well, knowing that teens do act irresponsibly, making sure they have no way to mitigate the consequences and no information BEFORE they act (yeah, courses for married couples is around a decade too late), through legislation, you don't need thought police. Calling that tripe wrong is not being a thought police, nor is it complaining about a thought police.

The only suggestion for thought police I have really seen is the suggestions to make denying the climate change theory a crime against humanity. Still, different topic.

There are at least two different kinds of sex education.

1.) The biology and how to avoid becoming pregnant

2.) How to make sex fun (eg the importance of making time for one another and keeping sex from getting old and boring) and how to read the Bible as sex-positive for committed couples.

The class for committed couples was the second one.


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Two, the early church was very aggressively doing away with the Levitical code (as is evident by a.) Bringing Gentiles into the church (of which Paul was one) b.) Removing the dietary code (ie. The vision of the unclean beasts) c.) Removing the need for male circumcision, etc.etc.) to claim that the early church was so busy doing away with the Levitical code except for with regards to homosexuality is so arbitrary and lacking in evidence as to be prime facia ludicrous.

I admit that I know very little about the deJudaizing of Christianity and it's a subject that I wish I knew more about. However, it looks to me as if the early Church fathers didn't make an exception just for homosexuality so much as they made an exception for ALL sexuality.

I was talking about an exception to the Levitical code. Paul's stance against sex in general had nothing to do with the Levitical code.


meatrace wrote:

So this is the convo so far:

DD-Look at this guy. Preaching such hate. It disgusts me. I feel so bad for any kid in that church being taught to hate himself. I know what that's like.
Us-Yeah, that's horrible! But look, all these other denominations also preach intolerance on some level towards homosexuality. Telling anyone that they're less of a person because of who they are is WRONG and is damaging to a child's fragile psyche. All these people need to stop...
DD-WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA...WHOA........WHOA! Frickin thought police over here. Let the nice man continue with his hatemongering. He's not hurting anyone.

W

T

F

I've said twice now that while I support the right of people to do as they like without being denigrated, as long as they don't hurt anyone, I reserve the right to debate with them.


Citizen Duck sez: I was talking about an exception to the Levitical code.

So was I.

How many of these items from the Levitical code were nullified by the early Church's de-Judaization campaign?

The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the Lord your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God. ’


Jean-Paul, I am not aware of any reference in the New Testament saying, for example, that a person should not have sex with a woman during her period. Are you?


thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Paul was, by blood, of the tribe of Benjamin. That means that he was of the nation of Judah. That means he wasn't an Israelite. He was a Gentile. He was, also, a Jew (since 'Jew' in the King James Bible is synonymous with Judahite). I acknowledge this is very confusing (largely because the meaning of the word 'Gentile' has changed over time and, also, because the word 'Gentile' didn't exist as such in the original scripture. The word, itself, means "member of a clan or tribe". It is similar to the word Goyim in the Jewish language. But, was not used to distinguish anything specific until the King James Bible (which emphasizes, once more, how meaning of scripture changes in translation).

As for the age of scripture, the oral and written basis from which the Pentateuch/Torah is derived does go back that far.

Are you really saying that all the Jews (synonymous with Judahite) were Gentiles?

I am saying that when the word "Gentile" was first added to the Bible (the Latin translation - Jerome Bible), the word "Gentile" was used (for the first time in history as far as I can tell) to mean "someone who is not an Israelite" (before that, the word meant "clansman").

When the word "Jew" was added to the Bible (the King James Version), the word was created new and meant "a Judahite".

A Judahite and an Israelite are two different, mutually incompatible, things. So, a "Jew" was a "Gentile".

Nowadays, the meaning of the words have changed again. Nowadays, a Jew, by definition, is not a Gentile. But, this is evidence that words change meaning over time (which is why I stress reading the Bible in the original languages as much as possible).


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Two, the early church was very aggressively doing away with the Levitical code (as is evident by a.) Bringing Gentiles into the church (of which Paul was one) b.) Removing the dietary code (ie. The vision of the unclean beasts) c.) Removing the need for male circumcision, etc.etc.) to claim that the early church was so busy doing away with the Levitical code except for with regards to homosexuality is so arbitrary and lacking in evidence as to be prime facia ludicrous.

I admit that I know very little about the deJudaizing of Christianity and it's a subject that I wish I knew more about. However, it looks to me as if the early Church fathers didn't make an exception just for homosexuality so much as they made an exception for ALL sexuality.

---
How many of these items from the Levitical code were nullified by the early Church's de-Judaization campaign?

---

DD: Jean-Paul, I am not aware of any reference in the New Testament saying, for example, that a person should not have sex with a woman during her period

So, is your answer one?

(Looking back, my use of the word "all" in italics and all capitals was imprecise and can be read as saying that every Jewish precept about sex carried over into Christianity. What I meant was that it looks to me that where the deJudaizing process (and what is that called?) got rid of dietary stuff and animal sacrifices to God, circumcision and a lot of other stuff, they kept the whole field of hawtsexytime under their close supervision.)

Another "fun fact" (see asterik above): Juvenal and Catullus (I think) record "gay marriages" among Roman noblemen as rare and the height of depravity. Caligula seems to have done it twice, once in drag. Despite this, "gay marriage" wasn't outlawed in the ancient Roman world until the mid-4th century AD during the Christianization of the empire, when, presumably, more people understood Greek.


I should state for the record, and again, that it would tickle me pink if early Christians were wicked tolerant about monogamous gay couples.

I also should state that I am willing to buy that Paul wasn't talking about our modern conception of homosexuality.

It is clear, to me, that no matter what The Bible says, the majority of Christianity over both time and space has been pretty anti-gay.

If it turns out that this is based on an obvious misreading of The Bible, well, that is exactly the kind of fun factoid about sex, religion and the ancient world that I like to collect. As a semi-educated layman, however, my opinion is that this still needs to be proved.

Which is the only reason I am bothering to participate in this conversation. :)


Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Paul was, by blood, of the tribe of Benjamin. That means that he was of the nation of Judah. That means he wasn't an Israelite. He was a Gentile. He was, also, a Jew (since 'Jew' in the King James Bible is synonymous with Judahite). I acknowledge this is very confusing (largely because the meaning of the word 'Gentile' has changed over time and, also, because the word 'Gentile' didn't exist as such in the original scripture. The word, itself, means "member of a clan or tribe". It is similar to the word Goyim in the Jewish language. But, was not used to distinguish anything specific until the King James Bible (which emphasizes, once more, how meaning of scripture changes in translation).

As for the age of scripture, the oral and written basis from which the Pentateuch/Torah is derived does go back that far.

Are you really saying that all the Jews (synonymous with Judahite) were Gentiles?

I am saying that when the word "Gentile" was first added to the Bible (the Latin translation - Jerome Bible), the word "Gentile" was used (for the first time in history as far as I can tell) to mean "someone who is not an Israelite" (before that, the word meant "clansman").

When the word "Jew" was added to the Bible (the King James Version), the word was created new and meant "a Judahite".

A Judahite and an Israelite are two different, mutually incompatible, things. So, a "Jew" was a "Gentile".

Nowadays, the meaning of the words have changed again. Nowadays, a Jew, by definition, is not a Gentile. But, this is evidence that words change meaning over time (which is why I stress reading the Bible in the original languages as much as possible).

What was Gentile used to mean in the King James Bible and English translations thereafter? Do you know of a version in which the terms are both used in which Jews are considered a subset of Gentiles? Has Gentile ever been used in an English Translation in the sense of "someone who is not an Israelite"?

Given that words do shift in meaning, especially when taken from one language to another, why do you use the word Gentile in its 4th century Latin sense instead of its modern English sense?


Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:

I should state for the record, and again, that it would tickle me pink if early Christians were wicked tolerant about monogamous gay couples.

I also should state that I am willing to buy that Paul wasn't talking about our modern conception of homosexuality.

It is clear, to me, that no matter what The Bible says, the majority of Christianity over both time and space has been pretty anti-gay.

If it turns out that this is based on an obvious misreading of The Bible, well, that is exactly the kind of fun factoid about sex, religion and the ancient world that I like to collect. As a semi-educated layman, however, this still needs to be proved.

Which is the only reason I am bothering to participate in this conversation. :)

Shouldn't a troll be wanting to make everyone involved in the conversation angry? :P

I have a book of essays by Isaac Asimov where he goes over several things that make you think. One of them about the bible is titled "Lost in the Non-Translation." Basically he states that much of the meaning is lost because what the words mean now has changed from when the stuff was written. Say 'Samaritian' to most people and the immediate response is 'Good' from most people. However, the entire point of the parable is that 'good' was coming from an unexpected place.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Shouldn't a troll be wanting to make everyone involved in the conversation angry? :P

Believe me, GL, the very existence of this thread is/was probably making people angry.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
HangarFlying wrote:
Andrew Turner wrote:
Teen pregnancy is another one of those way-overblown topics of late. The percentages were much-much higher in the 'idyllic' 1950s.
While I don't necessarily disagree with this statement, what is the evidence supporting this claim?

http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/TBR_1940-2006.pdf

Look, if the evidence you seek for something can be found with a .1 second google search, you shouldn't bother asking for it.

You should look at the whole picture. With the average marrying age increasing by about 10 years since the 1950s, many newlyweds are no longer included in the statistics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree with the child in the video. No homo sapiens are ever going to a heaven.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:

There are at least two different kinds of sex education.

1.) The biology and how to avoid becoming pregnant

2.) How to make sex fun (eg the importance of making time for one another and keeping sex from getting old and boring) and how to read the Bible as sex-positive for committed couples.

The class for committed couples was the second one.

Okay... so now we are qualifying things that I thought were pretty obvious, and you did not previously state clearly.

When I talk about sex ed, THE ONLY relevant sex ed is the first kind. Everyone needs to know that stuff: How the biology works, how to avoid getting pregnant and how to avoid getting STDs. And: If there is to be any sort of point to it, you MUST tell people BEFORE they start trying to have sex. This typically happens at 12+, meaning you have to get to it earlier than that. Like it or not.

Claiming that the church does not mind sex ed while bashing this, very central, education, legally and moralistically, because they have courses for how married couples should enjoy sex... it blows my mind. It's dishonest beyond what most arguments contain.


Good God, I leave for a trip for three days and bam, 100 new replies! I kind of lost track of where the discussion is heading at the moment.

But in argumentative decency, and to finish what I was discussing previously with The Jeff and Meatrace (as it seems we reached a point of no concession on both sides), the reason why I believe the Catholic Church is not anti-gay (understanding "Anti-Gay" as "Anti-Homosexual People") is because I do not think that asking homosexuals to remain chaste is, by itself, a de-humanizing request. Much on the contrary. The reason it opposes intercourse between members of the same sex is because it is based on the conception that homosexual intercourse carries an "objectifying of the other" subtext, by being sex for mere pleasure. We may disagree with that notion -I know I do-, but that does not change the fact that the Church asks homosexuals to remain chaste because it thinks that engaging ing homosexual intercourse de-humanizes them. It does not decry love between members of the same sex because love humanizes; it does not decry the homosexual condition because it is, in its view, not a sin to be homosexual.

And that is the best explanation I can give as to why, even though I personally disagree with its position regarding homosexual intercourse (as I believe there should be no sin between two members of the same sex engaging in it as means to cement their mutual love and that it goes in accordance to the fundamental dogmas of Catholicism), I cannot see the Church as anti-gay. And believe you me I am doing my best to see the matter from your perspective. Maybe I am fundamentally mistaken in my interpretation; that is always a possibility, although I feel certain about it.

Sissyl wrote:


Claiming that the church does not mind sex ed while bashing this, very central, education, legally and moralistically, because they have courses for how married couples should enjoy sex... it blows my mind. It's dishonest beyond what most arguments contain.

Just as a side-note (and I know it is casuistics), but I personally went to a Catholic school and then a Catholic university, and in both we had pretty thorough sexual education. My sister went to a different Catholic school and also had thorough sexual education. Both my parents went to another two different Catholic schools themelves and both had thorough sexual education (as it was back then, of course).

I don't know if perhaps it is wildly different where you live, but at least around here (and I live in Chile, which is a pretty conservative country in general) sexual education is actually enforced by the Church and any school that wishes to declare Catholic allegiance is demanded to include it.

The only thing it doesn't budge with is the handing of condoms on school, though.

Grand Lodge

Darkwing Duck wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Paul was, by blood, of the tribe of Benjamin. That means that he was of the nation of Judah. That means he wasn't an Israelite. He was a Gentile. He was, also, a Jew (since 'Jew' in the King James Bible is synonymous with Judahite). I acknowledge this is very confusing (largely because the meaning of the word 'Gentile' has changed over time and, also, because the word 'Gentile' didn't exist as such in the original scripture. The word, itself, means "member of a clan or tribe". It is similar to the word Goyim in the Jewish language. But, was not used to distinguish anything specific until the King James Bible (which emphasizes, once more, how meaning of scripture changes in translation).

As for the age of scripture, the oral and written basis from which the Pentateuch/Torah is derived does go back that far.

Are you really saying that all the Jews (synonymous with Judahite) were Gentiles?

I am saying that when the word "Gentile" was first added to the Bible (the Latin translation - Jerome Bible), the word "Gentile" was used (for the first time in history as far as I can tell) to mean "someone who is not an Israelite" (before that, the word meant "clansman").

When the word "Jew" was added to the Bible (the King James Version), the word was created new and meant "a Judahite".

A Judahite and an Israelite are two different, mutually incompatible, things. So, a "Jew" was a "Gentile".

Nowadays, the meaning of the words have changed again. Nowadays, a Jew, by definition, is not a Gentile. But, this is evidence that words change meaning over time (which is why I stress reading the Bible in the original languages as much as possible).

You're giving me an annurism with this already. Oy.

Jew cometh from Judah, and was originally meant for anyone of certain tribes (Yehudah, Shimon, Binyamin, and Levi), that formed the kingdom of 'Judah'. Then you have the Samaritans, from other tribes (Mennaseh, Ephraim, Asher, and what was left of Levi and Binyamin)forming the kingdom of israel. That was the initial two divisions post exile. Prior to that they ALL used the term Israelite. Israelite encompasses all the tibes, but its also the people of the northern kingdom. Gentile itself is a greek derived word that was meant to be used to replace the hebrew word 'Goy'. Goy had multiple uses (nation, people, non-jewish nation, and sometimes the israelite nation).

This doesnt mean that the people of Judah were considered non-jews (by modern terminology), it means they were'nt part of the northern kingdom.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Catholic church is one specific branch of Christianity, hardly representative of Christianity as a whole.

There are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, as compared to 0.67 billion Protestants. Your attempts to paint Catholocism as "just one Church among many" and "in no way representative of Christianity" are dishonest.

If you mean "Christians except Catholics..." then say "Protestants and some others." Don't say "Christians" and then try to claim that Catholics don't count.


Klaus, I can't imagine it would ever come to pass, but if the world did suddenly turn upside down and you were asked to live in a chaste relationship with you wife or significant other, is there anyway you would call that "not anti-hetero?"

When you say "understanding 'Anti-Gay' as 'Anti-Homosexual People'" you've narrowed the field of anti-gay behavior to only the most egregious example of anti-gay behavior. Saying that gay sex dehumanizes so gay couple are free to love one another but should not have sex is discriminatory and anti-gay; it's obvious.

I guess it's progress that Church no longer burns openly gay people at the stake or takes their property (or even sells Indulgences for that matter), but this is the 21st century, and it's not enough progress.


@Klaus-Homosexuality is defined by two things, from what I can tell, attraction to members of the same sex and engagement in sex acts with them. One's sexuality is an intrinsic part of themselves, whoever they may be. Sexuality is, in my opinion, a human right. The free exercise of one's sexuality, where it doesn't interfere with non-consenting individuals' similar freedoms, is also a human right. The position that homosexuals shouldn't engage in homosexual sex, thus denying them their own sexuality, is ABSOLUTELY ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL. The church asking people to deny their own sexuality on any level is anti-sex.

As for the sex education thing, sex education with specific prohibition against contraception can hardly be called sex education at all. I went to a Catholic school-and they told us to forget what the Pope says, if you're going to have sex use a condom. And I mean a school actually owned and administered by the Catholic church. There is a growing schism between the Roman Catholic church and the Catholic church in America about these issues. Since the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, a man whose previous position was head of the inquisition, the church and its views have slowly slipped back into the dark ages.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
I've said twice now that while I support the right of people to do as they like without being denigrated, as long as they don't hurt anyone, I reserve the right to debate with them.

Which is an utterly meaningless and contextless statement.

I ask you:
1)Do you think the preacher in your linked article is, honestly, not hurting anyone?
2)If he IS hurting people, shouldn't he not have the right to do that?


Aretas wrote:
Separate bathrooms for men and women is (a) moral and (b) rational

I know I shouldn't touch this, but... I assume (a), for you, is because of the whole Biblical fig leaf thing. Does (b) follow for you simply because you equate being rational with being Biblically moral? Do you have any arguments for (a) and (b) that do not derive from your personal religious views? Because from my own idiosyncratic standpoint, separate bathrooms for men and women is both pointless and backwards.


Not to mention wasteful, which could be considered amoral. I have a hard time understanding how it is intrinsically rational, at that!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Separate bathrooms for men and women is (a) moral and (b) rational
I know I shouldn't touch this, but... I assume (a), for you, is because of the whole Biblical fig leaf thing. Does (b) follow for you simply because you equate being rational with being Biblically moral? Do you have any arguments for (a) and (b) that do not derive from your personal religious views? Because from my own idiosyncratic standpoint, separate bathrooms for men and women is both pointless and backwards.

Heck why does there have to be a separate room just to piss/s!%~ in? I mean morally speaking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry for taking so long to answer this, but I have not had the time to go through this before.

Aretas wrote:
There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

Claiming there are NO DIFFERENCES is stupid. Just as with men and women, there are differences between races. For one, blacks have more melanin, or at least differently spread through their epidermis, than whites. The reason we do not discriminate between races is NOT because there are no differences, it's because we do not treat people differently socially, morally, intellectually, legally or otherwise because of said differences. We realize that EVERY person is significantly different from ALL others, and should be judged by what they do ONLY. If, that is, we are responsible and reasonable people.

Aretas wrote:
The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment.

Really? You speak awfully certainly about what secular people think, I'd say. I significant portion of them have considered gay marriage a good thing. Another significant portion of them thinks churches should butt out of marriage altogether. Furthermore, that something is the current moral norm is absolutely no excuse for anything. I, and many others, see people suffering due to religious maltreatment and vicious, putrid lawmaking with religious overtones, and want to change things because we are reasonable, responsible people. If current norms were worth keeping only because of their currentness or normness, we'd still be cataloguing eye colours of various races, or selling other people to one another. For organizations who want people to act in a good manner, the churches are remarkably tolerant of massively revolting practices such as slavery.

aretas wrote:

Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).

On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage. Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West, advocating same-sex marriage does the very opposite -- it advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition.

Such as which traditions, exactly??? Feel free to give the low-down and dirty on this. Deontology? Utilitarism? No. Rather, better accept that the ONLY moral traditions that say what you want are the religious ones.

aretas wrote:
Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived.

You're partly right here. Every religious tradition is severely immoral. All of them. Which is much of the reason for secular people not feeling that religion does much for them. If you can easily point to things that your own moral code does far better than religious traditions and their codes do, how can you start living a better life by following their demands? And as for thinkers: The people who wrote the old testament were not exactly enlightened compared to morality in this day and age. Consider as exhibit A the rules for when a woman is to blame if she is raped, and needs to marry her rapist. The answer is if she was in a village. If she was, she could have screamed for help.

aretas wrote:
But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.

Again, they ARE different, because they are individuals, not because they belong to certain groups. Even if you can find areas where one group zigs and another group zags more often, it does not matter for how you ought to treat them.

aretas wrote:
The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."

As above, men and women are different, and you don't get to call yourself moral for treating them differently based on those differences. Then again, you are not alone among religious people in that it seems to be easier for you to see groups rather than individuals, and that you see any difference as reason and justification for discrimination and different treatment.

aretas wrote:
Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn't matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.

Yes. Yes, it is. Taking the moral high ground in this issue means recognizing that same-sex marriage today is something based on love and trust, just as different-sex marriage is, and thus worthy of support by responsible, reasonable people.

And no, it's not dodging the hard issues. It's facing them. Blaming 5.000 year old scripture for hurting people because you don't like the way they have sex is dodging the hard issues.
And if we reach a world where people may marry who they want, because of love and trust, despite religious people and their queasiness and severe interest when it comes to the sex lives of others, that would be absolutely fantastic. Don't worry, I have a feeling heterosexual people may continue to marry one another. Besides, if we're discussing children and the homosexuals not having them, was not God's command to Abraham to populate the Earth? Consider it populated.
aretas wrote:
Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them.

Churches have always been behind their times. They are among the most stupidly conservative forces in society today. Every time someone has had a good idea for change, the church has been there with their pitchforks and torches and judges. Gay marriage, slavery, democracy, freedom of speech... Even something as innocent and beautiful as a man telling others that they should love their enemies. He was executed after months of work by the pharisees, one of that time's most exalted and formalistic religious power groups, did you know that?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Separate bathrooms for men and women is (a) moral and (b) rational
I know I shouldn't touch this, but... I assume (a), for you, is because of the whole Biblical fig leaf thing. Does (b) follow for you simply because you equate being rational with being Biblically moral? Do you have any arguments for (a) and (b) that do not derive from your personal religious views? Because from my own idiosyncratic standpoint, separate bathrooms for men and women is both pointless and backwards.

I'll tell you this: we don't have separate bathrooms at my house.


Hitdice wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Separate bathrooms for men and women is (a) moral and (b) rational
I know I shouldn't touch this, but... I assume (a), for you, is because of the whole Biblical fig leaf thing. Does (b) follow for you simply because you equate being rational with being Biblically moral? Do you have any arguments for (a) and (b) that do not derive from your personal religious views? Because from my own idiosyncratic standpoint, separate bathrooms for men and women is both pointless and backwards.
I'll tell you this: we don't have separate bathrooms at my house.

I can see the argument for separate bathrooms when they are multi-user. But separate one-person bathrooms make no sense.


Indeed Jeff, I'm fine with separate public bathrooms, but that tells me that the issue is (a)not moral and (b) only passingly rational.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I can see the argument for separate bathrooms when they are multi-user.

Both moral and rational arguments? The latter generally disqualifies "ick" as a sole reason, as in "ew, I don't want to hear about tampons," or "ick, they might see someone's pee-pee." Well, so what? Get over it. As for the former, it generally only applies if your cultural baggage tells you it should, which becomes an indirect form of the old "if it's traditional it must be moral" argument.

Finally, I've often heard that separate restrooms are needed because men supposedly cover the room in human wastes, whereas women are uniformly dainty and neat. This argument wraps up a nice blanket statement that's incorrect in any number of cases, and also becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy (by assuming men will make a mess, you relieve the messy ones of the psychological barrier against making a mess that otherwise might develop).


While I don't share the opinion, the belief that anal sex subjugates the catcher is not unique to Catholics. Some gays believe it as well.

However, such gays engage in several other behaviors (frot and mutual oral, for example). Such behaviors are not perceived to subjugate anyone.

That's where my problem with the Catholic church comes in when Klaus says that, in its view, gay sex, of all kinds, dehumanizes anyone.

That and, in my opinion, competition of all kinds can be seen as 'subjugating' the loser of the competition (the loser of a wrestling match is 'subjugated'), but that hardly 'dehumanizes' them.


LilithsThrall wrote:

While I don't share the opinion, the belief that anal sex subjugates the catcher is not unique to Catholics. Some gays believe it as well.

However, such gays engage in several other behaviors (frot and mutual oral, for example). Such behaviors are not perceived to subjugate anyone.

That's where my problem with the Catholic church comes in when Klaus says that, in its view, gay sex, of all kinds, dehumanizes anyone.

That and, in my opinion, competition of all kinds can be seen as 'subjugating' the loser of the competition (the loser of a wrestling match is 'subjugated'), but that hardly 'dehumanizes' them.

Oh, I think I might have used the wrong term. When I said that the Church considers it de-humanizing, it is not because of the subjugation, but because of the objectivization it sees implicit. Basically, the Church considers that no person can be used as a means to an end, but rather, each person must be treated as an end itself.

That's why the Bible has such a bad name for homosexual intercourse, as back in those days, said form of sex was quite common in master-slave relationships, where it was socially acceptable to have sex with a member of the same gender so long as the owner was on top and merely using the slave as a source of pleasure. So homosexual intercourse back then was seen as pretty much using the other guy as a meat bag with holes.

My whole disagreement with Holy Mother Church regarding homosexual intercourse steems from that, in fact, as we presently know that there are plenty of cases where said form of sex is spoused with a relationship of mutual love, which would render the negative implications nonexistant in said situations.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:


Finally, I've often heard that separate restrooms are needed because men supposedly cover the room in human wastes, whereas women are uniformly dainty and neat. This argument wraps up a nice blanket statement that's incorrect in any number of cases, and also becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy (by assuming men will make a mess, you relieve the messy ones of the psychological barrier against making a mess that otherwise might develop).

My mother has been in restrooms all over the country. Her most common complaint is that other women like to hover and decorate the toilet rim instead of sit down and use the thing. Which then means that every woman thereafter has to do the same.


Samnell wrote:
My mother has been in restrooms all over the country. Her most common complaint is that other women like to hover and decorate the toilet rim instead of sit down and use the thing. Which then means that every woman thereafter has to do the same.

From what my wife has told me of her time with cleaning restrooms in a movie theatre and a low-price mini-supermarket, as well as my own doing the same job for restaurants, I can tell you the ladies restroom is probably the filthiest place in any building. Sometimes the inside of the dumpster was cleaner, and it was rare that the men's room was worse than the women's.

Stereotypes 0
Reality 1


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:


My whole disagreement with Holy Mother Church regarding homosexual intercourse steems from that, in fact, as we presently know that there are plenty of cases where said form of sex is spoused with a relationship of mutual love, which would render the negative implications nonexistant in said situations.

Again, where should the line lay past which a person should decide that continuing to belong to an organization which deliberately harms people is unconscionable?

I get that the Catholic church moves slowly. Two thousand years is too slow. Loving homosexual relationships have existed during all this time. Such people have been unable to live the way God intended for them (even God says that its not good for man to be alone Genesis 2:18).


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Again, where should the line lay past which a person should decide that continuing to belong to an organization which deliberately harms people is unconscionable?

No one can answer that question for anyone else. You will need to answer this for yourself. Can YOU continue?

I was unable to remain in the religion of my family when the preacher stood up one day and bragged that they were more right than other denominations because none of that particular branch was in the World Trade Centers when they went down. Neither I, nor my Grandfather (a minister!) have been back in that particular church since. I still believe in the faith I was brought up in, but I no longer beleive that I will find God in the vast majority of churches. My Grandfather still goes to church, but not that one.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
Again, where should the line lay past which a person should decide that continuing to belong to an organization which deliberately harms people is unconscionable?

No one can answer that question for anyone else. You will need to answer this for yourself. Can YOU continue?

I was unable to remain in the religion of my family when the preacher stood up one day and bragged that they were more right than other denominations because none of that particular branch was in the World Trade Centers when they went down. Neither I, nor my Grandfather (a minister!) have been back in that particular church since. I still believe in the faith I was brought up in, but I no longer beleive that I will find God in the vast majority of churches. My Grandfather still goes to church, but not that one.

I've already answered it for myself.

I'm less interested in a definitive answer and more interested in Klaus' justification for his answer.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

Klaus, I can't imagine it would ever come to pass, but if the world did suddenly turn upside down and you were asked to live in a chaste relationship with you wife or significant other, is there anyway you would call that "not anti-hetero?"...

A spectacular (aren't they all?) ST:TNG episode that explores exactly your comment.


Andrew Turner wrote:
A spectacular (aren't they all?) ST:TNG episode that explores exactly your comment.

Sadly, all TNG episodes share the same shortcoming -- a chronic lack of Kirk.

Osirion

I second the motion to change the purpose of this thread to a Kirk vs. Picard flamewar.

I'll even give a little support to Janeway to get things started :P


Kirth Gersen wrote:
There are 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, as compared to 0.67 billion Protestants. Your attempts to paint Catholocism as "just one Church among many" and "in no way representative of Christianity" are dishonest.

There are roughly 4 billion Asians in the world. There are 1.376 billion Caucasians. I doubt you'd apply your same logic to that situation. Rather, Asians ARE just one group among many.


meatrace wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
I've said twice now that while I support the right of people to do as they like without being denigrated, as long as they don't hurt anyone, I reserve the right to debate with them.

Which is an utterly meaningless and contextless statement.

I ask you:
1)Do you think the preacher in your linked article is, honestly, not hurting anyone?
2)If he IS hurting people, shouldn't he not have the right to do that?

If he IS hurting someone and the people he is hurting are being hurt voluntarily, shouldn't that be a choice they are allowed to make?


Darkwing Duck wrote:


If he IS hurting someone and the people he is hurting are being hurt voluntarily, shouldn't that be a choice they are allowed to make?

That's a fun hypothetical, but let's be real. There are kids there that can't possibly know what's going on, and they will nonetheless be harmed by it.

I don't get you. If you literally have no problem with this guy, in fact you seem to be very supportive of his behavior, why did you post the article decrying it?

It's like you post something, and then, realizing that people you have already decided you disagree on everything with will agree with you on something, you need to flip your opinion.

It makes my head spin.


meatrace wrote:


That's a fun hypothetical, but let's be real. There are kids there that can't possibly know what's going on, and they will nonetheless be harmed by it.

I've heard that same argument made by fundamentalists. "Oh no! What about the children? We can't have gay teachers!" (for example).

I hate the fact that this church is doing this, but if I'm going to oppose it, then my reasons for doing so have got to be stronger than "what about the children?". Anything that I argue has to be something which they (this church) obviously can't. If I don't follow that tenet, then I'm giving the church support in their actions. Look up Kant's categorical imperative.

Another way to look at is "he who fights with monsters, must take care less he become a monster". No matter how justified I may feel in my views of this church (and, to be frank, my views towards this church are very strong and very negative), if I treat them the same way they treat others (gays), that doesn't really help society. Again, I must find a categorical imperative from which to base my attack.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're a kantian?

Gods that explains so much....

251 to 300 of 534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / It's when I see things like this that I'm tempted to agree with BNW All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.